PDA

View Full Version : Obama Obama Plays Down S&P Outlook Change


petegz28
04-18-2011, 10:50 AM
The Obama administration moved swiftly Monday to downplay ratings agency Standard & Poor's downgrade of its U.S. credit outlook, calling the decision a political judgment that should not be taken too seriously.

The timing of S&P's announcement was unwelcome for the White House, coming just as President Obama tried to regain the initiative on the deficit debate in Washington.

Last week Obama laid out his plan to reduce the budget deficit by $4 trillion over 12 years, trying to give markets confidence that he was serious about tackling U.S. fiscal woes.

House Republican leader Eric Cantor on Monday called the S&P downgrade "a wake-up call" against those seeking to "blindly increase" the U.S. debt limit.

S&P downgraded the outlook for the United States to negative, saying it believes there is a risk U.S. policymakers would not reach agreement on how to address the country's long-term fiscal pressures by 2013.

So much for market confidence.

The White House strategy:

1) Pan S&P.

"I don't think that we should make too much out of that," top White House economist Austan Goolsbee said on MSNBC, referring to the S&P downgrade.

"What the S&P is doing is making a political judgment and it is one that we don't agree with," he said on CNBC.

2) Praise Moody's.

The rival ratings agency said it viewed the direction of U.S. fiscal policy as "credit positive."

"It appears to me that Moody's and some others did not agree with that judgment," Goolsbee said.

3) Express optimism.

White House and U.S. Treasury officials said they believed lawmakers would be able to come up with an agreement to reduce the U.S. deficit. S&P's skepticism of that influenced its decision on the downgrade.

"We think that there has never been more momentum to try to get to fiscal consolidation, so we think that we should give that process its due," a Treasury official said.

4) Buy time.

Obama administration officials said it would take some time to get a solution, and S&P should have waited to allow that to happen.

"I think their timing is off," the Treasury official said.

"I think they should allow the process to work its course here. We have got a lot going on between the White House, Congress, the fiscal commission. I think there are some very serious proposals on the table so I think they should take some time to see what happens."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/42645647

petegz28
04-18-2011, 10:50 AM
In case you didn't know, S&P downgraded the outlook of the US to "negative" from stable citing concerns over lack of action addressing our debt.

Jaric
04-18-2011, 10:54 AM
In case you didn't know, S&P downgraded the outlook of the US to "negative" from stable citing concerns over lack of action addressing our debt.

Apparently they didn't hear about that couple of million dollars we cut from the budget...

Amnorix
04-18-2011, 10:58 AM
I'm glad they did that. It's an embarrassment.

chiefsnorth
04-18-2011, 11:05 AM
Has the US credit outlook ever been rated "negative"?

Of course he will downplay it. It's just another illustration of the historic degree to which he is a failure as a president.

Iowanian
04-18-2011, 11:09 AM
The new campaign

"HOPE AND doyouhaveany CHANGE"

suzzer99
04-18-2011, 12:32 PM
Lol at anyone ever taking the ratings agencies seriously again after their huge/key role in the financial crisis.

LOCOChief
04-18-2011, 12:37 PM
Lol at anyone ever taking the ratings agencies seriously again after their huge/key role in the financial crisis.

"S&P downgraded the outlook for the United States to negative, saying it believes there is a risk U.S. policymakers would not reach agreement on how to address the country's long-term fiscal pressures by 2013."

Yeah you're right US policy makers will have something hashed out anyday now. These are not the droids that we are looking for.

Jaric
04-18-2011, 12:45 PM
Lol at anyone ever taking the ratings agencies seriously again after their huge/key role in the financial crisis.

Do you disagree with their assessment? Seems right on the money (hah!) to me.

orange
04-18-2011, 12:50 PM
Do you disagree with their assessment? Seems right on the money (hah!) to me.

Seems pretty pointless to me. Have we defaulted on a loan? Isn't that what credit ratings are supposed to be about?

mlyonsd
04-18-2011, 01:09 PM
In other news some would consider irrelevant, yesterday on MTP Alan Greenspan said all the Bush tax cuts should expire, not just those for the rich.

orange
04-18-2011, 01:10 PM
I've got just the place for your money when you dump your t-bills:


Report title: Lehman Brothers Financial Products And Lehman Brothers Derivatives Product Ratings Affirmedfrom S&P Credit Research
468 word report published Sep 12, 2008

Price $100.00, click here to add to your cart
Report Overview Search Inside About S&P Credit Research

Abstract: NEW YORK (Standard&Poor's) Sept. 12, 2008--Standard&Poor's Ratings Services today affirmed its 'AAA' and 'AAAt' ratings on Lehman Brothers Financial Products Inc. (LBFP) and Lehman Brothers Derivatives Product Inc. (LBDP), respectively. Our outlook on both LBFP and LBDP is stable. The rating affirmations follow Standard&Poor's Sept. 9, 2008, placement of its ratings on Lehman Brothers Inc. on CreditWatch negative (see "Lehman Brothers Ratings Placed On Watch Negative; Capital-Raising Uncertainty Cited," on RatingsDirect). The affirmed ratings are based on the derivative product companies' legal, financial, and operating structures. The ratings on LBFP and LBDP are delinked from Lehman Brothers Inc. and are not affected by our recent rating actions on Lehman Brothers Inc. LBFP's and LBDP's


Brief Excerpt: RESEARCH Ratings Definitions Lehman Brothers Financial Products And Lehman Brothers Derivatives Product Ratings Affirmed Publication date: 12-Sep-2008 Primary Credit Analyst: Jing Xie, New York (1) 212-438-7101; jing_xie@standardandpoors.com...


