PDA

View Full Version : General Politics AP: S&P Downgrades U.S. Debt From AAA


Chocolate Hog
08-05-2011, 07:28 PM
Obama said we'd make history.

CrazyPhuD
08-05-2011, 07:37 PM
The sky is blue?

I mean the debt plan never mattered, when we're in the whole as much as we are in the future it really doesn't matter as much what we do today unless we really address those future commitments.

BucEyedPea
08-05-2011, 07:39 PM
The sky is blue?


Of course not. It was so they could spend more money.

ChiefsandO'sfan
08-05-2011, 07:40 PM
Folks. S&P said we needed to cut 4 Trillion. And we didn't cut 4 Trillion. Now people are shocked!

RaiderH8r
08-05-2011, 07:53 PM
Change we can believe in.

ROYC75
08-05-2011, 08:10 PM
Change we can believe in.

Beat me to it.:harumph:

Folks. S&P said we needed to cut 4 Trillion. And we didn't cut 4 Trillion. Now people are shocked!

Uh, No, after all the spending and no cuts, it was inevitable.

Let's spend more and not cut, Damn the racist , terrorist Tea party

Donger
08-05-2011, 08:13 PM
Fucking imbeciles.

Saul Good
08-05-2011, 08:14 PM
S&P is racist.

banyon
08-05-2011, 08:15 PM
For people who want to read the actual reasons for the downgrade (instead of just Obama sucks!):

S&P Downgrades U.S. Debt Rating — Press Release


http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2011/08/05/sp-downgrades-u-s-debt-rating-press-release/

Standard & Poor’s took the unprecedented step of downgrading the U.S. government’s “AAA” sovereign credit rating Friday in a move that could send shock waves through global. The following is a press release from Standard & Poor’s:

– We have lowered our long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America to ‘AA+’ from ‘AAA’ and affirmed the ‘A-1+’ short-term rating.

– We have also removed both the short- and long-term ratings from CreditWatch negative.

– The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government’s medium-term debt dynamics.

– More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.

– Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government’s debt dynamics any time soon.

– The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the long-term rating to ‘AA’ within the next two years if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case.

TORONTO (Standard & Poor’s) Aug. 5, 2011–Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services said today that it lowered its long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America to ‘AA+’ from ‘AAA’. Standard & Poor’s also said that the outlook on the long-term rating is negative. At the same time, Standard & Poor’s affirmed its ‘A-1+’ short-term rating on the U.S. In addition, Standard & Poor’s removed both ratings from CreditWatch, where they were placed on July 14, 2011, with negative implications.

The transfer and convertibility (T&C) assessment of the U.S.–our assessment of the likelihood of official interference in the ability of U.S.-based public- and private-sector issuers to secure foreign exchange for debt service–remains ‘AAA’.

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.

Our lowering of the rating was prompted by our view on the rising public debt burden and our perception of greater policymaking uncertainty, consistent with our criteria (see “Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions,” June 30, 2011, especially Paragraphs 36-41). Nevertheless, we view the U.S. federal government’s other economic, external, and monetary credit attributes, which form the basis for the sovereign rating, as broadly unchanged.

We have taken the ratings off CreditWatch because the Aug. 2 passage of the Budget Control Act Amendment of 2011 has removed any perceived immediate threat of payment default posed by delays to raising the government’s debt ceiling. In addition, we believe that the act provides sufficient clarity to allow us to evaluate the likely course of U.S. fiscal policy for the next few years.

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. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year’s wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently. Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.

Our opinion is that elected officials remain wary of tackling the structural issues required to effectively address the rising U.S. public debt burden in a manner consistent with a ‘AAA’ rating and with ‘AAA’ rated sovereign peers (see Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions,” June 30, 2011, especially Paragraphs 36-41). In our view, the difficulty in framing a consensus on fiscal policy weakens the government’s ability to manage public finances and diverts attention from the debate over how to achieve more balanced and dynamic economic growth in an era of fiscal stringency and private-sector deleveraging (ibid). A new political consensus might (or might not) emerge after the 2012 elections, but we believe that by then, the government debt burden will likely be higher, the needed medium-term fiscal adjustment potentially greater, and the inflection point on the U.S. population’s demographics and other age-related spending drivers closer at hand (see “Global Aging 2011: In The U.S., Going Gray Will Likely Cost Even More Green, Now,” June 21, 2011).

Standard & Poor’s takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.’s finances on a sustainable footing.

The act calls for as much as $2.4 trillion of reductions in expenditure growth over the 10 years through 2021. These cuts will be implemented in two steps: the $917 billion agreed to initially, followed by an additional $1.5 trillion that the newly formed Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction is supposed to recommend by November 2011. The act contains no measures to raise taxes or otherwise enhance revenues, though the committee could recommend them.

The act further provides that if Congress does not enact the committee’s recommendations, cuts of $1.2 trillion will be implemented over the same time period. The reductions would mainly affect outlays for civilian discretionary spending, defense, and Medicare. We understand that this fall-back mechanism is designed to encourage Congress to embrace a more balanced mix of expenditure savings, as the committee might recommend.

We note that in a letter to Congress on Aug. 1, 2011, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated total budgetary savings under the act to be at least $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years relative to its baseline assumptions. In updating our own fiscal projections, with certain modifications outlined below, we have relied on the CBO’s latest “Alternate Fiscal Scenario” of June 2011, updated to include the CBO assumptions contained in its Aug. 1 letter to Congress. In general, the CBO’s “Alternate Fiscal Scenario” assumes a continuation of recent Congressional action overriding existing law.

We view the act’s measures as a step toward fiscal consolidation. However, this is within the framework of a legislative mechanism that leaves open the details of what is finally agreed to until the end of 2011, and Congress and the Administration could modify any agreement in the future. Even assuming that at least $2.1 trillion of the spending reductions the act envisages are implemented, we maintain our view that the U.S. net general government debt burden (all levels of government combined, excluding liquid financial assets) will likely continue to grow. Under our revised base case fiscal scenario–which we consider to be consistent with a ‘AA+’ long-term rating and a negative outlook–we now project that net general government debt would rise from an estimated 74% of GDP by the end of 2011 to 79% in 2015 and 85% by 2021. Even the projected 2015 ratio of sovereign indebtedness is high in relation to those of peer credits and, as noted, would continue to rise under the act’s revised policy settings.

Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act. Key macroeconomic assumptions in the base case scenario include trend real GDP growth of 3% and consumer price inflation near 2% annually over the decade.

Our revised upside scenario–which, other things being equal, we view as consistent with the outlook on the ‘AA+’ long-term rating being revised to stable–retains these same macroeconomic assumptions. In addition, it incorporates $950 billion of new revenues on the assumption that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners lapse from 2013 onwards, as the Administration is advocating. In this scenario, we project that the net general government debt would rise from an estimated 74% of GDP by the end of 2011 to 77% in 2015 and to 78% by 2021.

Our revised downside scenario–which, other things being equal, we view as being consistent with a possible further downgrade to a ‘AA’ long-term rating–features less-favorable macroeconomic assumptions, as outlined below and also assumes that the second round of spending cuts (at least $1.2 trillion) that the act calls for does not occur. This scenario also assumes somewhat higher nominal interest rates for U.S. Treasuries. We still believe that the role of the U.S. dollar as the key reserve currency confers a government funding advantage, one that could change only slowly over time, and that Fed policy might lean toward continued loose monetary policy at a time of fiscal tightening. Nonetheless, it is possible that interest rates could rise if investors re-price relative risks. As a result, our alternate scenario factors in a 50 basis point (bp)-75 bp rise in 10-year bond yields relative to the base and upside cases from 2013 onwards. In this scenario, we project the net public debt burden would rise from 74% of GDP in 2011 to 90% in 2015 and to 101% by 2021.

Our revised scenarios also take into account the significant negative revisions to historical GDP data that the Bureau of Economic Analysis announced on July 29. From our perspective, the effect of these revisions underscores two related points when evaluating the likely debt trajectory of the U.S. government. First, the revisions show that the recent recession was deeper than previously assumed, so the GDP this year is lower than previously thought in both nominal and real terms. Consequently, the debt burden is slightly higher. Second, the revised data highlight the sub-par path of the current economic recovery when compared with rebounds following previous post-war recessions. We believe the sluggish pace of the current economic recovery could be consistent with the experiences of countries that have had financial crises in which the slow process of debt deleveraging in the private sector leads to a persistent drag on demand. As a result, our downside case scenario assumes relatively modest real trend GDP growth of 2.5% and inflation of near 1.5% annually going forward.

When comparing the U.S. to sovereigns with ‘AAA’ long-term ratings that we view as relevant peers–Canada, France, Germany, and the U.K.–we also observe, based on our base case scenarios for each, that the trajectory of the U.S.’s net public debt is diverging from the others. Including the U.S., we estimate that these five sovereigns will have net general government debt to GDP ratios this year ranging from 34% (Canada) to 80% (the U.K.), with the U.S. debt burden at 74%. By 2015, we project that their net public debt to GDP ratios will range between 30% (lowest, Canada) and 83% (highest, France), with the U.S. debt burden at 79%. However, in contrast with the U.S., we project that the net public debt burdens of these other sovereigns will begin to decline, either before or by 2015.

