djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233 
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2011 23:07:21 GMT -5
S&P lowered the debt rating becuase the plan passed by congress fell short of reducing our debt... i totally agree. however, they said in an earlier opinion that they were looking for something on the order of $4T in debt reduction. the ONLY compromise that had that in it was the "grand compromise". again, what part of my syllogism was incorrect, PI? so here is the syllogism: the original grand compromise was supported by the Senate and Obama. S&P stated that it would have also avoided a downgrade, both BEFORE and AFTER it was done. the House did not support it. |
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 5, 2011 23:10:39 GMT -5
S&P lowered the debt rating becuase the plan passed by congress fell short of reducing our debt... i totally agree. however, they said in an earlier opinion that they were looking for something on the order of $4T in debt reduction. the ONLY compromise that had that in it was the "grand compromise". again, what part of my syllogism was incorrect, PI? so here is the syllogism: the original grand compromise was supported by the Senate and Obama. S&P stated that it would have also avoided a downgrade, both BEFORE and AFTER it was done. the House did not support it. Basically what S&P is trying to say is that the act just signed by Obama is a farce or a joke so deal with it by blaming the repubs which is silly IMHO |
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Aug 5, 2011 23:14:25 GMT -5
...well, the numbers forced the issue about the debt ceiling that isn't really true, though. the debt ceiling has been raised 87 times since WW2 without scarcely an issue. again- who made it an issue this time? this is not a "gotcha moment". i think it is the GOP- specifically the Tea Party that brought this fight on. and i think that most of them are proud of that fact. and, in fact, i don't think it is anything to be ashamed of. however, in the S&P opinion, they cited this intransigence as a reason for the downgrade. ...and we'll have to agree to disagree here... the numbers don't lie... we've been approaching this brick wall for decades, and all the times we raised the limit before this week only served to give the numbers more room to crunch us against said brick wall... imo... ...that we would cite the staunch opposition to raising the debt limit is one reasons to downgrade... yes... agree with that... but to give that reasons more weight than the many others involved, is not going to fly with me... I question their agenda... ...now, if s&p sends out a top 100 reasons tv show like vh1's lost 80s bands, then we can debate their reasoning for why they ranked things the way they did... maybe we can suggest they do that?  ...but hey, I'm just one opinion...  |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2011 23:16:36 GMT -5
that isn't really true, though. the debt ceiling has been raised 87 times since WW2 without scarcely an issue. again- who made it an issue this time? this is not a "gotcha moment". i think it is the GOP- specifically the Tea Party that brought this fight on. and i think that most of them are proud of that fact. and, in fact, i don't think it is anything to be ashamed of. however, in the S&P opinion, they cited this intransigence as a reason for the downgrade. ...and we'll have to agree to disagree here... about what? you think that the GOP is ashamed that they had a no tax pledge? you think that the Tea Party favored raising the debt ceiling? i am not following what we disagree on. |
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 5, 2011 23:17:10 GMT -5
would suggest you hold your praise until you read the opinion by S&P, which far from placing the blame on Pelosi, placed it squarely on Republicans:
If you want to believe that nonsense then OK but you are wrong IMHO
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2011 23:17:49 GMT -5
i totally agree. however, they said in an earlier opinion that they were looking for something on the order of $4T in debt reduction. the ONLY compromise that had that in it was the "grand compromise". again, what part of my syllogism was incorrect, PI? so here is the syllogism: the original grand compromise was supported by the Senate and Obama. S&P stated that it would have also avoided a downgrade, both BEFORE and AFTER it was done. the House did not support it. Basically what S&P is trying to say is that the act just signed by Obama is a farce or a joke so deal with it by blaming the repubs which is silly IMHO i agree, again. can you please just tell me what, if anything i have wrong here? the original grand compromise was supported by the Senate and Obama. S&P stated that it would have also avoided a downgrade, both BEFORE and AFTER it (the downgrade) was done. the House did not support it (the grand compromise). |