Report Type: Ratings Action

Ticker: 5685Z

Issuer: Lehman Brothers Financial Products Inc.

GICS: Investment Banking & Brokerage (40203020)

Sector: Asset-Backed Commercial Paper, Asset-Backed Securities, Collateralized Debt Obligations, Commercial MBS, Corporations, Financial Institutions, Global Issuers, Insurance, Public Finance, Real Estate Companies, Residential MBS, Structured Finance, Utilities

Country: United States

Region: United States

KC Dan
04-18-2011, 01:11 PM
In other news some would consider irrelevant, yesterday on MTP Alan Greenspan said all the Bush tax cuts should expire, not just those for the rich.agreed, shared sacrifice:thumb:

KC native
04-18-2011, 01:24 PM
Who the fuck cares what the ratings agencies have to say? They are worthless and should be eliminated.

FTR, all of them played a huge role in the credit crisis and none of them saw it coming.

Jaric
04-18-2011, 01:35 PM
Seems pretty pointless to me. Have we defaulted on a loan? Isn't that what credit ratings are supposed to be about?

I thought it was measuring the likelihood that a person (or several million people in this case) would default on a loan.

And the bigger that debt number gets the more realistic it is to be concerned about that happening. At least IMO.

Simplex3
04-18-2011, 02:19 PM
Seems pretty pointless to me. Have we defaulted on a loan? Isn't that what credit ratings are supposed to be about?

My wife has never paid a bill late in her life. I wouldn't loan her a billion dollars, though.

suzzer99
04-18-2011, 03:42 PM
Do you disagree with their assessment? Seems right on the money (hah!) to me.

Please show me your work on how you arrived at this conclusion (note: republican buzzwords or Ryan's silly "path to prosperity" graphic does not count as showing work).

Bottom line is none of us on this forum has a clue how all this is going to play out and neither do the ratings agencies.

Chief Henry
04-18-2011, 04:13 PM
Please show me your work on how you arrived at this conclusion (note: republican buzzwords or Ryan's silly "path to prosperity" graphic does not count as showing work).

Bottom line is none of us on this forum has a clue how all this is going to play out and neither do the ratings agencies.



Well, in that case lets just keep doing what we are doing :hmmm:

suzzer99
04-18-2011, 04:29 PM
Or we could panic and run head long the other direction into a bus.

mlyonsd
04-18-2011, 04:37 PM
Or we could panic and run head long the other direction into a bus.Start counting to 14 Trillion and let us know when you get there.

RedNeckRaider
04-18-2011, 04:55 PM
Start counting to 14 Trillion and let us know when you get there.

Maybe this will help the simple one....One million times one million equals???

petegz28
04-18-2011, 04:55 PM
Please show me your work on how you arrived at this conclusion (note: republican buzzwords or Ryan's silly "path to prosperity" graphic does not count as showing work).

Bottom line is none of us on this forum has a clue how all this is going to play out and neither do the ratings agencies.

Neither does Obama

vailpass
04-18-2011, 05:02 PM
LMAO
The usual suspects trying to defend he-who-is-without-defense.

Donger
04-18-2011, 05:07 PM
~$500 billion/year in interest payments on our debt. Not debt reduction, just interest.

~$14 trillion in debt (which is about the same as our GDP).

And, those idiots in DC STILL insist on spending more than they take in the form of annual deficits.

Sure, I'd call us a credit risk.

Jaric
04-18-2011, 05:18 PM
Please show me your work on how you arrived at this conclusion (note: republican buzzwords or Ryan's silly "path to prosperity" graphic does not count as showing work).

Bottom line is none of us on this forum has a clue how all this is going to play out and neither do the ratings agencies.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

I won't speak for everyone, but that scares the shit out of me.

Do you deny that our debt is either currently or on it's way to being out of control? And that we are doing next to nothing about it? This years budget is how many billions in the red? And our response was to cut out a measly couple of million dollars and then pat ourselves on the back afterwards?

I don't know enough about finances to know if we actually warrant the negative rating. However, from what I do know the rationale behind it was 100% correct. We have a debt problem and are doing nothing about it.

RedNeckRaider
04-18-2011, 05:42 PM
I have not done the math in a while but all true Americans should break out their checkbooks and write a check for somewhere around forty thousand dollars. Now if you have kids that is a per person number so adjust for how much you owe. Also we need to figure in those who cannot pay so all of are tabs will need to be adjusted. I will contact Barry and have him appoint a czar to help us with the math. anyway with some cooperation from everyone we can pay off this tab quickly and get on to other business. Or maybe we should just print more money...maybe the world will not notice~

Jaric
04-18-2011, 05:51 PM
I have not done the math in a while but all true Americans should break out their checkbooks and write a check for somewhere around forty thousand dollars. Now if you have kids that is a per person number so adjust for how much you owe. Also we need to figure in those who cannot pay so all of are tabs will need to be adjusted. I will contact Barry and have him appoint a czar to help us with the math. anyway with some cooperation from everyone we can pay off this tab quickly and get on to other business. Or maybe we should just print more money...maybe the world will not notice~

$45,973 to be exact (at least, as of this moment, that will change tomorrow.

And at the current rate that will be just short of 70k by 2015.

RedNeckRaider
04-18-2011, 05:57 PM
$45,973 to be exact (at least, as of this moment, that will change tomorrow.

