Worst congress ever!

[birdog1960]

 

 

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.

 

no, you blithely dismissed a major part of the s&p statement and continue to dismiss it.who is seeing what they 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

 

yes, i saw it. the study actually showed the converse of what you said according to greenspan. if it showed what you stated, then increasing taxes would be preferred to cutting expenses according to this solitary study.. goolsbee vehemently disagreed with this premise. regardless, you have previously stated your opinion on the need for both spending cuts and revenue increases and i have consistently agreed. whoever is correct regarding the validity of the study findings, neither explicitly rejected this conclusion (that both cuts and revenue increases are needed) and goolsbee explicitly supported it

 

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.no argument there. but it is a very real and major concern. and continued obstructionism is a key element there is no good reason to believe it will disappear anytime soon

 

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

 

We need more voices of reason to solve this problem.this, i totally agree with. kerry and mccain were reasonable today (both ready for both cuts and revenue increases). one can only hope they're named to the commission.

 

Edited August 8, 2011 by birdog1960

[Magox]

I did not dismiss their comment, I happened to interpret it differently than you have. You seem to believe that they factored in heavily the downgrade because of how close to the deadline it reached. I don't see it that way, I believe it was an indictment of the disfunction they see in Government. Meaning that they don't believe that we can effectively come up with a plausible solution to the crisis. That is why they waited until after the debt deal to see what it is that they passed, and once they saw that it was a meager debt deal and they saw all the partisan rancor and rhetoric from both sides, they made the downgrade. Honestly, again, it's foolish to believe that our problems have to do with the bickering, it's the will of the politicians in having to make the tough decisions that is getting in the way of real progress.

 

The base is strong in both parties, and unfortunately people like Olberman, Hannity, Maddow and Limbaugh are the ones that mobilize their base and the talking points. We see it here parroted all the time even on this message board. I mean right on cue, what is said at night is repeated right here.

 

If we want to solve this debt crisis, politicians have to stop pandering to the base. Sheeple will be sheeple, that's just a sad reality, it's gonna take REAL courage from our politicians to do what's best for the country, not for their party.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

I did not dismiss their comment, I happened to interpret it differently than you have. You seem to believe that they factored in heavily the downgrade because of how close to the deadline it reached. I don't see it that way, I believe it was an indictment of the disfunction they see in Government. Meaning that they don't believe that we can effectively come up with a plausible solution to the crisis. That is why they waited until after the debt deal to see what it is that they passed, and once they saw that it was a meager debt deal and they saw all the partisan rancor and rhetoric from both sides, they made the downgrade. Honestly, again, it's foolish to believe that our problems have to do with the bickering, it's the will of the politicians in having to make the tough decisions that is getting in the way of real progress.

 

The base is strong in both parties, and unfortunately people like Olberman, Hannity, Maddow and Limbaugh are the ones that mobilize their base and the talking points. We see it here parroted all the time even on this message board. I mean right on cue, what is said at night is repeated right here.

 

If we want to solve this debt crisis, politicians have to stop pandering to the base. Sheeple will be sheeple, that's just a sad reality, it's gonna take REAL courage from our politicians to do what's best for the country, not for their party.

We don't know that, it looked like Obama and Bohner had a deal that the tea party had an anal swirl reaction to that killed it

[....lybob]

I did not dismiss their comment, I happened to interpret it differently than you have. You seem to believe that they factored in heavily the downgrade because of how close to the deadline it reached. I don't see it that way, I believe it was an indictment of the disfunction they see in Government. Meaning that they don't believe that we can effectively come up with a plausible solution to the crisis. That is why they waited until after the debt deal to see what it is that they passed, and once they saw that it was a meager debt deal and they saw all the partisan rancor and rhetoric from both sides, they made the downgrade. Honestly, again, it's foolish to believe that our problems have to do with the bickering, it's the will of the politicians in having to make the tough decisions that is getting in the way of real progress.

 

The base is strong in both parties, and unfortunately people like Olberman, Hannity, Maddow and Limbaugh are the ones that mobilize their base and the talking points. We see it here parroted all the time even on this message board. I mean right on cue, what is said at night is repeated right here.

 

If we want to solve this debt crisis, politicians have to stop pandering to the base. Sheeple will be sheeple, that's just a sad reality, it's gonna take REAL courage from our politicians to do what's best for the country, not for their party.

The worst thing was when all those progressives took a binding pledge never to cut entitlements or social spending of any kind under any circumstance in fact they pledged only to increase entitlements and social spending under pains of having a super lib organization doing everything in its power to replace said progressive with an even more extremely progressive candidate.

[Magox]

We don't know that, it looked like Obama and Bohner had a deal that the tea party had an anal swirl reaction to that killed it

You see, this is what I'm talking about. No, both bases killed the deal. There was an agreement that was made and the far left got all crazy that one day, and then Obama came back in the next day and raised the revenues from $800B to $1.2 Trillion and that killed the deal. So please, it's both parties, stop pretending that the dysfunction comes from one party.