|
WannabeWealthy
Established Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 12:25:17 GMT -5
Posts: 357
|
Post by WannabeWealthy on Aug 5, 2011 23:21:56 GMT -5
Sorry about your loss Value Buy that is a stiff drop but don't panick yet. Give it a week and the market most likely will recover. Paitience Patience Patience is the word of the day. ;D Not likely.. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2011 23:23:58 GMT -5
would suggest you hold your praise until you read the opinion by S&P, which far from placing the blame on Pelosi, placed it squarely (aka specifically)* on Republicans:*edit by djlungrot for clarity If you want to believe that nonsense then OK but you are wrong IMHO cool. so where did S&P mention Pelosi specifically in their statement about the downgrade? while you are at it, where did they mention Obama specifically? |
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Aug 5, 2011 23:25:50 GMT -5
...and we'll have to agree to disagree here... about what? you think that the GOP is ashamed that they had a no tax pledge? you think that the Tea Party favored raising the debt ceiling? i am not following what we disagree on. ...I don't think the GOP members should be ashamed of a no tax pledge... I don't think the Tea Party members favored a ceiling increase... I don't think either of them "forced" this issue, per se... nor do I think the Democrats "forced" this issue, per se... I think the debt ceiling issue was an inevitable outcome simply because we reached a $ threshold that was a tipping point, of sorts, akin to a brick wall... that's what I mean by saying "the numbers forced the issue" these past weeks... ...again, I'm sure I'm not explaining it as well as the resident economists do... but it is my opinion... |
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 5, 2011 23:26:03 GMT -5
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 issued late Friday, after financial markets were closed for the week.
Blame Obama this happened on his watch
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2011 23:27:10 GMT -5
about what? you think that the GOP is ashamed that they had a no tax pledge? you think that the Tea Party favored raising the debt ceiling? i am not following what we disagree on. ...I don't think the GOP members should be ashamed of a no tax pledge... I don't think the Tea Party members favored a ceiling increase... I don't think either of them "forced" this issue well, i have trouble following that logic, unless you think that this disagreement did not lead to the empasse. |
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 5, 2011 23:28:08 GMT -5
would suggest you hold your praise until you read the opinion by S&P, which far from placing the blame on Pelosi, placed it squarely (aka specifically)* on Republicans:*edit by djlungrot for clarity If you want to believe that nonsense then OK but you are wrong IMHO cool. so where did S&P mention Pelosi specifically in their statement about the downgrade? while you are at it, where did they mention Obama specifically? I don't have a clue what you are talking about |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2011 23:28:35 GMT -5
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 issued late Friday, after financial markets were closed for the week.Blame Obama this happened on his watch so, should i blame Bush for 911? after all, it happened on his watch. |
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 5, 2011 23:29:38 GMT -5
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 issued late Friday, after financial markets were closed for the week.Blame Obama this happened on his watch so, should i blame Bush for 911? after all, it happened on his watch. C'ya This rating downgrade should be something worth discussing and not this nonsense |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2011 23:30:39 GMT -5
cool. so where did S&P mention Pelosi specifically in their statement about the downgrade? while you are at it, where did they mention Obama specifically? I don't have a clue what you are talking about i am asking whether Obama or Pelosi was mentioned specifically in this opinion: www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563the answer is NO. in other words, S&P saw a solution that did not involve Pelosi or Obama. so did i. if the American public doesn't, they deserve the quagmire they are stuck in. |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,516
|
Post by billisonboard on Aug 5, 2011 23:32:21 GMT -5
fwiw, I blame the (Reagan) Democrats.