Is that with those who cannot pay figured in...insane asylums, penitentiaries and what not. You really should meet with one of Barrys czars before you pop off~

Jaric
04-18-2011, 06:13 PM
Is that with those who cannot pay figured in...insane asylums, penitentiaries and what not. You really should meet with one of Barrys czars before you pop off~

No, that's everyone. From newborn infant to Abe Vigoda (still alive (http://www.abevigoda.com/) btw)

The debt per "TaxPayer" number is $128,639.

However, on the bright side, the first number only includes citizens, so if some of the illegals chip in a few dollars here and there who knows how low we could bring it. 10 maybe even 20 dollars less perhaps.

By the way, on a semi-related note, am I the only one who looks at that and gets sad because the population is about 3 times as large as the group of people paying income taxes? I understand that some of that, possibly even a lot of that is completely legit. Like I don't think it's reasonable to be hitting up 5 year olds for taxes, but damn that seems like a low ratio.

suzzer99
04-18-2011, 06:13 PM
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

I won't speak for everyone, but that scares the shit out of me.

Do you deny that our debt is either currently or on it's way to being out of control? And that we are doing next to nothing about it? This years budget is how many billions in the red? And our response was to cut out a measly couple of million dollars and then pat ourselves on the back afterwards?

I don't know enough about finances to know if we actually warrant the negative rating. However, from what I do know the rationale behind it was 100% correct. We have a debt problem and are doing nothing about it.

Ooooh it moves fast. Why weren't any of you scared of this clock accelerating when Bush announced his tax cuts? Why do none of you acknowledge that is just as responsible for the spiraling debt as everything else? Obama's had the reigns for 2 years. Yet all of you act like we were running a surplus before he took office.

The Ryan cuts count on insanely unrealistic projections for the economy (2.8% unemployment) that the Heritage foundation trots out any time Republicans want to put forward some budget with token spending cuts and mega tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. http://m.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/apr/10/ryans-budget-unrealistic-mean/?commentary

First, Republicans have once again gone all in for voodoo economics — the claim, refuted by experience, that tax cuts pay for themselves.

Specifically, the Ryan proposal trumpets the results of an economic projection from the Heritage Foundation, which claims the plan’s tax cuts would set off a gigantic boom. Indeed, the foundation initially predicted the GOP plan would bring the unemployment rate down to 2.8 percent — a number we haven’t achieved since the Korean War. After widespread jeering, the unemployment projection vanished from the Heritage Foundation’s website, but voodoo still permeates the rest of the analysis.

In particular, the original voodoo proposition — the claim that lower taxes mean higher revenue — is still very much there. The Heritage Foundation projection has large tax cuts actually increasing revenue by almost $600 billion over the next 10 years.

A more sober assessment from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office tells a different story. It finds that a large part of the supposed savings from spending cuts would go not to reduce the deficit, but to pay for tax cuts. In fact, the budget office finds that over the next decade, the plan would lead to bigger deficits and more debt than current law.

It must be wonderful to always be so certain your side is right and just scream "LA LA LA LA!!!" when someone points out ridiculous shit like this. Just remember, everything must always be by definition the libs or Obama's fault, then you never have to actually think for yourselves. How reassuring that must feel to be so starry-eyed convinced of every piece of propaganda your side puts out.

Jaric
04-18-2011, 06:22 PM
Why weren't any of you scared of this clock accelerating when Bush announced his tax cuts?
Really?

:facepalm:

Jaric
04-18-2011, 06:26 PM
It must be wonderful to always be so certain your side is right and just scream "LA LA LA LA!!!" when someone points out ridiculous shit like this. Just remember, everything must always be by definition the libs or Obama's fault, then you never have to actually think for yourselves. How reassuring that must feel to be so starry-eyed convinced of every piece of propaganda your side puts out.

Listen, please drop the "your side" shit. I hate the Republicans just as much as I hate the Democrats.

And it's sad that you are calling the factual numbers of what we actually owe and nothing else "propaganda."

mlyonsd
04-18-2011, 06:35 PM
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

I won't speak for everyone, but that scares the shit out of me.

Do you deny that our debt is either currently or on it's way to being out of control? And that we are doing next to nothing about it? This years budget is how many billions in the red? And our response was to cut out a measly couple of million dollars and then pat ourselves on the back afterwards?

I don't know enough about finances to know if we actually warrant the negative rating. However, from what I do know the rationale behind it was 100% correct. We have a debt problem and are doing nothing about it.

Wow. You seem to be a partisan hack that is jockying for political position. Shame on you. Bush is soley responsible for this. I can tell from this post you are ignoring the facts.

(please make sure your sarcasm meter is adjusted properly)

suzzer99
04-18-2011, 06:39 PM
Listen, please drop the "your side" shit. I hate the Republicans just as much as I hate the Democrats.

And it's sad that you are calling the factual numbers of what we actually owe and nothing else "propaganda."

Then I'm not including you in my rant. It's the guys who say stuff like "maybe this will help the simple one" or "he-who-is-without-defense". It gets annoying that we're always supposed to take the high road vs. that kind of lame personal name-calling. Then get called condescending if we ever fight back remotely in kind. I'm just sick of the dittohead smug sense of superiority - when in reality they usually couldn't be less informed - beyond what right-wing pundits tell them to think.

If you and I want to try to have an adult conversation, I do feel however that it's very easy to scare people about the debt, when none of us really knows how serious or hard to reverse it all is. I know if you let the Bush tax cuts expire, it gets a lot less scary.