[birdog1960]

I did not dismiss their comment, I happened to interpret it differently than you have. You seem to believe that they factored in heavily the downgrade because of how close to the deadline it reached. I don't see it that way, I believe it was an indictment of the disfunction they see in Government. Meaning that they don't believe that we can effectively come up with a plausible solution to the crisis. That is why they waited until after the debt deal to see what it is that they passed, and once they saw that it was a meager debt deal and they saw all the partisan rancor and rhetoric from both sides, they made the downgrade. Honestly, again, it's foolish to believe that our problems have to do with the bickering, it's the will of the politicians in having to make the tough decisions that is getting in the way of real progress.

 

The base is strong in both parties, and unfortunately people like Olberman, Hannity, Maddow and Limbaugh are the ones that mobilize their base and the talking points. We see it here parroted all the time even on this message board. I mean right on cue, what is said at night is repeated right here.

 

If we want to solve this debt crisis, politicians have to stop pandering to the base. Sheeple will be sheeple, that's just a sad reality, it's gonna take REAL courage from our politicians to do what's best for the country, not for their party.

agree with everything above except the degree that the dysfunction played in the decision. s&p clearly stated it as the first reason mentioned. it does however appear we are arguing semantics. unfortunately, this political gamesmanship has real consequences and is substantive in the differencs of opinion. it has certainly changed my plans. i was looking at buying some real estate and have now backed off. wonder how many other folks are doing the same. just what we needed to help move things along.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

You see, this is what I'm talking about. No, both bases killed the deal. There was an agreement that was made and the far left got all crazy that one day, and then Obama came back in the next day and raised the revenues from $800B to $1.2 Trillion and that killed the deal. So please, it's both parties, stop pretending that the dysfunction comes from one party.

Still, the Democrats were being reasonable with that deal, and it would have helped the situation and th tea party scuttled it

[/dev/null]

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

 

I caught Greenspan on MTP today and I wanted to just about bash my head against the wall when he offered up this nugget of joyfulness:

 

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that."

 

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

I caught Greenspan on MTP today and I wanted to just about bash my head against the wall when he offered up this nugget of joyfulness:

 

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that."

 

So?

[Magox]

I caught Greenspan on MTP today and I wanted to just about bash my head against the wall when he offered up this nugget of joyfulness:

 

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that."

 

It's true though, we won't default because we have the power of the printing presses, which is why I said that we wouldnt default when everyone was saying that we could. Also today Bill Miller from Legg Mason, one of the best money managers on the planet echoed that same sentiment today when he was being interviewed by Chris Wallace, that the US couldnt default simply because we have the power of the printing presses. A little info on Bill Miller, he has outperformed the S&P 500 for 15 consecutive years, in other words, the guy knows his ****.

[GG]

A little info on Bill Miller, he has outperformed the S&P 500 for 15 consecutive years, in other words, the guy knows his ****.

 

Sure about that one?

[Magox]

Sure about that one?

The Legg Mason Capital Management Value Trust's after-fee return beat the S&P 500 index for 15 consecutive years from 1991 through 2005 (consistently producing market beating returns is considered to be very unlikely according to the efficient market hypothesis).

 

Should of used the word had.

[GG]

Should of used the word had.

 

A yup.

 

It's a what have you done for me lately world.

[birdog1960]

I did not dismiss their comment, I happened to interpret it differently than you have. You seem to believe that they factored in heavily the downgrade because of how close to the deadline it reached. I don't see it that way, I believe it was an indictment of the disfunction they see in Government. Meaning that they don't believe that we can effectively come up with a plausible solution to the crisis. That is why they waited until after the debt deal to see what it is that they passed, and once they saw that it was a meager debt deal and they saw all the partisan rancor and rhetoric from both sides, they made the downgrade. Honestly, again, it's foolish to believe that our problems have to do with the bickering, it's the will of the politicians in having to make the tough decisions that is getting in the way of real progress.

 

ya know, i reread this paragraph this am and it's schizophrenic. you're talking out both sides of your mouth. you "don't see it that way" despite the fact that the s&p said it exactly that way and you go on to say that "it was an indictment of the dysfunction" while at the same time arguing that that indictment wasn't important to the decision.

 

the semantics matter...it's the difference of the tea party being equally or mostly liable for the downgrade happening friday. if they gain instead of lose support as they deserve, the game is likely over for the american economy. and as ...lybob said, it's not the progressives that signed a stonewall pledge that excludes any chance of reasonable compromise. the discussion is necessarily poartisan since the issues and positions are so clearly partisan.

[Magox]

ya know, i reread this paragraph this am and it's schizophrenic. you're talking out both sides of your mouth. you "don't see it that way" despite the fact that the s&p said it exactly that way and you go on to say that "it was an indictment of the dysfunction" while at the same time arguing that that indictment wasn't important to the decision.

 

the semantics matter...it's the difference of the tea party being equally or mostly liable for the downgrade happening friday. if they gain instead of lose support as they deserve, the game is likely over for the american economy. and as ...lybob said, it's not the progressives that signed a stonewall pledge that excludes any chance of reasonable compromise. the discussion is necessarily poartisan since the issues and positions are so clearly partisan.