|
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 5, 2011 23:33:26 GMT -5
fwiw, I blame the (Reagan) Democrats. What else is new?? |
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Aug 5, 2011 23:34:21 GMT -5
...I don't think the GOP members should be ashamed of a no tax pledge... I don't think the Tea Party members favored a ceiling increase... I don't think either of them "forced" this issue well, i have trouble following that logic, unless you think that this disagreement did not lead to the empasse. ...well, you only quoted a portion of what I said... so, what part of my opinion do you take issue with? ...although you certainly don't have to tell me... but maybe you have info that could influence my take on the matter? |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2011 23:36:25 GMT -5
so, should i blame Bush for 911? after all, it happened on his watch. C'ya i am just using your logic, PI. sorry that you don't like having it confronted. the fact that Obama was president does not make him responsible. in fact, honestly, i was pretty sure that there would be no compromise. i stated that on the board. you saw it. the fact that there was a compromise was a marvelous achievement, imo. but given the fact that it was a failure, there will be plenty of blame to go around. the original $4T grand compromise would have satisfied S&P. it was rejected out of hand by Cantor and the Tea Party. that left us with this shitty compromise, which S&P, you, and i all feel is lame. saying that the fight did not start with the Tea Party is ludicrous. it absolutely did. there has been much crowing about it on this board. and there has been just as much about forcing the default. ALL of it has been foolish. and it will be very....very.....costly. the thing about divided government is that it does not lend itself well to idealogues. it lends itself ONLY to compromise. it is too bad that everyone will have to pay for the inability of certain individuals to "go there". |
|
WannabeWealthy
Established Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 12:25:17 GMT -5
Posts: 357
|
Post by WannabeWealthy on Aug 5, 2011 23:38:02 GMT -5
djlungrot,
I can't believe you are 3 pages into arguing with these goofs. They will NEVER admit what's written in a document about the Repubs because they are tea partiers themselves! Why argue? They are NOT factual debaters but BIASED debaters!
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 5, 2011 23:39:26 GMT -5
i am just using your logic, PI. sorry that you don't like having it confronted. the fact that Obama was president does not make him responsible. in fact, honestly, i was pretty sure that there would be no compromise. i stated that on the board. you saw it. the fact that there was a compromise was a marvelous achievement, imo. but given the fact that it was a failure, there will be plenty of blame to go around. the original $4T grand compromise would have satisfied S&P. it was rejected out of hand by Cantor and the Tea Party. that left us with this shitty compromise, which S&P, you, and i all feel is lame. saying that the fight did not start with the Tea Party is ludicrous. it absolutely did. there has been much crowing about it on this board. and there has been just as much about forcing the default. ALL of it has been foolish. and it will be very....very.....costly. the thing about divided government is that it does not lend itself well to idealogues. it lends itself ONLY to compromise. it is too bad that everyone will have to pay for the inability of certain individuals to "go there". You need to re read this comment and think about it 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," |
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 5, 2011 23:41:44 GMT -5
djlungrot, I can't believe you are 3 pages into arguing with these goofs. They will NEVER admit what's written in a document about the Repubs because they are tea partiers themselves! Why argue? They are NOT factual debaters but BIASED debaters! -M Have you read the S&P Statement??? Basically it says both congress and the admininstration fell short of dealing with our debt so that is why the rating was downgraded.....how is that BIASED it is merely what they stated nothing more and nothing less |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2011 23:45:15 GMT -5
well, i have trouble following that logic, unless you think that this disagreement did not lead to the empasse. ...well, you only quoted a portion of what I said... so, what part of my opinion do you take issue with? ...although you certainly don't have to tell me... but maybe you have info that could influence my take on the matter? the first part of your reply answered my question, Been. i didn't need to go further..... i think that the Tea Party forced this issue, and it is simple logic that gets me there. the president wasn't asking for the debt ceiling to be made an issue. Democrats certainly weren't. they would be just as happy seeing the debt ceiling rise endlessly, as everyone agrees. and, in fact, the mainstream GOP didn't have a major issue raising it, either. the early negotiations clearly indicated that to me. so it was the Tea Party that stood in the way of a clean debt ceiling bill, and in the way of most of the compromises on this issue, and that is most certainly their prerogative (or, if you listen to them, their "patriotic duty"). i think you are saying that the debt itself forced this issue, but that is clearly NOT true, either. it was raised $2T less than two years ago, with little fuss, just as has been done for the last (87) times. there is nothing magical about the $14T number. the USA won't fold tomorrow if it becomes $15T or $16T. this brinksmanship was just as unneccessary and politically motiviated as the lack of compromise on the part of Democrats and Republicans on key issues. but make not mistake. the Democrats clearly did NOT want this fight. and it ended in a downgrade. those are the facts. |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,516
