Worst congress ever!

[whateverdude]

Corporate tax cuts, loosen regulations, close tax loop holes, open up more drilling, kill the health care bill, cut defense waste and entitlements reform. This is the only way to cut debt and keep the economy afloat without taxing the crap out of us which will not work anyways. S&P David Beers on fox news Sunday when ask if we need revenue or entitlements cuts or both to stop the downgrading only addressed the need for entitlement cuts and would not answer the revenue increases part of the question. Check it out as soon as the video comes out.

Edited August 7, 2011 by whateverdude

[KD in CA]

The U.S. government lost its AAA credit rating for the first time in history late Friday.....

 

 

On Obama's watch. Nice legacy.

[Magox]

Corporate tax cuts, loosen regulations, close tax loop holes, open up more drilling, kill the health care bill, cut defense waste and entitlements reform. This is the only way to cut debt and keep the economy afloat without taxing the crap out of us which will not work anyways. S&P David Beers on fox news Sunday when ask if we need revenue or entitlements cuts or both to stop the downgrading only addressed the need for entitlement cuts and would not answer the revenue increases part of the question. Check it out as soon as the video comes out.

The Bush tax cuts fall on the wrong side of the Laffer curve. Even in the years of housing bubble boom economy, the single largest driver of our debt during that time period were....*drum roll please*

 

 

The Bush Tax cuts.

[birdog1960]

youtube.com/watch?v=VjcGcAXFaoI

did anybody but the liberals here even listen to this guy? sure appears there's some selctive hearing loss. this guy is head of sovereign ratings for s&p. should we be listening to his words or your biased interpretations? there's really not a lot of ambiguity in what he said. it IS about the acrimony in gov't. it is about ignoring simpson-bowles which included major tax increases as well as entitleement reform.

 

Keep in mind that S&P rated many of the companies requiring bailout with the onset of the first recession, AAA. their objectivity should be viewed with great skepticism. nevertheless, misreprennting their publicly stated reasons for the downgrade helps no one.

 

That's for three main reasons, one, Canadians dont have that innate sense of consumerism as Americans do, so you guys dont so heavily indebted from a personal household level. Two, your government doesn't have an incessant desire for homeownership as we do here, so the subsidies and tax credits are considerably less, not to mention that the banks practice prudence much more so than us, with their higher reserve ratios. In short it means that they deal with alot less leverage than we do. And three, you guys produce a !@#$ load of commodities, so yeah, you guys are currently rolling in it.

yet, they maintain a socialized medical system that's way cheaper than ours on a per capita basis. coincidence?

[Magox]

did anybody but the liberals here even listen to this guy? sure appears there's some selctive hearing loss. this guy is head of sovereign ratings for s&p. should we be listening to his words or your biased interpretations? there's really not a lot of ambiguity in what he said. it IS about the acrimony in gov't. it is about ignoring simpson-bowles which included major tax increases as well as entitleement reform.

 

Keep in mind that S&P rated many of the companies requiring bailout with the onset of the first recession, AAA. their objectivity should be viewed with great skepticism. nevertheless, misreprennting their publicly stated reasons for the downgrade helps no one.

 

 

yet, they maintain a socialized medical system that's way cheaper than ours on a per capita basis. coincidence?

I understand Birdog that your ability to comprehend things at times can be a bit challenging but here goes:

 

The downgrade wasn't because of the bickering, it's because the plan that congress and the Obama admistration signed into law was insufficient in the eyes of the ratings agency.

 

Let's face it, the Repubs won't increase any taxes (which is what will HAVE to happen once the economy gets on firmer footing) and the Dem's will only repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, which makes up a very small portion of the Bush tax cuts. Plus the libs won't seriously address the the entitlement programs, which is a must.

 

 

Before you say anything else, make sure you know what you're talkin bout mkaaay?

[birdog1960]

I understand Birdog that your ability to comprehend things at times can be a bit challenging but here goes:

 

 

 

 

Before you say anything else, make sure you know what you're talkin bout mkaaay?

it's generally considered customary to actually cite a source for a quotation. my source is the video that was linked watch it and tell me then that i am the one misrepresenting what he said. do your ears work less well than your eyes? perhaps you should study lip reading.

Edited August 7, 2011 by birdog1960

[whateverdude]

The government is simply not responsible with our tax money. The Bush tax cuts have very little to do with our situation. The problem is spending. the Social Security Trust Fund took in more revenue through payroll taxes leveraged on Baby Boomers than it needed. Ideally, this money should have been invested to be available when the Boomers retire. In reality, the Fund was "loaned" to the government to finance increased deficit spending. This interest-free loan helped keep Treasury Bond interest rates low, allowing more debt financing. However, it's not really a loan, since it can only be repaid by increased taxes when the Boomers do retire. Cut first tax later

[birdog1960]