Chiefshrink
04-18-2011, 10:13 PM
The new campaign

"HOPE AND doyouhaveany CHANGE"

ROFL

Chiefshrink
04-18-2011, 10:17 PM
Ooooh it moves fast. Why weren't any of you scared of this clock accelerating when Bush announced his tax cuts? Why do none of you acknowledge that is just as responsible for the spiraling debt as everything else? Obama's had the reigns for 2 years. Yet all of you act like we were running a surplus before he took office.

The Ryan cuts count on insanely unrealistic projections for the economy (2.8% unemployment) that the Heritage foundation trots out any time Republicans want to put forward some budget with token spending cuts and mega tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. http://m.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/apr/10/ryans-budget-unrealistic-mean/?commentary



It must be wonderful to always be so certain your side is right and just scream "LA LA LA LA!!!" when someone points out ridiculous shit like this. Just remember, everything must always be by definition the libs or Obama's fault, then you never have to actually think for yourselves. How reassuring that must feel to be so starry-eyed convinced of every piece of propaganda your side puts out.

600 billion deficit in Jan 2007 when the Dems took over and when the Dems lost in 2010 the deficit reached 4trillion. You do the math and tell me who has spent more since 2007:rolleyes:

Chiefshrink
04-18-2011, 10:22 PM
Of course "O" has to play this down. First off he is now in full campaign mode and he must still try to keep the American people distracted so he can quietly overwhelm our system and collapse it. You know, transform us into Amerika:thumb:

Jaric
04-19-2011, 07:10 AM
If you and I want to try to have an adult conversation, I do feel however that it's very easy to scare people about the debt, when none of us really knows how serious or hard to reverse it all is. I know if you let the Bush tax cuts expire, it gets a lot less scary.

If that's the case, we've done a piss poor job of getting people to wake the fuck up about it.

What is very clear, or at least should be very clear is that our current model is not sustatinable. Changes have to be made either voluntarily or at some point later down the road when the whole thing collapses. This is not a democrat or republican issue and partisan finger pointing does nothing except toss out red herrings. In the immediate, who fucked up is significantly less important to figure out than what is fucked up and how to fix it. If we ever manage to get shit under control THEN we can start wondering who fucked up. But at the moment, the water pipes are broken and the basement is flooding.

The bottom line is that we are spending, way too much money.

Unfortunately though, as this years budget clashes clearly showed, no one is taking spending cuts seriously.

patteeu
04-19-2011, 07:34 AM
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

I won't speak for everyone, but that scares the shit out of me.

Do you deny that our debt is either currently or on it's way to being out of control? And that we are doing next to nothing about it? This years budget is how many billions in the red? And our response was to cut out a measly couple of million dollars and then pat ourselves on the back afterwards?

I don't know enough about finances to know if we actually warrant the negative rating. However, from what I do know the rationale behind it was 100% correct. We have a debt problem and are doing nothing about it.

Regarding the bolded, I don't think anyone has suggested that that was anything more than a token gesture of good faith between House Republicans and the voters who returned them to majority in that chamber.

The most interesting thing about that gesture isn't how incredibly trivial it is in comparison to the problems we face, but instead how desperately the POTUS and Congressional democrats fought against even that trivial effort.

Jaric
04-19-2011, 07:37 AM
The most interesting thing about that gesture isn't how incredibly trivial it is in comparison to the problems we face, but instead how desperately the POTUS and Congressional democrats fought against even that trivial effort.

This is precisely why I've said in other posts on other threads that there won't be any real change until it is forced upon us.

BucEyedPea
04-19-2011, 07:41 AM
Seems pretty pointless to me. Have we defaulted on a loan? Isn't that what credit ratings are supposed to be about?

That's your standard? I think this is nothing no one hasn't known for awhile but it's still politics even by S&P. S&P favors govt printing money as a way out of it's fiscal problems. So they can't be honest raters. Only the most fiscally responsible nations where it is very clear what the fiscal outlook is should be allowed a AAA rating.

patteeu
04-19-2011, 07:42 AM
Ooooh it moves fast. Why weren't any of you scared of this clock accelerating when Bush announced his tax cuts? Why do none of you acknowledge that is just as responsible for the spiraling debt as everything else? Obama's had the reigns for 2 years. Yet all of you act like we were running a surplus before he took office.

The Ryan cuts count on insanely unrealistic projections for the economy (2.8% unemployment) that the Heritage foundation trots out any time Republicans want to put forward some budget with token spending cuts and mega tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. http://m.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/apr/10/ryans-budget-unrealistic-mean/?commentary



It must be wonderful to always be so certain your side is right and just scream "LA LA LA LA!!!" when someone points out ridiculous shit like this. Just remember, everything must always be by definition the libs or Obama's fault, then you never have to actually think for yourselves. How reassuring that must feel to be so starry-eyed convinced of every piece of propaganda your side puts out.

Bush tried to take the first step toward addressing the primary source of the expanding debt problem when he raised the idea of privatizing a small portion of SS. Paul Ryan has taken a second step by focusing on Medicare. Until the entitlement time bomb is addressed, no level of taxation will solve the problem. Like with the illegal immigration issue, you can conceive of a comprehensive reform solution, but nothing will work if you don't find a way to secure the border (curb the explosive growth of entitlements).

patteeu
04-19-2011, 07:46 AM
Then I'm not including you in my rant. It's the guys who say stuff like "maybe this will help the simple one" or "he-who-is-without-defense". It gets annoying that we're always supposed to take the high road vs. that kind of lame personal name-calling. Then get called condescending if we ever fight back remotely in kind. I'm just sick of the dittohead smug sense of superiority - when in reality they usually couldn't be less informed - beyond what right-wing pundits tell them to think.