|
Post by billisonboard on Aug 5, 2011 23:46:12 GMT -5
fwiw, I blame the (Reagan) Democrats. What else is new?? At least I am consistent. ;D  Do do that Voodoo that you do so well |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2011 23:47:27 GMT -5
i am just using your logic, PI. sorry that you don't like having it confronted. the fact that Obama was president does not make him responsible. in fact, honestly, i was pretty sure that there would be no compromise. i stated that on the board. you saw it. the fact that there was a compromise was a marvelous achievement, imo. but given the fact that it was a failure, there will be plenty of blame to go around. the original $4T grand compromise would have satisfied S&P. it was rejected out of hand by Cantor and the Tea Party. that left us with this shitty compromise, which S&P, you, and i all feel is lame. saying that the fight did not start with the Tea Party is ludicrous. it absolutely did. there has been much crowing about it on this board. and there has been just as much about forcing the default. ALL of it has been foolish. and it will be very....very.....costly. the thing about divided government is that it does not lend itself well to idealogues. it lends itself ONLY to compromise. it is too bad that everyone will have to pay for the inability of certain individuals to "go there". You need to re read this comment and think about it 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," i read that, PI. but this bill was not what Obama wanted, and you know it. he wanted the "grand compromise". and my position (you are welcome to contest this, if you wish) after reading the S&P opinion is that ONLY the grand compromise would have satisfied S&P. for the record, i don't blame Bush for 911, ok? just to be clear. i was using it as a rhetorical argument, not a position statement. PS- when i searched the document, i used "president" and "obama". i did NOT use "administration". so i apologize for forgetting the remark you quoted. |
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 5, 2011 23:48:05 GMT -5
At least I am consistent.
Wrong again you usually blame Reagan for just about everything that has gone wrong for the past few years ....try to be more consistent if you want to wear that new label....but it doesn't fit...
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,516
|
Post by billisonboard on Aug 5, 2011 23:51:52 GMT -5
At least I am consistent. Wrong again you usually blame Reagan for just about everything that has gone wrong for the past few years ....try to be more consistent if you want to wear that new label....but it doesn't fit... I blame the people who elected Reagan, for without them we never would have had the man in office. |
|
diamonds
Senior Member
Not as Tame as I Look!!
Joined: Feb 8, 2011 11:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 3,522
|
Post by diamonds on Aug 5, 2011 23:53:10 GMT -5
djlungrot, I can't believe you are 3 pages into arguing with these goofs. They will NEVER admit what's written in a document about the Repubs because they are tea partiers themselves! Why argue? They are NOT factual debaters but BIASED debaters! -M Oh please, after P.I. copied and pasted verbatum. Geez, it did happen on Obama's watch and there was really no rush as a few more days of discussion could have been hammered out a better deal. One that Obama didn't read and yet vetod. It's obvious he follows in the steps of Pelosi's advice as it was obvious with the passage of Obama Care. That piece of crap should have been repealed. And what about the tax-cheat Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury who was supposed to use part of the Stimulus package for job creation? I'm not getting into more, but our country has lost respect around the world for the lack of handling our problems in a sane and responsible way. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2011 23:53:28 GMT -5
PI- for the record, i respect that you never make this stuff personal, and i would appreciate it if you would not take it too personally. this is all about ideas for me, and i have no desire to "get your goat". i am sincerely interested in the subject- in the debate. and, for the record, i am not here to change your mind, either. i am here to change the minds of those that have not already made them up.
|
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 5, 2011 23:54:29 GMT -5
I think what we should all be discussing is what will this downgrade by the S&P mean to our economy?? All the other nonsensical sfuff on this thread misses that point IMHO....will this downgrade effect jobs??? will this effect the markets??? will this cause the S&P to downgrade their rating again if the congress faills to act again???
|
|