Standard & Poor’s transfer T&C assessment of the U.S. remains ‘AAA’. Our T&C assessment reflects our view of the likelihood of the sovereign restricting other public and private issuers’ access to foreign exchange needed to meet debt service. Although in our view the credit standing of the U.S. government has deteriorated modestly, we see little indication that official interference of this kind is entering onto the policy agenda of either Congress or the Administration. Consequently, we continue to view this risk as being highly remote.

The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. As our downside alternate fiscal scenario illustrates, a higher public debt trajectory than we currently assume could lead us to lower the long-term rating again. On the other hand, as our upside scenario highlights, if the recommendations of the Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction–independently or coupled with other initiatives, such as the lapsing of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners–lead to fiscal consolidation measures beyond the minimum mandated, and we believe they are likely to slow the deterioration of the government’s debt dynamics, the long-term rating could stabilize at ‘AA+’.

On Monday, we will issue separate releases concerning affected ratings in the funds, government-related entities, financial institutions, insurance, public finance, and structured finance sectors.

Reaper16
08-05-2011, 08:27 PM
Wait, so are they saying that the U.S. could regain a AAA rating if the Bush tax cuts expire? Or are the saying that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would let the U.S. stay at AA+ instead of receiving an even lower rating?

KC native
08-05-2011, 08:50 PM
Who gives a fuck about the ratings agencies? They played a large role in the crisis and rated garbage paper AAA because they were paid to. They shouldn't even exist anymore.

Amnorix
08-05-2011, 08:57 PM
Who gives a fuck about the ratings agencies? They played a large role in the crisis and rated garbage paper AAA because they were paid to. They shouldn't even exist anymore.


You don't seem to understand what the ratings agencies are or the critical role they play. While you can certainly criticize them, especially in connection with the housing bubble, I can honestly say this is the dumbest post I have ever seen you make.

Amnorix
08-05-2011, 09:01 PM
Meanwhile, JFC, what a disaster for the US.

CrazyPhuD
08-05-2011, 09:05 PM
Wait, so are they saying that the U.S. could regain a AAA rating if the Bush tax cuts expire? Or are the saying that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would let the U.S. stay at AA+ instead of receiving an even lower rating?

Tax cuts expiring maintains the AA+ rating, however the tax cuts expiring will almost certainly result in a significant drop in revenue from the year before and may or may not see a long term increase in revenue.

In a sense the notion of tax raises as a way to increase revenue is fools gold. You can't just blinding increase taxes and expect to raise revenue, in fact often times you will lower revenue. The tax goal should mostly be setting tax rates at whatever level maximizes GDP growth since that will generally maximize revenue.

What should be of paramount concern is if the spending increases to greater than 20% of GDP for an extended period of time. Why is that a concern? In the 50+ years of history with a wide variety of tax rates we have never had revenue greater than 20% of GDP, so when we get above we are certain to have to keep borrowing significantly. If we stay above 20% for an extended period of the time the nation may collapse.

HonestChieffan
08-05-2011, 09:07 PM
Who gives a **** about the ratings agencies? They played a large role in the crisis and rated garbage paper AAA because they were paid to. They shouldn't even exist anymore.

Ignorant post. Perhaps an all time HOF Stupid post.

HonestChieffan
08-05-2011, 09:08 PM
Obama needs to give a speech or have a presser. Prime Time....

Taco John
08-05-2011, 09:10 PM
The tea party was right. We needed to balance the budget to save our rating.

RINGLEADER
08-05-2011, 09:13 PM
Tax cuts expiring maintains the AA+ rating, however the tax cuts expiring will almost certainly result in a significant drop in revenue from the year before and may or may not see a long term increase in revenue.

Yeah, gotta admit I don't understand why liberals are so damn sure that raising tax rates will automatically increase revenues.

Taco John
08-05-2011, 09:14 PM
Our opinion is that elected officials remain wary of tackling the
structural issues required to effectively address the rising U.S. public debt
burden in a manner consistent with a 'AAA' rating and with 'AAA' rated
sovereign peers (see Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions," In our view, the difficulty in framing a consensus on fiscal policy weakens the government's ability to manage public finances and diverts attention from the debate over how to achieve more balanced and dynamic economic growth in an era of fiscal stringency and private-sector deleveraging (ibid). A new political consensus might (or might not) emerge after the 2012 elections, but we believe that by then, the government debt burden will likely be higher, the needed medium-term fiscal adjustment potentially greater, and the inflection point on the U.S. population's demographics and other age-related spending drivers closer at hand (see "Global Aging 2011: In The U.S., Going Gray Will Likely Cost Even More Green, Now," June 21, 2011).

ROYC75
08-05-2011, 09:14 PM
The tea party was right. We needed to balance the budget to save our rating.

Cut, Cap & Balance, it's time to make a lot of hard choices in the way government is run.

Obama said, tough choice will be made, sacrifices will have to be made by the American people, but we will get through this.

But instead, it's spend, spend, spend!

RINGLEADER
08-05-2011, 09:14 PM
I just read that Obama administration is blaming S&P for a math error as the reason they were downgraded.

Next will come the tea party.

Then Bush.

Taco John
08-05-2011, 09:14 PM
Here's the report:

http://www.standardandpoors.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobheadername3=MDT-Type&blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobheadervalue2=inline%3B+filename%3DUS_Downgraded_AA%2B.pdf&blobheadername2=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue1=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobheadername1=content-type&blobwhere=1243942957443&blobheadervalue3=UTF-8

HonestChieffan
08-05-2011, 09:23 PM
Not a surprise. They said what it would take, the R's tried, the D's wouldn't accept it....so here we are. This is Harry's ugly baby and Obama is its godfather. Or whatever they call it in Islam.

ROYC75
08-05-2011, 09:30 PM
Not a surprise. They said what it would take, the R's tried, the D's wouldn't accept it....so here we are. This is Harry's ugly baby and Obama is its godfather. Or whatever they call it in Islam.

Islamabad?:doh!:

Bottom line, you are correct, we knew it was coming & the WH, Congress didn't take it serious. Like debt doesn't matter to them?

Reaper16
08-05-2011, 09:33 PM
Islamybad, am i rite guyz?

wazu
08-05-2011, 09:34 PM
Who cares? Can't believe that this is what scares people and gets their attention. We only need a credit rating if we plan to keep on borrowing. If we plan to keep on borrowing, then we're so screwed that nothing else matters anyway.

Amnorix
08-05-2011, 09:34 PM
Not a surprise. They said what it would take, the R's tried, the D's wouldn't accept it....so here we are. This is Harry's ugly baby and Obama is its godfather. Or whatever they call it in Islam.


Seem to remember a "Grand Bargain" that Boehner couldn't get through his own party caucus. You try to blame it entirely on Obama, and it's a joke.

Not even worth mentioning how we had a balanced budget until BushCo decided to cut taxes for some inexplicable reason. Presumably because he didn't much like balanced budgets since he sure as hell never did anything to try to balance them after that. In fact, he made various pledges to manage the deficit that never went anywhere.

Then Obama inherits a horrific economy and follows the VERY commonly prescribed medicines for fixing it -- spend more -- and gets crucified for it. Of course...

Amnorix
08-05-2011, 09:35 PM
Cut, Cap & Balance, it's time to make a lot of hard choices in the way government is run.

Obama said, tough choice will be made, sacrifices will have to be made by the American people, but we will get through this.

But instead, it's spend, spend, spend!


The problem is you may choke the economy to death if you try to balance the budget immediately.

ROYC75
08-05-2011, 09:39 PM
Seem to remember a "Grand Bargain" that Boehner couldn't get through his own party caucus. You try to blame it entirely on Obama, and it's a joke.

Not even worth mentioning how we had a balanced budget until BushCo decided to cut taxes for some inexplicable reason. Presumably because he didn't much like balanced budgets since he sure as hell never did anything to try to balance them after that. In fact, he made various pledges to manage the deficit that never went anywhere.

Then Obama inherits a horrific economy and follows the VERY commonly prescribed medicines for fixing it -- spend more -- and gets crucified for it. Of course...


Your point is valid, but let's look at it this way?

Sure Bush & Co. was bad, no question, Obama ran on change. Instead of throwing out the anchor and cutting to get it under control, he stepped on the gas and tried to out run the debt. Instead of helping to create jobs, he created more turmoil by throwing down a HC mantra on the people and small business. He did everything to help choke an economy off, not to help it along.

ROYC75
08-05-2011, 09:40 PM
The problem is you may choke the economy to death if you try to balance the budget immediately.

No you can't! It would take close to 8 years to implement it.

The economy is stagnate and it's going to get worst before better.

Taco John
08-05-2011, 09:46 PM
Cut, cap, and balance just got a massive shot in the arm. I'm having a hard time seeing a scenario in which it isn't implemented at this point.

wazu
08-05-2011, 09:48 PM
Cut, cap, and balance just got a massive shot in the arm. I'm having a hard time seeing a scenario in which it isn't implemented at this point.

You must be operating under the assumption that Ron Paul will be elected in 2012, because outside of that happening I don't see any signs of hope.