If you and I want to try to have an adult conversation, I do feel however that it's very easy to scare people about the debt, when none of us really knows how serious or hard to reverse it all is. I know if you let the Bush tax cuts expire, it gets a lot less scary.

Maybe you're not the best person to make this case. Remember not too long ago when I tried repeatedly and apparently unsuccessfully to explain to you why it's an apples and oranges comparison to compare the gross spending associated with our recent wars with the net spending associated with medicare?

patteeu
04-19-2011, 07:49 AM
This is precisely why I've said in other posts on other threads that there won't be any real change until it is forced upon us.

I'm slightly more optimistic than that, but only slightly. I think the Republicans and democrats have staked out negotiating positions (Ryan's entitlement reform versus Obama's tax increases) and that it's possible that there's enough public interest in the debt these days that both sides might find compromise advantageous. The onus is on the people more than on the politicians though, IMO. If the people will allow a compromise without freaking out over the increased level of taxation AND the decreased level of entitlement benefits then it will happen. If they won't, it won't.

alnorth
04-19-2011, 07:56 AM
Seems pretty pointless to me. Have we defaulted on a loan? Isn't that what credit ratings are supposed to be about?

There are other ways a government can default besides not paying. Many people, including the Chinese government, are concerned that the US may resort to printing our way out of it and kill the dollar. So, you'd get paid back, but in the process the dollar tanks and your investment is worth less relative to other currencies.

When a country chooses to fire up the printing presses to pay off their creditors, that is basically a default.

Saul Good
04-19-2011, 08:14 AM
There are other ways a government can default besides not paying. Many people, including the Chinese government, are concerned that the US may resort to printing our way out of it and kill the dollar. So, you'd get paid back, but in the process the dollar tanks and your investment is worth less relative to other currencies.

When a country chooses to fire up the printing presses to pay off their creditors, that is basically a default.

From a financial perspective, a default might not be the worst thing in the world. We have more than paid back China by agreeing to trade using rules that skew the game in their favor as far as I'm concerned.

People seem to think that China owns us because they hold so much of our debt, but they don't hold the note on our mortgage. They are the credit card company. Its all unsecured debt. Its not a great situation by any means, but the sky isn't really falling.

suzzer99
04-19-2011, 10:09 AM
600 billion deficit in Jan 2007 when the Dems took over and when the Dems lost in 2010 the deficit reached 4trillion. You do the math and tell me who has spent more since 2007:rolleyes:

Wow way to just completely ignore all the bailouts dreamed up by Goldman employee Paulson and approved by your boy GWB. You are either delusional or a shill.

suzzer99
04-19-2011, 10:11 AM
Bush tried to take the first step toward addressing the primary source of the expanding debt problem when he raised the idea of privatizing a small portion of SS. Paul Ryan has taken a second step by focusing on Medicare. Until the entitlement time bomb is addressed, no level of taxation will solve the problem. Like with the illegal immigration issue, you can conceive of a comprehensive reform solution, but nothing will work if you don't find a way to secure the border (curb the explosive growth of entitlements).

Bush's tax cuts are a big reason we're in this mess. And the Ryan plan makes completely laughable expectations like 2.8% unemployment. Your boys are just as big of a joke as the dems when it comes to the deficit. They just throw out token gestures to make their base happy.

suzzer99
04-19-2011, 10:13 AM
There are other ways a government can default besides not paying. Many people, including the Chinese government, are concerned that the US may resort to printing our way out of it and kill the dollar. So, you'd get paid back, but in the process the dollar tanks and your investment is worth less relative to other currencies.

When a country chooses to fire up the printing presses to pay off their creditors, that is basically a default.

We're already are printing our way out with QE2. The Chinese know this and probably figure it's better than us defaulting. But they do squawk every now and then.

patteeu
04-19-2011, 10:13 AM
Wow way to just completely ignore all the bailouts dreamed up by Goldman employee Paulson and approved by your boy GWB. You are either delusional or a shill.

Those bailouts had very little impact on the national debt, as it turns out. In fact, when viewed through the year to year deficit prism, they exaggerate the Bush deficits and lead to an understatement of Obama's deficits. And even with that distortion, Bush deficits look lilliputian compared to the titanic deficits of the Obama administration.

suzzer99
04-19-2011, 10:16 AM
Maybe you're not the best person to make this case. Remember not too long ago when I tried repeatedly and apparently unsuccessfully to explain to you why it's an apples and oranges comparison to compare the gross spending associated with our recent wars with the net spending associated with medicare?

Yeah and I repeatedly proved you completely wrong despite your assertions otherwise. You kept wanting to count the entire amount spent on medicare, while ignoring any revenues earmarked specifically for medicare that come in. Then you want to compare that full top-line medicare number - to some vague undefined bottom-line number for the foreign wars which subtracts out some amount you feel (but never specified) that we normally would have spent on the military anyway. (And you accuse me of comparing apples to oranges - lol.) And even then the numbers were still "in the ballpark".

Naturally because I gave up trying to argue the same obvious point with you after 6 tries, you assume you won the argument. As long as you keep replying until the other person gives up - even if it's nonsense - you win! Just like you will this battle I'm sure.