The government is simply not responsible with our tax money. The Bush tax cuts have very little to do with our situation. The problem is spending. the Social Security Trust Fund took in more revenue through payroll taxes leveraged on Baby Boomers than it needed. Ideally, this money should have been invested to be available when the Boomers retire. In reality, the Fund was "loaned" to the government to finance increased deficit spending. This interest-free loan helped keep Treasury Bond interest rates low, allowing more debt financing. However, it's not really a loan, since it can only be repaid by increased taxes when the Boomers do retire. Cut first tax later

think about what the country will like like in the wake of the necessary cuts without simultaneous tax increases to acheive a balanced budget. much weaker schools,hospitals, universities, social services of all types, parks, infrastructure, not to mention impoverished and undertreated sick and elderly. a significantly downsized military. what about the employment rate when a significant number of gov't jobs are cut? i like jerry brown's approach in california: institute austerity in lieu of tax increases and wait for people to get fed up. are you really ready for an america that looks nothing like what you've known your entire life? that's what you're asking for.

[UConn James]

did anybody but the liberals here even listen to this guy? sure appears there's some selctive hearing loss. this guy is head of sovereign ratings for s&p. should we be listening to his words or your biased interpretations? there's really not a lot of ambiguity in what he said. it IS about the acrimony in gov't. it is about ignoring simpson-bowles which included major tax increases as well as entitleement reform.

 

If acrimony w/in a government were anything more than, say, 5% of a reason for a credit downgrade, England would have had a FFF- rating since 1066.

 

The reason for the downgrade is because:

 

1) We're ing broke.

2) The federal government is continuing to spend more than it takes in and its version of a credit card (borrowing from China) is maxing out.

3) Alexis de Tocqueville's point about democracy* c. 1840 was pin-point accurate.

4) It's going to take major austerity to get through this.

5) Few of the current pols will even admit to No. 4.

 

* - "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."

 

When do we start getting foreign aid and debt forgiveness?

[birdog1960]

If acrimony w/in a government were anything more than, say, 5% of a reason for a credit downgrade, England would have had a FFF- rating since 1066.

 

The reason for the downgrade is because:

 

1) We're ing broke.

2) The federal government is continuing to spend more than it takes in and its version of a credit card (borrowing from China) is maxing out.

3) Alexis de Tocqueville's point about democracy* c. 1840 was pin-point accurate.

4) It's going to take major austerity to get through this.

5) Few of the current pols will even admit to No. 4.

 

* - "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."

 

When do we start getting foreign aid and debt forgiveness?

so what was the head of sovereign rating at s&p talking about? do you not accept that he had significant input into the decision to downgrade? or do you just know better....thought so.

[....lybob]

so what was the head of sovereign rating at s&p talking about? do you not accept that he had significant input into the decision to downgrade? or do you just know better....thought so.

Hey Birdog what's cracking me up about this is when the ratings agencies screwed up so bad on mortgage backed securities I said they were either corrupt and should go to jail or they were incompetent and should be fired- but the financial press was defending the rating agencies all over the place- now that S&P downgrades the US a lot of financial commentators are saying- paraphrasing "S&P ? why would anyone put any stock in what they say, what do they know, they were giving securities and companies AAA+ ratings minutes before they became worthless" all these financial pundits can turn on a dime and pretend whatever they are saying now is what they been saying forever- and no one calls them on it and the public is treated as if they do not have a functioning memory.

[birdog1960]

Hey Birdog what's cracking me up about this is when the ratings agencies screwed up so bad on mortgage backed securities I said they were either corrupt and should go to jail or they were incompetent and should be fired- but the financial press was defending the rating agencies all over the place- now that S&P downgrades the US a lot of financial commentators are saying- paraphrasing "S&P ? why would anyone put any stock in what they say, what do they know, they were giving securities and companies AAA+ ratings minutes before they became worthless" all these financial pundits can turn on a dime and pretend whatever they are saying now is what they been saying forever- and no one calls them on it and the public is treated as if they do not have a functioning memory.

totally agree but i would add that it's not only memories that are weak but also the ability to comprehend straightforward statements especially when they don't agree with ones beliefs. when this happens, the memories will necessarily be incorrect.

[....lybob]

totally agree but i would add that it's not only memories that are weak but also the ability to comprehend straightforward statements especially when they don't agree with ones beliefs. when this happens, the memories will necessarily be incorrect.

So funny because it's so true.

[Magox]

it's generally considered customary to actually cite a source for a quotation. my source is the video that was linked watch it and tell me then that i am the one misrepresenting what he said. do your ears work less well than your eyes? perhaps you should study lip reading.

No silly, that's what I had posted earlier.

 

so what was the head of sovereign rating at s&p talking about? do you not accept that he had significant input into the decision to downgrade? or do you just know better....thought so.

Are you really this stupid? I mean really, do you honestly believe that the reason why we were downgraded was because of bickering from congress?

 

We had been on negative credit watch going all the way back since April, why? Because of our debt, the outlook of the economy and spending and our ability to generate revenues.

 

The reason for the downgrade was the W.H's and congress's ability to effectively have a plan to reduce the debt to their satisfaction. They are banking on gridlock, that's pretty much what they are saying. It's time to take your partisan goggles off and see things for how they really are.