Taco John
08-05-2011, 09:51 PM
Australia AAA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Austria AAA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Canada AAA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Denmark AAA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Finland AAA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
France AAA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Germany AAA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Guernsey AAA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Hong Kong AAA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Isle of Man AAA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Liechtenstein AAA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Luxembourg AAA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Netherlands AAA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Norway AAA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Singapore AAA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Sweden AAA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Swiss Confederation AAA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
United Kingdom AAA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Belgium AA+ Negative Jul 2011 [2][3]
New Zealand AA+ Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
United States of America AA+ Negative Aug 2011 [4][5]
Abu Dhabi AA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Bermuda AA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Kuwait AA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Qatar AA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Slovenia AA Negative Jul 2011 [2][3]
Spain AA Negative Jul 2011 [2][3]

Taco John
08-05-2011, 09:53 PM
You must be operating under the assumption that Ron Paul will be elected in 2012, because outside of that happening I don't see any signs of hope.

Not at all. What other plan does anyone have to offer. CC&B is the only thing on the table at this point, and all this does is blow wind into is sails.

I think tax increases are inevitable as well. I think the new grand bargain will be CC&B combined with tax raises.

Donger
08-05-2011, 09:56 PM
Australia AAA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Austria AAA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Canada AAA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Denmark AAA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Finland AAA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
France AAA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Germany AAA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Guernsey AAA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Hong Kong AAA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Isle of Man AAA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Liechtenstein AAA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Luxembourg AAA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Netherlands AAA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Norway AAA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Singapore AAA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Sweden AAA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Swiss Confederation AAA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
United Kingdom AAA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Belgium AA+ Negative Jul 2011 [2][3]
New Zealand AA+ Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
United States of America AA+ Negative Aug 2011 [4][5]
Abu Dhabi AA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Bermuda AA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Kuwait AA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Qatar AA Stable Jul 2011 [2][3]
Slovenia AA Negative Jul 2011 [2][3]
Spain AA Negative Jul 2011 [2][3]

God Fucking Damnit

wazu
08-05-2011, 09:57 PM
Not at all. What other plan does anyone have to offer. CC&B is the only thing on the table at this point, and all this does is blow wind into is sails.

I think tax increases are inevitable as well. I think the new grand bargain will be CC&B combined with tax raises.

Hope you are right, but am surprised to see that you have a lot more faith in our government to do the (semi) right thing than I do.

HonestChieffan
08-05-2011, 09:58 PM
Seem to remember a "Grand Bargain" that Boehner couldn't get through his own party caucus. You try to blame it entirely on Obama, and it's a joke.

Not even worth mentioning how we had a balanced budget until BushCo decided to cut taxes for some inexplicable reason. Presumably because he didn't much like balanced budgets since he sure as hell never did anything to try to balance them after that. In fact, he made various pledges to manage the deficit that never went anywhere.

Then Obama inherits a horrific economy and follows the VERY commonly prescribed medicines for fixing it -- spend more -- and gets crucified for it. Of course...

So...is this Boehners fault or Bush? I need to know so I dont mistakenly place blame on any democrat. James K Polk? Andrew Johnson? Elvis?

HonestChieffan
08-05-2011, 09:58 PM
God ****ing Damnit


We kick Slovenian ass.

petegz28
08-05-2011, 10:01 PM
I have to agree with Native on this one. Yes, they were bought off during the last crisis. However, WTF is the world going to go for its safest bonds? Still the US. Hopefully though this serves as a wake up call. Interest rates may start rising because of this. While I think it will be painful in some ways, in other ways it is good as long as they don't skyrocket which they probably will not do.

The Fed Gov has just spent too fucking much money trying to buy votes. This is a pill we have to swallow sooner or later. Rates were bound to go up sooner or later. The excessive spending has to stop sooner or later.

BillSelfsTrophycase
08-05-2011, 10:03 PM
The beginning of the end

I never thought I'd see it in my lifetime

petegz28
08-05-2011, 10:05 PM
Seem to remember a "Grand Bargain" that Boehner couldn't get through his own party caucus. You try to blame it entirely on Obama, and it's a joke.

Not even worth mentioning how we had a balanced budget until BushCo decided to cut taxes for some inexplicable reason. Presumably because he didn't much like balanced budgets since he sure as hell never did anything to try to balance them after that. In fact, he made various pledges to manage the deficit that never went anywhere.

Then Obama inherits a horrific economy and follows the VERY commonly prescribed medicines for fixing it -- spend more -- and gets crucified for it. Of course...

Oh give me a ****ing break already. Bush is gone. Bush has been gone for 2 years. Things have done nothing really but get worse under Obama.

The fact is, like it or not, this happened on Obama's watch, not Bush's.

petegz28
08-05-2011, 10:06 PM
And don't worry about the states. While our spend-happy Fed Gov got downgraded, the states have to do this thing every year called "balancing the budget". The states are actually in better shape than our Fed Gov.

HonestChieffan
08-05-2011, 10:07 PM
Oh give me a ****ing breal already. Bush is gone. Bush has been gone for 2 years. Things have done nothing really but get worse under Obama.

The fact is, like it or not, this happened on Obama's watch, not Bush's.

Blame Boehner. Bush. Boehner...see? Both start with B. B is first letter in Bad.


I hate big B.

CrazyPhuD
08-05-2011, 10:08 PM
Seem to remember a "Grand Bargain" that Boehner couldn't get through his own party caucus. You try to blame it entirely on Obama, and it's a joke.

Not even worth mentioning how we had a balanced budget until BushCo decided to cut taxes for some inexplicable reason. Presumably because he didn't much like balanced budgets since he sure as hell never did anything to try to balance them after that. In fact, he made various pledges to manage the deficit that never went anywhere.

Then Obama inherits a horrific economy and follows the VERY commonly prescribed medicines for fixing it -- spend more -- and gets crucified for it. Of course...

The problem is you make a general assertion that the bush tax cuts had a negative impact on revenue, the reality is that is likely incorrect. All we can really do is measure against average revenue over time compared to GDP. revenues dipped because of the dot bomb crash and that recession(as expected) but afterwards, revenue rebounded to the historical average. This would suggest that contrary to belief the tax cuts were not negative from a revenue point of view(now the issue of income inequity is a different concern). One diagram...although if you look at overall tax revenues too you see the same general trend.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Federal_individual_income_tax_receipts_2000-2009.png

For some reason people argue tax rates to try to address revenue problems. That's the ass backwards way to solve the problem. If you really want to solve the budget issue, you need to find the tax rates that maximize GDP growth. Since tax revenue tends to be a consistent percentage of revenue over time(baring right now where we are in a historically bad recession that has a decent chance to rival the great depression), you want to look to max GDP growth if you want to max revenue. The question is what is the tax policy that does that? Now it could be higher or it could be lower, but arguing about taxing group X believing that will raise revenue is silly, you need to argue, raise(or lower) these taxes because the rates have been historically shown to grow GDP...and therefore maximize revenue.

HonestChieffan
08-05-2011, 10:08 PM
And don't worry about the states. While our spend-happy Fed Gov got downgraded, the states have to do this thing every year called "balancing the budget". The states are actually in better shape than our Fed Gov.

State Taxes will skyrocket

Donger
08-05-2011, 10:09 PM
Oh give me a ****ing break already. Bush is gone. Bush has been gone for 2 years. Things have done nothing really but get worse under Obama.

The fact is, like it or not, this happened on Obama's watch, not Bush's.

Pete, it's really fucking stupid to lay this entirely on Obama's doorstep. Bush spent money like a fucking drunken sailor just like Obama has.

To ignore the FACT that Bush did the same fucking thing is just partisan bullshit.

wazu
08-05-2011, 10:09 PM
http://www.foundry.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg

petegz28
08-05-2011, 10:11 PM
Pete, it's really ****ing stupid to lay this entirely on Obama's doorstep. Bush spent money like a ****ing drunken sailor just like Obama has.

To ignore the FACT that Bush did the same ****ing thing is just partisan bullshit.

I've never, ever said Bush didn't spend money. That doesn't change the fact that this happened under Obama. He took what Bush did and made it worse. End of story.

petegz28
08-05-2011, 10:13 PM
State Taxes will skyrocket

Unlikely but can't rule it out.

Donger
08-05-2011, 10:14 PM
I've never, ever said Bush didn't spend money. That doesn't change the fact that this happened under Obama. He took what Bush did and made it worse. End of story.

Yes, the downgrade happened under Obama. But this result has been in the fucking works for MANY years.

Enough of the partisan bullshit. STOP SPENDING MORE THAN YOU FUCKING TAKE ASSHOLES! Hell, even THAT isn't good enough.

SPEND HALF OF WHAT YOU TAKE FOR THE NEXT 50 YEARS, ASSHOLES!

Taco John
08-05-2011, 10:14 PM
"The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two years if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to"

HonestChieffan
08-05-2011, 10:15 PM
Unlikely but can't rule it out.

Unlikely hell!


When fed $$ go away from states they have to decide to give stuff up or pay for it at state level.....shit rolls downhill.

Taco John
08-05-2011, 10:16 PM
Hope you are right, but am surprised to see that you have a lot more faith in our government to do the (semi) right thing than I do.

It's the people that I have the faith in.