Unlike you this shit aggravates the hell out of me. Like radiation, I can only stand it for so long before I have to ban myself for a while.

patteeu
04-19-2011, 10:16 AM
Bush's tax cuts are a big reason we're in this mess. And the Ryan plan makes completely laughable expectations like 2.8% unemployment. Your boys are just as big of a joke as the dems when it comes to the deficit. They just throw out token gestures to make their base happy.

I couldn't disagree more. One side has identified the actual cause of our financial problems and the other side keeps complaining about tax cuts for the rich. I give credit to the side that's focused on the primary source of the problem, not the side that wants to fund efforts to kick the can a few more years down the road with higher taxes.

patteeu
04-19-2011, 10:19 AM
Yeah and I repeatedly proved you completely wrong despite your assertions otherwise. You kept wanting to count the entire amount spent on medicare, while ignoring any revenues brought in - then compare that to some vague undefined number for the foreign wars that subtracted out what you feel we normally would have spent on the military anyway. And even then the numbers will still "in the ballpark".

Naturally you assume that because I gave up trying to argue the same obvious point with you after 6 times, you assume you won the argument. As long as you keep replying until the other person gives up - even if it's nonsense - you win!

Good lord, you're slow. I told you repeatedly that I was leaving out the issue of whether or not a portion of our war funds would be spent even in peacetime.

The only thing you proved was that you aren't up to the task of debating/understanding these issues.

Jaric
04-19-2011, 10:21 AM
Bush's tax cuts are a big reason we're in this mess. And the Ryan plan makes completely laughable expectations like 2.8% unemployment. Your boys are just as big of a joke as the dems when it comes to the deficit. They just throw out token gestures to make their base happy.

Not so much. The problem is very simply that we are spending too much money. Cutting out some revenue might not have helped the situation, but the issue is that the entire structure of our government needs to change because we cannot currently afford the one we've created.

If you are not willing to address spending with substantial cuts across the board, there is no reason to take you seriously. (For the record, I mean the royal you here, not you specifically)

KC Dan
04-19-2011, 10:35 AM
To the spending vs. revenue argument. Gov't spending has exploded 40% since 1996 while gov't revenues have not matched the pace. Be it by Bush tax cuts (revenue actually increased) or by this past recession. We are just spending too damn much money.

suzzer99
04-19-2011, 10:41 AM
Good lord, you're slow. I told you repeatedly that I was leaving out the issue of whether or not a portion of our war funds would be spent even in peacetime.

The only thing you proved was that you aren't up to the task of debating/understanding these issues.

Lol nice punt. Let's go back to my original post that you're so fond of thinking you completely discredited: http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=7546517&postcount=211

I showed that if Medicare didn't exist (meaning no spending and no incoming earmarked taxes) by the numbers I showed the us would have about $213 billion more in their pockets in 2009 (which were the most recent #s I could find).

By the same token if the Iraq and Afghanistan wars didn't exist (and yes these estimates factor out "normal peacetime operating expenses") I showed a stat that sad the US would have $163 billion more in it's pocket.

Yet you continue handwave argue continue to argue those numbers aren't comparable. Try to process this: there is nothing more comparable than a bottom line number of how much something cost you vs. if you didn't purchase it. No medicare? $213 B more. No wars? $163 B more. That is absolutely apples to apples.

Here's something else fun to chew on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money. The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq, or $6,300 per U.S. citizen.[9][10]

And this is before the surge, before Afghanistan escalated and before Libya. Aren't Ryan's #s something like saving $4.x trillion over 10 years? Go ahead tell me how those aren't apples to apples.

suzzer99
04-19-2011, 10:42 AM
Not so much. The problem is very simply that we are spending too much money. Cutting out some revenue might not have helped the situation, but the issue is that the entire structure of our government needs to change because we cannot currently afford the one we've created.

If you are not willing to address spending with substantial cuts across the board, there is no reason to take you seriously. (For the record, I mean the royal you here, not you specifically)

Ok so lets cut taxes another 10% (w/o ensuring commensurate spending cuts) then blame the deficit mess we get into purely on spending. Because that is what is happening here when people refuse to acknowledge the role of the Bust tax cuts in our current predicament.

suzzer99
04-19-2011, 10:44 AM
I couldn't disagree more. One side has identified the actual cause of our financial problems and the other side keeps complaining about tax cuts for the rich. I give credit to the side that's focused on the primary source of the problem, not the side that wants to fund efforts to kick the can a few more years down the road with higher taxes.

So why not cut taxes to 5% across the board and blame the resulting problems on spending?

KC Dan
04-19-2011, 10:49 AM
So why not cut taxes to 5% across the board and blame the resulting problems on spending?How about we just cut spending? The Bush tax cuts only limited revenues but the spending has exploded. Look at the numbers, you cannot refute that fact no matter how hard you try.

i personally have no problems with letting the Bush cuts expire for everyone. But, and its a big but, I would want a 20% across the board budget slashing. It needs to be done. $3.8 Trillion budget, $1.8 Trillion deficit - really....jeezus...

Jaric
04-19-2011, 10:52 AM
Ok so lets cut taxes another 10% (w/o ensuring commensurate spending cuts) then blame the deficit mess we get into purely on spending. Because that is what is happening here when people refuse to acknowledge the role of the Bust tax cuts in our current predicament.

We would still be in this mess with or without the Bush tax cuts.