We're just at a stalemate here. You're just unable to see things objectively, you can try to blame just one party all you like, but the reality is that the dysfunction lies on both sides of the aisle, they both at one point or another scuttled the deal, and that is a fact. The reason for the downgrade was simple, S&P just doesn't believe we can come up with a sufficient enough debt deal to lower our debt outlook.

 

But there lies a greater problem than all this, and that is the economy, the economy is so poor now that revenues are going to be far less than what the White House and most economists had anticipated and that is going to keep our credit outlook on negative with a bias to the downside.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Magox

[Magox]

Btw, you guys catch what Ken Rogoff said about the Downgrade? I consider him and Rheinhardt probably two of the most respected economists when it comes to studies on of Sovereign debt, basically in short he says that the U.S absolutely deserves the downgrade, and it mainly has to do with our debt and our inability to pay the debt. Said that the rest of the ratings agencies are behind the curve. I can't believe we are even having this discussion.

[Magox]

“I think S&P has demonstrated some spine; they finally got it right,” Gross, who has been critical of Treasuries for months, said in a Bloomberg Television interview with Tom Keene yesterday. The U.S. has “enormous problems,” he said, referring to the country’s mounting debt.

 

 

 

Gross said if the U.S. wants to revive the economy by using government spending, it needs to target investment, not consumption.

“We need to become more productive as a global exporter,” Gross said.

 

Couldn't agree more, this is a point I've been hammering away at my clients and here on this board for a couple years now. Notice how he specifies exports, which is something that I believe the Obama administration needs to work first and foremost. The point that I have made is we need to cater to where there is growth, because when you look at things here domestically, there are virtually very little prospects for added demand, unless of course the government implements short-term stimulus measures to boost the economy, which will do very little to help our long-term problems.

[Gary M]

The U.S. government lost its AAA credit rating for the first time in history late Friday, when ratings agency Standard & Poors said the way of doing business in Washington has become so dysfunctional that its analysts have lost confidence in national leaders' ability to craft fiscal policy.

"The political brinkmanship 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," Standard & Poors said Friday.

 

 

Great job tea party!

http://www.cnbc.com/id/44039103

 

"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," S&P said in a statement.

 

"On Aug. 2, President Barack Obama signed legislation designed to reduce the fiscal deficit by $2.1 trillion over 10 years. But that was well short of the $4 trillion in savings S&P had called for as a good "down payment" on fixing America's finances."

 

Considering that less spending and a balanced budget is what the TEA Party wants, S & P seems to agree to agree with the "terrorists" that "held the country hostage".

[Magox]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/44039103

 

"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," S&P said in a statement.

 

That's the crux of the problem, which is what I've been trying to get through to the partisan hard heads. The bickering is just the symptom of our debt issues.

 

"On Aug. 2, President Barack Obama signed legislation designed to reduce the fiscal deficit by $2.1 trillion over 10 years. But that was well short of the $4 trillion in savings S&P had called for as a good "down payment" on fixing America's finances."

 

Considering that less spending and a balanced budget is what the TEA Party wants, S & P seems to agree to agree with the "terrorists" that "held the country hostage".

 

But where you and the Tea Party are getting it partially wrong is that there has to be more tax revenues, it has to be part of the mix, and their unwillingness to compromise on this issue is hurting the country.

 

 

 

 

Birdog, to answer your question whether it was Moody's or S&P that placed the US on negative credit outlook, it was both

 

"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," the statement continues.

 

In their report, S&P said the $2.7 trillion deficit reduction deal reached by Republicans and Democrats last week to avoid a default did not go far enough in addressing the long-term problem, and said the “difficulties in bridging the gulf” between the two political parties make them pessimistic about the ability to “stabilize the government’s debt dynamics” in the short-term.

 

And is this not what I said? That they determined that the deal did not suffice their concerns over our debt and their skepticism that US lawmakers could strike a deal. I know you won't own up to it, but there it is.

 

Rationale

We lowered our long-term rating on the US 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.

 

Gary, the S&P has also cited a more balanced approach to reducing the debt which includes raising revenues, which means tax increases. So you can't cite the report to back up your claim without acknowledging their call for more revenue increases.

 

And to the left leaning crowd of this board, I also might add that they used the word especially when it came to not coming to a deal on entitlements. This will be the largest source of our debt moving forward if we don't address it some time soon.

 

When Democrats end up demagoguing Conservatives during this next debt debate or even more importantly for the upcoming elections, about taking away Grandma's medicare and S.S, which all rational people know will make it more difficult to come to a real compromise, will you guys criticize your own party for this sort of irresponsible behavior as well? I doubt it

[Gary M]

 

Gary, the S&P has also cited a more balanced approach to reducing the debt which includes raising revenues, which means tax increases. So you can't cite the report to back up your claim without acknowledging their call for more revenue increases.

 

And I agree to a point, the cuts and entitlement reform must come first and they have to be actual cuts (not reduced increases).