Donger
08-05-2011, 10:16 PM
Oh, and Obama better fire Geithner tomorrow.

petegz28
08-05-2011, 10:17 PM
The fact of the matter is since 2007 the Democrats have been in charge one way or the other. We had 2 years where they couldn't pass a budget. They approved the Bush bailouts. They approved the Stimulus. They approved Obamacare. They have done nothing to help stimulate job growth. So whether it was the Dems controlling Congress, the Dems controlling the WH and the Senate or the Dems controlling all 3, the fact is since 2007 the Dems have had the majority control.

We could go one and I don't, as some accuse me of, let the Repubs and Bush off the hook but we also have to look at who has controlled the purse strings for the last 4 years as well.

petegz28
08-05-2011, 10:17 PM
Unlikely hell!


When fed $$ go away from states they have to decide to give stuff up or pay for it at state level.....shit rolls downhill.

How did we ever survive before all this excess Fed funding?

petegz28
08-05-2011, 10:18 PM
Oh, and Obama better fire Geithner tomorrow.

You mean the guy that there was no risk that we would be downgraded??

Donger
08-05-2011, 10:18 PM
You mean the guy that there was no risk that we would be downgraded??

Yes, that fucking moron.

Donger
08-05-2011, 10:20 PM
The fact of the matter is since 2007 the Democrats have been in charge one way or the other. We had 2 years where they couldn't pass a budget. They approved the Bush bailouts. They approved the Stimulus. They approved Obamacare. They have done nothing to help stimulate job growth. So whether it was the Dems controlling Congress, the Dems controlling the WH and the Senate or the Dems controlling all 3, the fact is since 2007 the Dems have had the majority control.

We could go one and I don't, as some accuse me of, let the Repubs and Bush off the hook but we also have to look at who has controlled the purse strings for the last 4 years as well.

I've no doubt that Obama and the Democrats will take the majority of the blame for this, but I refuse to play politics with this. The Republicans deserve blame, too.

This is a really sad day for America.

HonestChieffan
08-05-2011, 10:21 PM
How did we ever survive before all this excess Fed funding?


Lest we have misunderstanding...fed in my comment is short for federal, not fed as in the den of evil snakes and spawn of the devil Hamilton called "the fed"

petegz28
08-05-2011, 10:22 PM
Yes, the downgrade happened under Obama. But this result has been in the ****ing works for MANY years.

Enough of the partisan bullshit. STOP SPENDING MORE THAN YOU ****ING TAKE ASSHOLES! Hell, even THAT isn't good enough.

SPEND HALF OF WHAT YOU TAKE FOR THE NEXT 50 YEARS, ASSHOLES!

It's definitely not partisan. It's just one group outdoing the other on a consistent basis when it comes to spending. Obama griped about Bush's prescription drug plan but then shoved down Obamacare, for example.

And what makes it worse is instead of focusing on job creation when he took over, he spend the majority of his time and effort shoving down Obamacare. This administration has rarely focused on anything to stimulate economic growth except focus on spending money via a "stimulus" plan backed up by nothing but tighter regulation on business.

petegz28
08-05-2011, 10:23 PM
Lest we have misunderstanding...fed in my comment is short for federal, not fed as in the den of evil snakes and spawn of the devil Hamilton called "the fed"

I know what you meant. Perhaps getting the Fed Gov out of some of the state issues is what we need? Regardless of how we get them out.

petegz28
08-05-2011, 10:24 PM
I've no doubt that Obama and the Democrats will take the majority of the blame for this, but I refuse to play politics with this. The Republicans deserve blame, too.

This is a really sad day for America.

But it is politics. That's the problem. Actually I see this is a good day for America. The Fed Gov can no longer pretend things aren't as bad as they are. People might actually start paying attention.

HonestChieffan
08-05-2011, 10:30 PM
I know what you meant. Perhaps getting the Fed Gov out of some of the state issues is what we need? Regardless of how we get them out.

Indeed.

wazu
08-05-2011, 10:32 PM
But it is politics. That's the problem. Actually I see this is a good day for America. The Fed Gov can no longer pretend things aren't as bad as they are. People might actually start paying attention.

Only if they address it seriously on Real Housewives and Jersey Shore.

HonestChieffan
08-05-2011, 10:39 PM
Only if they address it seriously on Real Housewives and Jersey Shore.

Roseanne is in the race. Game Changer.

petegz28
08-05-2011, 10:40 PM
I guess this is what Biden's "summer of recovery" brought us??? Or Pelosi's prmoised 400,000 immediate jobs?

Man, doesn't S&P know there is a recovery going on and soon we will all be rich???

NaptownChief
08-05-2011, 10:42 PM
Rep Barbara Lee from California said this whole debt thing was just a GOP scare tactic. Just as clueless and out of touch as the State she represents.

ROYC75
08-05-2011, 11:22 PM
40 years into the making and we couldn't get the elected idiots to realize it.

It is time for a whole complete overhaul of our government. Every 4 to 8 years we get a new administration that likes to do things differently,change course of a plan that could / might work or to find that we go down the same old crappy road, kicking the same damn can.

RINGLEADER
08-05-2011, 11:58 PM
Seem to remember a "Grand Bargain" that Boehner couldn't get through his own party caucus. You try to blame it entirely on Obama, and it's a joke.

Not even worth mentioning how we had a balanced budget until BushCo decided to cut taxes for some inexplicable reason. Presumably because he didn't much like balanced budgets since he sure as hell never did anything to try to balance them after that. In fact, he made various pledges to manage the deficit that never went anywhere.

Then Obama inherits a horrific economy and follows the VERY commonly prescribed medicines for fixing it -- spend more -- and gets crucified for it. Of course...

The "grand bargain" was neither grand, nor was it a bargain. None of these plans address entitlements in any meaningful way and they all keep the pedal pressed down hard on spending. The government is broke and there is no political will (from either side) to do what has to be done. Raising a trillion dollars in taxes over the next decade won't fix a debt that is rising 7 trillion. And it would likely depress the already anemic growth that Obama is relying on to keep spending at a percentage of the GDP that is similar to Eisenhower or whatever drivel he keeps spouting.

Time to scrap the baseline budgeting increases, reform SS and Medicare so they pay out only what they take in, and change the path the politicians have us on. Otherwise, we'll either default when interest becomes 100% of the revenues in 30 years, when entitlements become 100% of the revenues in this decade, or when we print so much money that neither of the above matters anymore.

RINGLEADER
08-06-2011, 12:09 AM
Oh, and Obama better fire Geithner tomorrow.

A new Treasury Secretary won't change Obama's BS. Hopefully what is about to happen will remind America why we should never put die-hard liberals and fiscal slobs in charge of the country ever again.

Fixing this problem isn't hard, but no one wants to give up their goodies and it is going to take a global meltdown for these constiuencies to realize that it's over.

REDUCE spending. Really cut it. Heck, just FREEZE it for 10 years. Cap SS outflows to what it takes in. Stop trying to take care of EVERYONE - especially those that can take care of themselves.

RINGLEADER
08-06-2011, 12:11 AM
40 years into the making and we couldn't get the elected idiots to realize it.

It is time for a whole complete overhaul of our government. Every 4 to 8 years we get a new administration that likes to do things differently,change course of a plan that could / might work or to find that we go down the same old crappy road, kicking the same damn can.

If history is any indication that's what's on the menu. Hopefully, free enterprise wins out over the nanny state but it's doubtful.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-06-2011, 12:30 AM
I guess we should have listened to the conspiracy theorists, and anyone blaming one side is clueless. America Please wake up before it's too late!

KC native
08-06-2011, 02:07 AM
You don't seem to understand what the ratings agencies are or the critical role they play. While you can certainly criticize them, especially in connection with the housing bubble, I can honestly say this is the dumbest post I have ever seen you make.

I completely understand who and what they are. I, also, understand that their whole business model is a giant conflict of interest.

They rated garbage paper AAA because that's how their clients (the investment banks) wanted it rated. They should all be served a corporate death penalty a la Arthur Anderson. They are completely useless and irrelevant bodies that served a valuable purpose before financial information was so widely available.

I'm buzzing right now so I don't really feel like getting into how crappy just about all their analysis is, but the ratings agencies are a joke and should go the way of the dodo.

KC native
08-06-2011, 02:11 AM
I have to agree with Native on this one. Yes, they were bought off during the last crisis. However, WTF is the world going to go for its safest bonds? Still the US. Hopefully though this serves as a wake up call. Interest rates may start rising because of this. While I think it will be painful in some ways, in other ways it is good as long as they don't skyrocket which they probably will not do.

The Fed Gov has just spent too fucking much money trying to buy votes. This is a pill we have to swallow sooner or later. Rates were bound to go up sooner or later. The excessive spending has to stop sooner or later.

Holy shit, you're coming to your senses. The US is still the cleanest sheet in the dirty laundry hamper.

Mr. Flopnuts
08-06-2011, 06:38 AM
We're fucked. China, the world looks to you. :Lin:

BucEyedPea
08-06-2011, 06:40 AM
Lest we have misunderstanding...fed in my comment is short for federal, not fed as in the den of evil snakes and spawn of the devil Hamilton called "the fed"

You're coming along—nicely! Jefferson would be proud.

notorious
08-06-2011, 07:43 AM
We're ****ed. China, the world looks to you. :Lin:

The Scifi show "Firefly" was right.......

mlyonsd
08-06-2011, 07:47 AM
We're ****ed. China, the world works for you. :Lin:FYP.

teedubya
08-06-2011, 07:53 AM
Who cares? Can't believe that this is what scares people and gets their attention. We only need a credit rating if we plan to keep on borrowing. If we plan to keep on borrowing, then we're so screwed that nothing else matters anyway.