That's because we spend money we don't have. Until we address that, no amount of partisan hackery is going to resolve the problem.

patteeu
04-19-2011, 10:53 AM
Lol nice punt. Let's go back to my original post that you're so fond of thinking you completely discredited: http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=7546517&postcount=211

I showed that if Medicare didn't exist (meaning no spending and no incoming earmarked taxes) by the numbers I showed the us would have about $213 billion more in their pockets in 2009 (which were the most recent #s I could find).

By the same token if the Iraq and Afghanistan wars didn't exist (and yes these estimates factor out "normal peacetime operating expenses") I showed a stat that sad the US would have $163 billion more in it's pocket.

Yet you continue handwave argue continue to argue those numbers aren't comparable. Try to process this: there is nothing more comparable than a bottom line number of how much something cost you vs. if you didn't purchase it. No medicare? $213 B more. No wars? $163 B more. That is absolutely apples to apples.

Here's something else fun to chew on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War



And this is before the surge, before Afghanistan escalated and before Libya. Aren't Ryan's #s something like saving $4.x trillion over 10 years? Go ahead tell me how those aren't apples to apples.

Again, you've ignored taxes on the war spending side of the equation. Just as Medicare taxes reduce the gross spending on medicare to the NET number you want to use, some portion of general taxes reduce the deficit impact of war spending from the GROSS number you want to use. I'm saying that you should either compare gross to gross or net to net. It's far easier to come up with the gross numbers so that's the comparison I made. Your gross to net comparison is garbage at best and dishonest sleight of hand at worst.

Gross spending on Medicare = $530 billion
Gross spending on Iraq/Afghanistan = $163 billion (using your number)

And when you consider the explosively expanding nature of medicare spending, the disparity between the two is far more dramatic.

patteeu
04-19-2011, 11:01 AM
So why not cut taxes to 5% across the board and blame the resulting problems on spending?

It wouldn't matter one way or the other to me. The issue that needs to be addressed is entitlement spending. You're busy worrying about whether the gash on the patient's arm is going to need stitches while he's dying of kidney failure.

Once entitlement spending has been reformed to a sufficiently sustainable model, I have no problem tinkering with other spending cuts and the tax rate to close any remaining gap between income and outlay.

The other part of this big picture is long term economic growth. Tax reform along the lines of what the deficit commission recommended should be a part of this comprehensive solution too. This is how I rank the things I've mentioned in order of importance/priority:

1. Entitlement spending reform
2. Tax structure reform
3. Spending cuts
4. Tax rate adjustments

vailpass
04-19-2011, 11:11 AM
Then I'm not including you in my rant. It's the guys who say stuff like "maybe this will help the simple one" or "he-who-is-without-defense". It gets annoying that we're always supposed to take the high road vs. that kind of lame personal name-calling. Then get called condescending if we ever fight back remotely in kind. I'm just sick of the dittohead smug sense of superiority - when in reality they usually couldn't be less informed - beyond what right-wing pundits tell them to think.

If you and I want to try to have an adult conversation, I do feel however that it's very easy to scare people about the debt, when none of us really knows how serious or hard to reverse it all is. I know if you let the Bush tax cuts expire, it gets a lot less scary.

Soft little girl aren't you?

"It gets annoying that we're always supposed to take the high road vs. that kind of lame personal name-calling."

then...

"dittohead smug sense of superiority - when in reality they usually couldn't be less informed - beyond what right-wing pundits tell them to think."


Whining Liberal SOP:
1. Name calling is wrong unless it is you doing the name calling? Check.
2. Disagreeing with obama=being uninformed and unable to think for one's self? Check

RaiderH8r
04-19-2011, 11:19 AM
Oh God Dammit. Who could have known a black guy would come in, run up the debt and f up a perfectly good credit rating? What's next? Is he going to stop paying cell phone bills and run out on the country and be an absentee President?

Jaric
04-19-2011, 11:20 AM
It wouldn't matter one way or the other to me. The issue that needs to be addressed is entitlement spending. You're busy worrying about whether the gash on the patient's arm is going to need stitches while he's dying of kidney failure.

Once entitlement spending has been reformed to a sufficiently sustainable model, I have no problem tinkering with other spending cuts and the tax rate to close any remaining gap between income and outlay.

The other part of this big picture is long term economic growth. Tax reform along the lines of what the deficit commission recommended should be a part of this comprehensive solution too. This is how I rank the things I've mentioned in order of importance/priority:

1. Entitlement spending reform
2. Tax structure reform
3. Spending cuts
4. Tax rate adjustments

Nothing from defense?

patteeu
04-19-2011, 11:23 AM
Nothing from defense?

Defense would fall into the "spending cuts" priority bucket.

vailpass
04-19-2011, 11:23 AM
Oh God Dammit. Who could have known a black guy would come in, run up the debt and f up a perfectly good credit rating? What's next? Is he going to stop paying cell phone bills and run out on the country and be an absentee President?

LMAO

RaiderH8r
04-19-2011, 11:24 AM
Nothing from defense?

Blowing shit up is what America does. It is what we're supposed to do. Not only is it in the Constitution (provide for the common defense) but it is also in the national anthem. How many other nations have a national anthem that has rockets and bombs in the damn thing? I guarantee those chode chuggers in Canada don't with that pussy ass maple leaf. Oooh, a leaf I'm so scared. Please don't polite me to death.

Jaric
04-19-2011, 11:24 AM
Defense would fall into the "spending cuts" priority bucket.