 

 

 

 

I mean seriously, you guys just gotta stop

 

Oh and Whatever, I didn't say that the Bush tax cuts are the reason why we are in the shape we are, the point that I am making genius is that the Bush tax cuts fall on the wrong side of the Laffer curve. Meaning, that the cuts in tax rates are so deep, even in a bubble boom economy that we had in the mid 2000's, with all those revenues that came in the Bush tax cuts was a significant source to adding to the debt. I'm not saying repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy (because that doesnt even make up 25% of the total Bush tax cuts), I am saying repeal it for everyone once the economy gets on sound footing.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Magox

[birdog1960]

No silly, that's what I had posted earlier.

so you're quoting yourself, a noted authority. did i miss you on the talk shows this am?

 

Are you really this stupid? I mean really, do you honestly believe that the reason why we were downgraded was because of bickering from congress?

 

no, i think spending like drunken sailors and not collecting enough revenue to cover it for years has much to do with it as well, but he specifically cited the willingness to take this dangerous issue to the brink.

 

We had been on negative credit watch going all the way back since April, why? Because of our debt, the outlook of the economy and spending and our ability to generate revenues.

 

The reason for the downgrade was the W.H's and congress's ability to effectively have a plan to reduce the debt to their satisfaction. They are banking on gridlock, that's pretty much what they are saying. It's time to take your partisan goggles off and see things for how they really are.

 

so, you're therefore speculating that the s&p head was either lying or just plain wrong about one of the major reasons he gave for downgrading our credit rating ("brinksmanship", not separating the debt limit from politics. taking it to within 10 hours of default). alternatively, you just know better than he does, why he did it...yeah that's it

 

btw, listen to greenspan on meet the press today. this will be solved by enactment of the bowles/simpson recommendations in good measure. he predicts 1 statesman from either side of the commission will be brave/wise enough to compromise and make it happen. he also said short term debt is not the problem and that T bills remain the safest investment in the world (and buffett said he'd give them AAAA rating if he could). we should all pray greenspan is right

Edited August 8, 2011 by birdog1960

[GG]

Hey Birdog what's cracking me up about this is when the ratings agencies screwed up so bad on mortgage backed securities I said they were either corrupt and should go to jail or they were incompetent and should be fired- but the financial press was defending the rating agencies all over the place- ..

 

Exactly when & which financial press were defending the rating agencies?

[Magox]

 

It's like what I say goes right over your head.

 

First off I quoted my statement to show you that What I had said is what the ratings agencies had said it is that we need to do to effectively help solve our problem. But you missed that, and I'm not surprised, because you see what you want to see.

 

And I did see Greenspan today on Meet the Press and if you noticed what he stated, he cited an IMF report/study that shows that cuts are a much better way of addressing the debt than raising taxes. That the study showed that cuts in government spending slow down economies more so than tax increases. Did you catch that? I specially loved the part of Goolsbee's reaction to that when Greenspan said that

 

Anyway you are arguing against nothing. Again, for the third time, S&P had put the U.S on negative watch going back in April. The Bickering isn't the cause for the downgrade, the reason for the downgrade is for the reasons I stated up above. The reason why they cited the bickering was to illustrate the skepticism they have that US lawmakers will be able to come to an effective debt reduction plan. Are you guys really not able to see that? You honestly believe that an argument over the debt ceiling is the main cause of the downgrade? You honestly believe that? Yes, it was the spark, but it wasnt the cause. Come on now.

 

Like I said, it's time to take the partisan goggles off here and have an adult conversation.

 

The right won't raise taxes (which is a must), and the left won't specify or go far enough in addressing entitlements. It's a tug of war, and you guys, not just the lefties but the hard right are a part of the problem, because you guys fuel the fire, you guys are the base of your respective parties. We need more voices of reason to solve this problem.

 

Again, lets not be stupid or partisan ok? The bickering is a symptom of the problem, it isn't the core of the problem. Can we agree with that?

[birdog1960]

Exactly when & which financial press were defending the rating agencies?

yeah, that's the major issue here there seems to be no shortage of publications taking their decision to downgrade the US credit rating seriously. haven't seen much mention of their failings in the last crisis from the conservative side. if they were so roundly dismissed by the financial press why do they hold any credibility in this matter?

[Magox]

yeah, that's the major issue here there seems to be no shortage of publications taking their decision to downgrade the US credit rating seriously. haven't seen much mention of their failings in the last crisis from the conservative side. if they were so roundly dismissed by the financial press why do they hold any credibility in this matter?

There you go again, being a partisan shill. It's not a matter of credibility as much as it is a matter of reality. That's the way the system works, the ratings agencies have tremendous power because they grade bonds and those ratings have consequences. It is definitely a flawed system simply because of their own personal interest they have in gaining more business. It is something that needs to be reformed, but definitely something that shouldnt be controlled by the government as well. I don't know how exactly, but the system is deeply flawed.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

The Asian markets are already pointing to a huge market sell off.