Quantitative Easing 3 starts next week, I read. So, we will just print more money!!!! Err... the Federal Reserve will... and the US will borrow from them. Good times! :doh!:

Next week should be interesting to watch the markets... for sure.

petegz28
08-06-2011, 07:58 AM
Quantitative Easing 3 starts next week, I read. So, we will just print more money!!!! Err... the Federal Reserve will... and the US will borrow from them. Good times! :doh!:

Next week should be interesting to watch the markets... for sure.

QE III isn't going to acomplish anything. We are already back to QE II levels so QE II was a total waste of money and time.

patteeu
08-06-2011, 08:47 AM
Pete, it's really ****ing stupid to lay this entirely on Obama's doorstep. Bush spent money like a ****ing drunken sailor just like Obama has.

To ignore the FACT that Bush did the same ****ing thing is just partisan bullshit.

No, Bush did not spend money just like Obama has. He spent money, but it was at quite a different level and of different character than Obama has. To ignore that FACT is just plain bullshit.

No one should think that Bush contributed nothing to the problem, but at the same time we shouldn't blur the distinction between the levels and character of spending between the two. Bush spent far less and for the most part Bush spent on the temporary emergency basis of war whereas Obama's intention was to permanently increase the level of spending done by our government on the domestic front.

Chiefshrink
08-06-2011, 08:52 AM
Islamabad?:doh!:

Bottom line, you are correct, we knew it was coming & the WH, Congress didn't take it serious. Like debt doesn't matter to them?

Oh it mattered to them. Take a look at one line here in this WP article. Apparently the WH and S&P spent most of Friday arguing back and forth on the numbers before S&P formally reported our downgrade. The WH thought they could "con" S&P in keeping its triple AAA like they con and bully(The Chicago Way) everything else since taking the WH. Didn't happen and now the "falling economic domino effectl" begins for our country that "DIDN'T HAVE TO HAPPEN:spock:. What we don't know is if this 513 pt drop 2 days ago is what this was all about i.e. those that knew this ahead of time which usually happens.

We will wait and see how the markets react on Monday. This time I doubt it. I think there will be a huge sell off. The reason why is when you look at how the DOW roller coastered yesterday was based on the "wrangling" going on between the WH and S&P. Inside info throughout yesterdays debate was causing this fluctuation in the market IMO.

Hopefully everyone here on this board has their "financial house" in order as much as can be expected.:thumb:

S&P downgrades U.S. credit rating for first time
By Zachary A. Goldfarb, Published: August 5

Standard & Poor’s announced Friday night that it has downgraded the U.S. credit rating for the first time, dealing a symbolic blow to the world’s economic superpower in what was a sharply worded critique of the American political system.

Lowering the nation’s rating to one notch below AAA, the credit rating company said “political brinkmanship” in the debate over the debt had made the U.S. government’s ability to manage its finances “less stable, less effective and less predictable.” It said the bipartisan agreement reached this week to find at least $2.1 trillion in budget savings “fell short” of what was necessary to tame the nation’s debt over time and predicted that leaders would not be likely to achieve more savings in the future.

“It’s always possible the rating will come back, but we don’t think it’s coming back anytime soon,” said David Beers, head of S&P’s government debt rating unit.

The decision came after a day of furious back-and-forth debate between the Obama administration and S&P. Treasury Department officials fought back hard, arguing that the firm’s political analysis was flawed and that it had made a numerical error in a draft of its downgrade report that overstated the deficit over 10 years by $2 trillion. Officials had reviewed the draft earlier in the day.“A judgment flawed by a $2 trillion error speaks for itself,” a Treasury spokesman said Friday night.

The downgrade to AA+ will push the global financial markets into uncharted territory after a volatile week fueled by concerns over a worsening debt crisis in Europe and a faltering economy in the United States.

The AAA rating has made the U.S. Treasury bond one of the world’s safest investments — and has helped the nation borrow at extraordinarily cheap rates to finance its government operations, including two wars and an expensive social safety net for retirees.

Treasury bonds have also been a stalwart of stability amid the economic upheaval of the past few years. The nation has had a AAA rating for 70 years.

Analysts say that, over time, the downgrade could push up borrowing costs for the U.S. government, costing taxpayers tens of billions of dollars a year. It could also drive up interest rates for consumers and companies seeking mortgages, credit cards and business loans.

A downgrade could also have a cascading series of effects on states and localities, including nearly all of those in the Washington metro area. These governments could lose their AAA credit ratings as well, potentially raising the cost of borrowing for schools, roads and parks.

But the exact effects of the downgrade won’t be known until at least Sunday night, when Asian markets open, and perhaps not fully grasped for months. Analysts say the initial effect on the markets could be modest because they have been anticipating an S&P downgrade for weeks.

Federal officials are also examining the impact of a downgrade in large but esoteric financial markets where U.S. government bonds serve an extremely important function. They were generally confident that markets would hold up but were closely monitoring the situation. Regulators said that the downgrade would not affect how banking rules treat Treasury bonds — as risk-free assets.

The ratings action immediately fueled partisan wrangling Friday night. Allies to President Obama said it underscored his call for a “grand bargain” that would trim $4 trillion from the federal budget involving a mix of tax revenue and spending cuts.

Republicans criticized Obama’s handling of the economy.

“Standard & Poor’s rating downgrade is a deeply troubling indicator of our country’s decline under President Obama,” Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said.

S&P has angered government officials with aggressive warnings during the past few months of a potential downgrade. S&P corrected its draft report Friday after Treasury raised concerns about the math.

Over the past few months, the multiple warnings from S&P have not worried government bond markets. What’s more, the two other major credit rating companies, Moody’s Investors Service and Fitch Ratings, have said they would preserve the nation’s AAA rating for now.

S&P’s downgrade was as much a political critique as a financial conclusion. It is based on a view that U.S. political leaders would be unable to come up with at least $4 trillion in savings, which is needed to bring the nation’s debt to a manageable level over the next decade.

The debt deal swung earlier this week proposed spending cuts in two phases. Democrats and Republicans agreed to the first round, worth nearly $1 trillion. But a congressional committee must decide on the remaining $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion — and S&P questioned whether that would ever happen.

S&P added that it expects that the upper income Bush-era tax cuts will continue, despite vows from Obama to end the breaks next year.

“The majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues,” the firm said.

S&P’s downgrade served as an indictment of the gridlock that sent the nation to the edge of defaulting on its debt obligations. It is also striking in part because it reflects the tremendous power of a small group of financial analysts employed by a New York company — part of McGraw-Hill. Credit-rating companies’ reputations were sullied during the financial crisis.

In Europe, political leaders have taken aim at credit rating companies when they cut the ratings of governments struggling with heavy debt burdens.

S&P said the nation could suffer additional downgrades later on if the nation’s debt burden grows worse. “A new political consensus might [or might not] emerge after the 2012 election, but we believe that by then the government debt burden will likely be higher,” the firm said.

The company said the United States’s financial position was diverging from that of other AAA countries, including Canada, France, Germany and Britain.

Countries with a AA+ rating include New Zealand and Belgium. Among those countries with a AA rating, one notch lower, are Bermuda, Spain and Qatar.

Chiefshrink
08-06-2011, 09:00 AM
The problem is you may choke the economy to death if you try to balance the budget immediately.

NOW THIS, is the most ignorant statement that is definitely HOF material.

You can NEVER balance too soon. The sooner the better:thumb: Apparently you don't live by a budget. You must keep opening up new CC accounts when you receive them in the mail and keep running up your debt as OPPOSED to cutting up your cards and quit new borrowing with new CCs.:rolleyes:

Chiefshrink
08-06-2011, 09:04 AM
It's the people that I have the faith in.

:thumb: Damn straight!!!

Dave Lane
08-06-2011, 09:08 AM
So playing chicken with the the debt leads to a lower rating of the safety of the debt. Shocking.

Chiefshrink
08-06-2011, 09:09 AM
40 years into the making and we couldn't get the elected idiots to realize it.

It is time for a whole complete overhaul of our government. Every 4 to 8 years we get a new administration that likes to do things differently,change course of a plan that could / might work or to find that we go down the same old crappy road, kicking the same damn can.


This actually will be a positive silver lining in the long run and what is needed to "EXPOSE THE GAME" that is being played in DC. The only way you can participate in DC 'now' is if "you are on the TAKE". If you are not on 'the take' you are excluded (a la Tea Party).

But times are a "changin" and the cleanup process has started:thumb:

Dave Lane
08-06-2011, 09:15 AM
NOW THIS, is the most ignorant statement that is definitely HOF material.

You can NEVER balance too soon. The sooner the better:thumb: Apparently you don't live by a budget. You must keep opening up new CC accounts when you receive them in the mail and keep running up your debt as OPPOSED to cutting up your cards and quit new borrowing with new CCs.:rolleyes:

Wow there it is. The dumbest post in Chiefs planet history. Somebody mark this one so we can use it as a barometer for all future dumbass posts.