:thumb:

Jaric
04-19-2011, 11:26 AM
Blowing shit up is what America does. It is what we're supposed to do. Not only is it in the Constitution (provide for the common defense) but it is also in the national anthem. How many other nations have a national anthem that has rockets and bombs in the damn thing? I guarantee those chode chuggers in Canada don't with that pussy ass maple leaf. Oooh, a leaf I'm so scared. Please don't polite me to death.

Mozambique sees your national anthem and raises you an assault rifle on their flag.

notorious
04-19-2011, 11:44 AM
Mozambique sees your national anthem and raises you an assault rifle on their flag.

An AK-47, no less.

alnorth
04-19-2011, 12:12 PM
We're already are printing our way out with QE2. The Chinese know this and probably figure it's better than us defaulting. But they do squawk every now and then.

This is mild compared to what I'm talking about. We could simply create another 20 trillion dollars or however much we owe, and credit the accounts of those holding the notes.

Overnight the US is suddenly debt-free. Of course the dollar would also be worth less than half (if even that much) than it was worth the day before, our credit rating would be shot to hell, and no one would be willing to lend us another dime at reasonable interest for decades.

Radar Chief
04-19-2011, 12:23 PM
2. Disagreeing with obama=being uninformed and unable to think for one's self? Check

At least he didnít call you racist for that.
Baby steps, VP. Baby steps.

vailpass
04-19-2011, 12:33 PM
At least he didnít call you racist for that.
Baby steps, VP. Baby steps.

I guess there is that.

orange
04-19-2011, 12:44 PM
Back to that S&P Outlook Change:

The latest example came with S&P's U.S. debt warning Monday. If anything should have unhinged the supposedly nervous holders of Treasury bonds, it should have been the rating agency's statement that there's a "material risk" politicians won't get around to fixing our overspending and undertaxing problems till it's too late.

Yet in a familiar refrain, the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 160 points and crude oil slipped $2 in New York and $107 -- while the price of the 10-year Treasury actually rose.

Seeing this cycle play out over and over has persuaded some bond watchers that maybe the big one in the Treasury market is still off well in the distance.

"I am moving away from the yields-up point of view," says Mark Bronzo, who runs large-cap growth funds for Security Global Investors. "It looks now like a slowdown is going to keep the lid on rates for a while."

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/04/19/the-unsinkable-bond-market/

I guess Matt Drudge has every bit as little impact on the markets as he has on air travel.

LiveSteam
04-19-2011, 07:47 PM
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42662970
China Urges US to Protect Creditors After S&P Warning

talastan
04-20-2011, 12:27 PM
Adminstration still trying to exert their control over the free market...:shake:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/20/obama-officials-tried-convince-sp-issue-credit-warning/

Obama Officials Tried to Convince S&P Not to Issue Credit Warning

Published April 20, 2011
FoxNews.com
Reuters

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner testifies at a House Ways and Means Committee hearing on Capitol Hill Feb. 15.
Even though the White House has publicly downplayed the credit warning issued Monday from a leading agency, Obama administration officials were privately trying in recent weeks to convince Standard & Poor's not to lower its outlook for U.S. debt from "stable" to "negative," Fox News has confirmed.

But after a series of meetings between the Treasury Department and S&P, the ratings agency ignored the pressure and told administration officials late Friday that the U.S. government was at risk of losing its sterling credit rating, a senior administration official told Fox News.

The Washington Post first reported on the private meetings in which Treasury officials argued to S&P analysts that a ratings change was unnecessary because the nation's $14.3 trillion debt was under control and the administration had a feasible plan in the offing. Treasury officials also contended to S&P analysts that they were overlooking the ability of U.S. lawmakers to reach a compromise to tame deficits.

But the argument failed. The agency based its assessment on the sentiment that a budget agreement addressing the country's long-term deficit and debt problem might not be reached until after the 2012 election.

The White House has been on the defensive ever since. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, in an interview with Fox Business Network Tuesday morning, said there is no risk the country will lose its AAA credit rating.

White House chief spokesman Jay Carney said Monday that the political atmosphere for consensus is better than S&P predicts.

"We think that the political process will outperform S&P expectations," Carey said, adding that both parties agree on a long-term deficit-reduction target of about $4 trillion -- is looking to achieve that in 12 years, while Republicans are shooting for a little bit more than that in 10 years -- and that they can find common ground on how to reach it.

Republicans, though, do not appear to share that optimism, absent an agreement that ties big spending cuts to a looming vote on whether to raise the country's $14.3 trillion debt ceiling. The White House does not want the debt-ceiling vote contingent on a spending agreement, but Republicans are pushing to link the two.

patteeu
04-20-2011, 12:47 PM
If this forces the Obama administration to be more willing to compromise with the more sensible Republican position on the deficit (instead of pretending that entitlements aren't the central problem), it will be a good thing.

mlyonsd
04-20-2011, 01:01 PM
If this forces the Obama administration to be more willing to compromise with the more sensible Republican position on the deficit (instead of pretending that entitlements aren't the central problem), it will be a good thing.

About that bridge....have you made a decision? I have someone else interested in it.

patteeu
04-20-2011, 01:05 PM
About that bridge....have you made a decision? I have someone else interested in it.

:LOL:

RedNeckRaider
04-21-2011, 10:09 AM
Ok so lets cut taxes another 10% (w/o ensuring commensurate spending cuts) then blame the deficit mess we get into purely on spending. Because that is what is happening here when people refuse to acknowledge the role of the Bust tax cuts in our current predicament.

And you continue to ignore the obscene spending spree we have been on for the last couple of years. We have been free spenders for quite some time but it has gone past ridiculous at this point~