Lets crash the system now, why wait to see if it might recover crash the system now woohoo!!

Chocolate Hog
08-06-2011, 09:26 AM
So playing chicken with the the debt leads to a lower rating of the safety of the debt. Shocking.

Always someone elses fault. Shows a total lack of leadership.

banyon
08-06-2011, 09:48 AM
The problem is you make a general assertion that the bush tax cuts had a negative impact on revenue, the reality is that is likely incorrect. All we can really do is measure against average revenue over time compared to GDP. revenues dipped because of the dot bomb crash and that recession(as expected) but afterwards, revenue rebounded to the historical average. This would suggest that contrary to belief the tax cuts were not negative from a revenue point of view(now the issue of income inequity is a different concern). One diagram...although if you look at overall tax revenues too you see the same general trend.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Federal_individual_income_tax_receipts_2000-2009.png

For some reason people argue tax rates to try to address revenue problems. That's the ass backwards way to solve the problem. If you really want to solve the budget issue, you need to find the tax rates that maximize GDP growth. Since tax revenue tends to be a consistent percentage of revenue over time(baring right now where we are in a historically bad recession that has a decent chance to rival the great depression), you want to look to max GDP growth if you want to max revenue. The question is what is the tax policy that does that? Now it could be higher or it could be lower, but arguing about taxing group X believing that will raise revenue is silly, you need to argue, raise(or lower) these taxes because the rates have been historically shown to grow GDP...and therefore maximize revenue.

Bizarre post, it's like you're not even reading your own graph which clearly shows the decline in revenues in absolute terms and doesn't even factor in the rate of inflation while we were fighting two wars.

banyon
08-06-2011, 09:50 AM
So...is this Boehners fault or Bush? I need to know so I dont mistakenly place blame on any democrat. James K Polk? Andrew Johnson? Elvis?

Both parties have been profligate, but Bush was probably the worst is you wanted to throw a blame scattershot.

BucEyedPea
08-06-2011, 09:58 AM
Obama has been far more profligate than Bush.

ROYC75
08-06-2011, 12:03 PM
Both parties have been profligate, but Bush was probably the worst is you wanted to throw a blame scattershot.

Has Obama not spent more in 2 + years than Bush did in 8 years?

Correct me if I am wrong?

petegz28
08-06-2011, 12:51 PM
This is not rocket science. STOP THE FUCKING SPENDING!!

Stop spending money we don't have to buy votes

Stop spending money we don't have to coddle SIG's

Stop prininting money to pay for the debt we borrow because we don't have the money in the first place!

HonestChieffan
08-06-2011, 12:57 PM
Has Obama not spent more in 2 + years than Bush did in 8 years?

Correct me if I am wrong?

Yes but its Bush's fault. Ignore responsibility and assign blame.

Bump
08-06-2011, 12:59 PM
we've never not been trillions in debt, why would it have ever been AAA?

petegz28
08-06-2011, 12:59 PM
This all goes beyond Bush and Obama. Of course, that didn't stop the President's mouthpiece from worrying about where to place blame. However, the fact remains, Obama is the President and this happened on his watch. There is no skirting around that. The same people that want to blame Bush are the same people that didn't want to blame Clinton for "soft economy" when Bush took office.

BigChiefFan
08-06-2011, 01:00 PM
This is not rocket science. STOP THE ****ING SPENDING!!

Stop spending money we don't have to buy votes

Stop spending money we don't have to coddle SIG's

Stop prininting money to pay for the debt we borrow because we don't have the money in the first place!

Agreed. It's common sense, but the criminals in D.C have already gone so far, they are pushing all their chips into the middle of the table and beting the average Joe won't take a stand.

petegz28
08-06-2011, 01:02 PM
Agreed. It's common sense, but the criminals in D.C have already gone so far, they are pushing all their chips into the middle of the table and beting the average Joe won't take a stand.

If for some reason the US$ is no longer the reserve currency of the world, and things like QE III are fucking making it happen, you are going to see riots in the streets when things like gas shoot up to $5 and $6 a gallon.

patteeu
08-06-2011, 01:05 PM
we've never not been trillions in debt, why would it have ever been AAA?

This is a good question although I'd ask it a different way. Why was our credit rating lowered after Congress and the POTUS agreed to make the debt problem less bad than it previously had been? If we're AA+ now, why weren't we already AA+ a few months ago when projections for our future deficits were even worse than they are with the agreement in place?

It can't be because of the contentiousness of the debate because there was never any serious chance that allowing default was in the cards.

BigChiefFan
08-06-2011, 01:19 PM
If for some reason the US$ is no longer the reserve currency of the world, and things like QE III are ****ing making it happen, you are going to see riots in the streets when things like gas shoot up to $5 and $6 a gallon.

I've already seen items at Sams that were $4.97 back in February, that are now $5.70. A bottle of Liquor at one of the liquor stores back in December of last year used to be a little over $18.00, it's now $25 something, plus tax. We haven't seen anything, yet and it's all by design.

Chiefshrink
08-06-2011, 01:23 PM
Wow there it is. The dumbest post in Chiefs planet history. Somebody mark this one so we can use it as a barometer for all future dumbass posts.

Lets crash the system now, why wait to see if it might recover crash the system now woohoo!!

Hey "useful idiot" !! A true CCB bill that was first proposed would have kept this downgrade from happening, PERIOD!!!!!

RINGLEADER
08-06-2011, 02:05 PM
No, Bush did not spend money just like Obama has. He spent money, but it was at quite a different level and of different character than Obama has. To ignore that FACT is just plain bullshit.

No one should think that Bush contributed nothing to the problem, but at the same time we shouldn't blur the distinction between the levels and character of spending between the two. Bush spent far less and for the most part Bush spent on the temporary emergency basis of war whereas Obama's intention was to permanently increase the level of spending done by our government on the domestic front.

Bush and Obama are light years apart.

Bush's creation of Medicare Part D was stupid. His increases in education spending yielded little return. Without the wars we'd have had surpluses during most of the Bush years. All these things should be rolled back and eliminated -- we lived without them for 225 years and can live without them now.

The solution is not difficult and does not require an end of life as we know it and while I would recommend cutting Medicare Part D and Obamacare, the solution is far simpler:

1. Freeze spending increases in total for 7 years so that spending matches revenues (you would have to borrow approximately $3.5 trillion to bridge this gap at a revenue growth rate of 5% which addressing the debt along with the tax and entitlement reforms below could very well generate and you approve it as part of a single plan to raise the debt ceiling for the subsequent decade and make future increases require a two-thirds majority of both houses of congress);

2. Tie spending increases to prior year revenues and, provided there is growth, you'll reduce the number of instances of deficits going forward to only those times when there is a recession. The baseline would be set at the prior year revenues and if they came up short you would borrow the difference (allowing it outside of the 2/3 requirement when there is a contraction);

3. Means test social security and medicare and you can reduce the debt obligations of both programs and insure they work for those that really need them;

4. Raise the retirement age to 70 to bring SS and Medicare in line with their original intent and encourage personal savings accounts for those under 55 to bridge the difference - this could begin the process of privatizing social security but does so in a politically acceptable way for all sides (especially with the element below);

5. Lastly, if the spending caps above are written as law and for as long as they are in place, I would add a 1.0% national sales tax on purchases with the revenues generated by it split for the first 15 years 50/50 between the personal savings accounts for those between 65 and 70 and half going to the reduction of principal debt. After 15 years 100% of the revenues generated from the national sales tax would go to retiring the principal debt. Once the principal debt is fully retired approximately 20 years later the sales tax would be eliminated.

It's just not that hard.

ROYC75
08-06-2011, 02:08 PM
It truly amazes me that Liberals want to continue spending and blame anybody, everybody but themselves.

Obama reminds me of that nut on Rocket Man ( Harland Williams ) that always said, " It wasn't me"! When in fact it had almost everything to do with him. The problem is Obama can't clumsy his way out of this mess.

patteeu
08-06-2011, 02:26 PM
Bush and Obama are light years apart.

Bush's creation of Medicare Part D was stupid. His increases in education spending yielded little return. Without the wars we'd have had surpluses during most of the Bush years. All these things should be rolled back and eliminated -- we lived without them for 225 years and can live without them now.

The solution is not difficult and does not require an end of life as we know it and while I would recommend cutting Medicare Part D and Obamacare, the solution is far simpler:

Freeze spending increases in total for 7 years so that spending matches revenues (you would have to borrow approximately $3.5 trillion to bridge this gap at a revenue growth rate of 5% which addressing the debt along with the tax and entitlement reforms below could very well generate and you approve it as part of a single plan to raise the debt ceiling for the subsequent decade and make future increases require a two-thirds majority of both houses of congress);

Tie spending increases to prior year revenues and, provided there is growth, you'll reduce the number of instances of deficits going forward (but allow them outside of the 2/3 requirement when there is a contraction);

Means test social security and medicare and you can reduce the debt obligations of both programs and insure they work for those that really need them;

Raise the retirement age to 70 to bring SS and Medicare in line with their original intent and encourage personal savings accounts for those under 55 to bridge the difference - this could begin the process of privatizing social security but does so in a politically acceptable way for all sides (especially with the element below);

Lastly, if the spending caps above are written as law and for as long as they are in place, I would add a 1.0% national sales tax with the revenues generated by it split for the first 15 years 50/50 between the personal savings accounts for those between 65 and 70 and half going to the reduction of principal debt. After 15 years 100% of the revenues generated from the national sales tax would go to retiring the principal debt. Once the principal debt is fully retired approximately 20 years later the sales tax would be eliminated.

It's just not that hard.

I like most of what you say here. I don't like the idea of adding a national sales tax on top of the income tax we already have because I don't think there's any chance that it would be eliminated as planned.

RINGLEADER
08-06-2011, 02:30 PM
I like most of what you say here. I don't like the idea of adding a national sales tax on top of the income tax we already have because I don't think there's any chance that it would be eliminated as planned.

If it isn't eliminated then it goes to a fund to overcome those instances of contraction to bridge the difference between actual revenues and prior year revenues. It would be untouchable by congress and tax policy could only be changed with a 2/3 vote of congress (and, of course, the agreement of the executive branch).

mlyonsd
08-06-2011, 02:38 PM
If it isn't eliminated then it goes to a fund to overcome those instances of contraction to bridge the difference between actual revenues and prior year revenues. It would be untouchable by congress and tax policy could only be changed with a 2/3 vote of congress (and, of course, the agreement of the executive branch).I'm not sure how you get only the rich to pay for things with a national sales tax.

go bowe
08-06-2011, 02:52 PM
I'm not sure how you get only the rich to pay for things with a national sales tax.

wait a few days, only the rich will be able to buy groceries and gas...

banyon
08-06-2011, 02:58 PM
Has Obama not spent more in 2 + years than Bush did in 8 years?

Correct me if I am wrong?

Yes, you are wrong. Not that it truly matters.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/CBO_Forecast_Changes_for_2009-2012.png/800px-CBO_Forecast_Changes_for_2009-2012.png

Chiefshrink
08-06-2011, 03:00 PM
Yes, you are wrong. Not that it truly matters.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/CBO_Forecast_Changes_for_2009-2012.png/800px-CBO_Forecast_Changes_for_2009-2012.png

NYT analysisROFL

gopack_vag
08-06-2011, 03:00 PM
If it isn't eliminated then it goes to a fund to overcome those instances of contraction to bridge the difference between actual revenues and prior year revenues. It would be untouchable by congress and tax policy could only be changed with a 2/3 vote of congress (and, of course, the agreement of the executive branch).

While something like that could bring in additional revenues, you want to give these nutbags more of our money? Yeah cause they are soo good at keeping their greedy hands off of Social Security monies as well....It would just be another piggy bank for them to rob.

When has our government ever stopped a tax that they inserted.

It's not a revenue problem. They take in a ton of money every effing month. Stop wasting it on bullshit like grants seeing what happens when rats are given cocaine.

And they need to get serious about all the social programs we have, scale them waaaaay back.

banyon
08-06-2011, 03:02 PM
NYT analysisROFL

What's wrong with it? (Try to answer without using the term "Alinskying" if possible)

gopack_vag
08-06-2011, 03:03 PM
Yes, you are wrong. Not that it truly matters.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/CBO_Forecast_Changes_for_2009-2012.png/800px-CBO_Forecast_Changes_for_2009-2012.png

Why are they counting the Iraq war twice? And "Obama programs"..lol. Where is Obamacare...scale that out for 10 years with Obama's spending, then tell us where we are then...

You should put the Unemployment rate right next to that graph.

How can you guys seriously defend his economic policies anymore.....like srsly? I dont know whether to feel sorry for you, or feel sorry your children...

vailpass
08-06-2011, 03:06 PM
Get a black guy in the White House and our credit goes to hell.

banyon
08-06-2011, 03:06 PM
Why are they counting the Iraq war twice?


They are counting it once. They just separated it into each presidential term. Unless you think it should all go under Bush?

And "Obama programs"..lol. Where is Obamacare...scale that out for 10 years with Obama's spending, then tell us where we are then...

It incorporates current spending. Nothing's been spent on that yet, so where would it go? Even then, CBO scored the cruddy health care program as revenue neutral. It's not government run health care, it's a handout to private insurers, so the expenses will just be in the form of increased premiums (privately) for everyone. You can argue that sucks, but it doesn't belong on this chart.

How can you guys seriously defend his economic policies anymore.....like srsly? I dont know whether to feel sorry for you, or feel sorry your children

I'm not defending them, they're atrocious. But it's factually incorrect to assert that Obama spent more in two years to pile on the debt than Bush did. When did correcting factual errors become "defending"? Why do people not understand the difference? It's not that complicated.

KC native
08-06-2011, 03:25 PM
Get a black guy in the White House and out credit goes to hell.

Classy.

ROYC75
08-06-2011, 03:27 PM
Yes, you are wrong. Not that it truly matters.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/CBO_Forecast_Changes_for_2009-2012.png/800px-CBO_Forecast_Changes_for_2009-2012.png

Why are tax cuts considered a spending problem?

Calcountry
08-06-2011, 03:40 PM
Obama said we'd make history.S&P CHANGED the rating, THAT'S the CHANGE we need!

Calcountry
08-06-2011, 03:45 PM
Classy.As classy as the Boondocks.

BigChiefFan
08-06-2011, 03:47 PM
By the time he's done, I'm going to hope to have some change in my pockets. The past 30-40 years has ran us into the ground.

KC native
08-06-2011, 03:53 PM
As classy as the Boondocks.


There's a difference between jokes and a continually racist poster.

Amnorix
08-06-2011, 03:53 PM
So...is this Boehners fault or Bush? I need to know so I dont mistakenly place blame on any democrat. James K Polk? Andrew Johnson? Elvis?



Reagan, Bush1, Tip O'Neill, LBJ, Barney Frank, GWB, Obama, Pelosi, Boehner, and pretty much every other Washington DC politician from at least 1980 to today.

Happy?

Amnorix
08-06-2011, 03:53 PM
Get a black guy in the White House and out credit goes to hell.



Seriously, what is it with you?

KC native
08-06-2011, 03:54 PM
Seriously, what is it with you?

He's a raging racist with the small amount of self control that shitty could never muster.

patteeu
08-06-2011, 04:06 PM
Even then, CBO scored the cruddy health care program as revenue neutral.

Yes, it's revenue neutral in the same way that I can save $50K next year by not buying the new car I wasn't going to buy in the first place.

As I suspect you already know (but for the sake of those who don't), the CBO score included assumed savings that everyone knew would never materialize (e.g. the doc fix):

President Obama has made serial promises that he will not sign a health-care bill that "adds one dime to our deficits, either now or in the future, period." This was never plausible, but now we can begin to understand what he meant: Democrats plan to make ObamaCare "deficit-neutral" by moving nearly a quarter-trillion dollars off the books, in the fiscal deception of the century.

Later this week, or maybe next, Senate Democrats plan to vote on a stand-alone bill that strips a formula that automatically cuts Medicare physician payments out of "comprehensive" health reform. Rather than include the pricey $247 billion plan known on Capitol Hill as the "doc fix" as part of ObamaCare, they'll instead make this a separate contribution to the deficit, without compensating tax increases or spending cuts. Majority Leader Harry Reid explained at a press conference last week that "All we're doing is wiping the slate clean by adjusting the baseline to what is current policy. This is not new policy."

Wiping the slate is right. - Wall Street Journal, Oct. 21, 2009

patteeu
08-06-2011, 04:08 PM
Seriously, what is it with you?

He's :Poke: at people like KC Native and ThatGuy.

|Zach|
08-06-2011, 04:12 PM
He's :Poke: at people like KC Native and ThatGuy.

LMAO

Someone is a racist in DC and Pateeu falls over himself to defend them. Poor Pat couldn't hit the submit button fast enough.

KC native
08-06-2011, 04:13 PM
He's :Poke: at people like KC Native and ThatGuy.

:rolleyes: Riiiiiiiiiiiight, that must be why he has been known for using racial slurs before I even made it to Chiefs Planet.

patteeu
08-06-2011, 04:18 PM
LMAO

Someone is a racist in DC and Pateeu falls over himself to defend them. Poor Pat couldn't hit the submit button fast enough.

*yawn*

Do you really think that vailpass is a racist? I understand that you probably don't like what he said, but do you really think he is serious? You've had almost 20,000 posts to get to know the guy.

banyon
08-06-2011, 04:23 PM
Why are tax cuts considered a spending problem?

Because we were trying to balance the budget?

If you take a pay cut at work does it affect your budget?

HonestChieffan
08-06-2011, 04:30 PM
Because we were trying to balance the budget?

If you take a pay cut at work does it affect your budget?


If the boss gets a tax increase and I lose my job, is that a good thing? One mans tax increase is another mans wage cut.

banyon
08-06-2011, 04:37 PM
If the boss gets a tax increase and I lose my job, is that a good thing? One mans tax increase is another mans wage cut.

Remember the last time taxes went up under Clinton and everyone lost their jobs?

HonestChieffan
08-06-2011, 04:50 PM
everyone?

banyon
08-06-2011, 05:17 PM
everyone?

You don't remember?

Calcountry
08-06-2011, 05:32 PM
Remember the last time taxes went up under Clinton and everyone lost their jobs?Where were we in the business cycle when that happened?

Calcountry
08-06-2011, 05:34 PM
Because we were trying to balance the budget?

If you take a pay cut at work does it affect your budget?Tax rate, is not equal to revenue collected.

The two correlate only to the extent that they cannot be avoided.

patteeu
08-06-2011, 05:34 PM
Remember the last time taxes went up under Clinton and everyone lost their jobs?

I remember when a good democrat-voting friend of mine lost his job under Clinton and then got a new, better job just after Bush took office. It doesn't mean anything, but it was a fun coincidence. :)

petegz28
08-06-2011, 05:37 PM
Because we were trying to balance the budget?

If you take a pay cut at work does it affect your budget?

Banyon, banyon, banyon....did you really just say that?

Let's put this in proper perspective...if we create more jobs we have more tax revenue. It's that simple.

banyon
08-06-2011, 05:52 PM
Banyon, banyon, banyon....did you really just say that?

Let's put this in proper perspective...if we create more jobs we have more tax revenue. It's that simple.

Did the Bush tax cuts create jobs?

Okie_Apparition
08-06-2011, 06:02 PM
Dear Teabaggers, You slopeheaded serf minded asswipes. Do the world a favor and eat a bullet.

FYP

petegz28
08-06-2011, 06:05 PM
Did the Bush tax cuts create jobs?

After the surge in unemployment from 9/11 yes, unemployment went down until late in the Bush Admin years. We went from 6.2% in July of 03 to 4.4% in Dec. of 06. So I'd say they didn't hurt.

Calcountry
08-06-2011, 06:06 PM
Reagan, Bush1, Tip O'Neill, LBJ, Barney Frank, GWB, Obama, Pelosi, Boehner, and pretty much every other Washington DC politician from at least 1980 to today.

Happy?Nixon took us off the Gold Standard. You forgot him.

Calcountry
08-06-2011, 06:07 PM
I remember when a good democrat-voting friend of mine lost his job under Clinton and then got a new, better job just after Bush took office. It doesn't mean anything, but it was a fun coincidence. :)Yep, just because I took a shit, and stink followed, does not necessarily mean that the stink was CAUSED by the feces.

vailpass
08-06-2011, 06:14 PM
Seriously, what is it with you?

"A black man hit sthe white house and our credit goes bad."
Said it before and I'll say it again, there is a comedy routine here. Chris Rock or one of the good ones will pick it up one day.

Calcountry
08-06-2011, 06:18 PM
There's a difference between jokes and a continually racist poster.I guess that depends on the color of the joke tellers skin, doesn't it?

vailpass
08-06-2011, 06:18 PM
I guess that depends on the color of the joke tellers skin, doesn't it?

Native thinks being anti-illegal alien = racist.

Bill Parcells
08-06-2011, 06:24 PM
Get a black guy in the White House and out credit goes to hell.

ROFL

Anybody who thinks this is racist is an idiot. hes only speaking the truth, and it obviously hurts.

patteeu
08-06-2011, 06:47 PM
"A black man hit sthe white house and our credit goes bad."
Said it before and I'll say it again, there is a comedy routine here. Chris Rock or one of the good ones will pick it up one day.

|Zach| thought you were serious.

RaiderH8r
08-06-2011, 06:51 PM
Seriously, what is it with you?

I think they're still paying the phone bill up there though so that's good.:p

Dylan
08-06-2011, 07:29 PM
Who gives a fuck about the ratings agencies? They played a large role in the crisis and rated garbage paper AAA because they were paid to. They shouldn't even exist anymore.

Daddy said:



China blasts US 'debt addiction' and calls for new global stable reserve currency
By Alastair Jamieson

8:45AM BST 06 Aug 2011

China has condemned the United States for its "debt addiction" and called for a new global stable reserve currency after Standard & Poor's cut its credit rating.


In a harshly-worded commentary by the official Xinhua news agency, China gave its first official comments on the United States losing its gilded AAA long-term credit rating.


"China, the largest creditor of the world's sole superpower, has every right now to demand the United States address its structural debt problems and ensure the safety of China's dollar assets," Xinhua said.


China also urged the United States to apply "common sense" to "cure its addiction to debts" by cutting military and social welfare expenditure.


"The US government has to come to terms with the painful fact that the good old days when it could just borrow its way out of messes of its own making are finally gone," Xinhua wrote.


China also said further credit downgrades would very likely undermine the world economic recovery and trigger fresh rounds of financial turmoil.

"International supervision over the issue of US dollars should be introduced and a new, stable and secured global reserve currency may also be an option to avert a catastrophe caused by any single country," Xinhua said.

The United States this week narrowly avoided a debt default after politicians from both parties hammered out a deal to raise the national debt ceiling.

Chinese economists said the US credit rating downgrade posed a great risk to financial markets and they expected it to prompt China, the world's biggest holder of US Treasuries, to accelerate the diversification of its holdings.

S&P cut the United States' rating to AA-plus on concerns over the government's budget deficits and rising debt burden. The move is likely to raise borrowing costs eventually for the US government, companies and consumers.

"There would be chaos in international financial markets at least in the short term. The most direct impact for China would be the hit on its reserves. The value of China's dollar investments will fall and the shrinking effect may be great," said Li Jie, a director at the Reserves Research Institute at the Central University of Finance and Economics.

Earlier this week, China had urged Washington to act responsibly to deal with its debt issues, saying uncertainty in the U.S. Treasuries market will undermine the global monetary system and hamper global growth.

Beijing has repeatedly urged Washington to protect its dollar investments, estimated by analysts to account for about two-thirds of its $3.2 trillion in foreign exchange reserves, the world's largest.

"China will be forced to consider other investments for its reserves. US Treasuries aren't as safe anymore. There is a class of assets out there that are more risky than AAA, but less risky than AA+. China didn't consider these investments before, but now it would be forced to do so," Li said.

Elsewhere, the Philippines said the S&P rating cut should push Washington to address its economic problems.

"In a way, it's a wake up call for the US to begin to seriously address its economic issues," said presidential spokesman Ricky Carandang.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8685655/China-blasts-US-debt-addiction-and-calls-for-new-global-stable-reserve-currency.html



Who has time for reality?

RINGLEADER
08-06-2011, 07:50 PM
While something like that could bring in additional revenues, you want to give these nutbags more of our money? Yeah cause they are soo good at keeping their greedy hands off of Social Security monies as well....It would just be another piggy bank for them to rob.

When has our government ever stopped a tax that they inserted.

It's not a revenue problem. They take in a ton of money every effing month. Stop wasting it on bullshit like grants seeing what happens when rats are given cocaine.

And they need to get serious about all the social programs we have, scale them waaaaay back.

No, I don't trust them. Which is why it would only be used to bridge the entitlements and to then pay down debt. And it would only be enforced when the freeze in spending to revenues is enacted (thereby eliminating it from the general fund).

mlyonsd
08-06-2011, 09:35 PM
No, I don't trust them. Which is why it would only be used to bridge the entitlements and to then pay down debt. And it would only be enforced when the freeze in spending to revenues is enacted (thereby eliminating it from the general fund).I called for that long ago but it fell on deaf ears.

Every American needs to help pay off our debt. No exceptions. Period.

The fact neither party will not address that issue is telling. I have no problem paying more in taxes if it goes towards our debt.

Chiefshrink
08-06-2011, 09:45 PM
"A black man hit sthe white house and our credit goes bad."
Said it before and I'll say it again, there is a comedy routine here. Chris Rock or one of the good ones will pick it up one day.

Rock already insuated this somewhat in a routine just after his election. It goes something like this:

"*igger better not "f**k this up" or America(all the whiteys) will make sure even the kitchen crew,maid staff,maintenance and gardeners will be "*igger free" you can bet on that.

Crowd went wild after that comment.:shake:

banyon
08-07-2011, 11:29 AM
Elsewhere, the Philippines said the S&P rating cut should push Washington to address its economic problems.

Who the hell asked for their opinion? :spock:

Do we need to send MacArthur back there again?

patteeu
08-07-2011, 01:06 PM
Who the hell asked for their opinion? :spock:

Do we need to send MacArthur back there again?

LOL

go bowe
08-07-2011, 02:33 PM
So playing chicken with the the debt leads to a lower rating of the safety of the debt. Shocking.

well, dave...

it certainly is shocking...

i mean, who would have thought?

Silock
08-07-2011, 02:44 PM
<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/SgNLTb58K_Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BucEyedPea
08-08-2011, 07:57 AM
Says the rating should be even lower. The lowered rating is too late. I happen to agree.
<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/SgNLTb58K_Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

petegz28
08-08-2011, 08:05 AM
well, dave...

it certainly is shocking...

i mean, who would have thought?

Yes, that is what caused it. Not the adding of $7 tril to our deficit over the next 10 years.

Silock
08-08-2011, 12:50 PM
Says the rating should be even lower. The lowered rating is too late. I happen to agree.


Read the thread before posting?

Jaric
08-08-2011, 06:45 PM
God help me, I agree with Communist China.

BucEyedPea
08-08-2011, 06:55 PM
Read the thread before posting?

Yup last week. Then I just came in posted this without seeing your post with the same Shiff You Tube until after I posted it. I still say we should have been downgraded earlier.