reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Aug 6, 2011 14:21:06 GMT -5
Whether it is needing revenue increase or cutting spending, I don't see our government efficiently doing either. They have been talking about both for years and obviously we see the outcome. I don't really care that they are more aware of the subject now or that it is more dangerous, they simply don't have the ability. If we cut or raise revenue through taxing the rich, both will end up hurting the economy why do you think they keep on kicking it down the line. The politicians know we are going to hurt big time no matter what we do, they just don't want to be the ones to do it because they think they will be cut off from the tit.
|
|
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 6, 2011 14:52:20 GMT -5
>>>You also have several US companies with AAA ratings which is higher than the United States......what a shame for our government to let this happen...now will investors shun our debt?? This is a crisis of leadership IMHO and we deserve better<<<<
This will go down in history as Obama's legacy. From the getko, he was a disaster. The first thing he did was sign to have Gitmo closed. Didn't happen. Next, his 2700 page health bill, that we objected to. He alone, owns the consistent negative downfall of our revered country. I don't see how we can ever recoup at such a low point. He never had the good of the people in their best interest. In hindsignt, it's a shame Hillary didn't get the nomination as she obviously has more respect and experience in the arena. Staggering how much damage the wrong person can do in such a short period of time.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Aug 6, 2011 14:56:05 GMT -5
CORRECTION TO EARLIER POSTS: i incorrectly stated earlier that Japan had a AAA rating. it doesn't. it is AA-, which is below where the US is currently. that makes sense if you consider that they have a debt ratio of 2.25 and a generation of stagnant economy. however, i was correct in my statement that several countries with higher debt ratios than the US have AAA ratings. they are Germany, France and Singapore. Singapore is actually significantly more indebted than the US, at over 100% of GDP. this would correspond to roughly $20T in debt by US standards. You also have several US companies with AAA ratings which is higher than the United States......what a shame for our government to let this happen...now will investors shun our debt?? This is a crisis of leadership IMHO and we deserve better The way I heard it..investors follow the return, and if because our rating is lower, the interest paid on say treasures is higher..and they still feel it is safe, this argument that went on really was a p contest between the two forces.. they will invest here..especially if they feel this will not be allowed to happen again..and the return is higher.
|
|
zipity
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 0:32:17 GMT -5
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by zipity on Aug 6, 2011 16:33:47 GMT -5
What does a downgrade have to do with the Republicans??? Both parties voted for the so called debt reduction bill that Moody & S&P looked at and still decided to give the Treasury a AA rating instead of a AAA...blaming the repubs makes about as much sense as blaming Bush which you also liked to do but that old dog wont hunt Zippity so come up with a new one
How many times does this have to be explained to you? The issue was increasing the debt ceiling to pay for spending THAT WAS ALREADY APPROVED AND SPENT. The debt ceiling should have passed through on a clean bill. Every argument that took place in the run up to Aug. 2nd should have taken place over the budget WHICH is due on September 30th and still hasn't been written. How dumb do people have to be to believe that threating to default on the nation's debt was a good idea? If you're thinking "as dumb as a freshman republican member of the tea party" you're right. If you can't understand that then trying to explain the damage done to this country by your idol Bush is simply beyond you. You don't cut taxes, start an unnecessary war, bungle a necessary war and increase spending without doing extreme damage to the country. The effects of Clinton's stupidity didn't end when Bush was elected OR did you forget about 9/11, certainly you wouldn't be suggesting that Bush was responsible for 9/11 your talking points aren't that deep, so why do you think Bush is absolved of all his stupidity just because his term ran out?
Or is is because you still miss Pelsosi as the Speaker of the House pushing her Liberal agenda throught congress??
Put up or shut up, find me one quote I have ever made where I said something nice about Pelosi. Throwing around the name 'pelosi' and the word 'liberal' is the sign of a weak mind when it's all you've got. You should try do avoid doing it as regularly as you do. which slammed the nation’s political process and said lawmakers failed to cut spending enough to reduce record deficits.
They failed to manage the debt, that means spending cuts AND tax increases. Now let me see, which party was against tax increases? Oh yea the brain dead republican freshman elected by the tea party. Even the idiotic Cut, Cap and Balance was massively flawed. If you cap spending at 18% (assuming you get to 18%) AND you refuse to raise taxes above 14.5%, what do you do with the extra 3.5%? Borrow!!! Face it, CC&B was dumb AND dead from the start.
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Aug 6, 2011 16:59:27 GMT -5
verrip: ... the "grand compromise" that was proposed on July 6th (?) was about the ONLY measure that had any chance of passing by both S&P AND Obama (and, incidentally, contained concessions on medicare). why it wasn't really even debated is beyond me. Just going by recollection, I seem to remember that the cuts were very heavily weighted to years even beyond the ten years of the projected cuts in the final debt ceiling deal. I tried several google searches and cannot find the details of that proposal. I only found general news stories that it hit the $4T mark. Do you have a link to the details of that? $4T out many years reminds me of something a friend told me years and years ago. At the time I thought it rather obvious and simplistic. I'm not sure a lot of people would get it today. He said, "You name the price, and I'll name the terms, and I'll beat you every time." Maybe he stole the quote from somebody else, but it was the first I had heard it. Point being that hitting the $4T mark might not have been enough to convince S&P not to downgrade if there were other Ts&Cs which made the total dollar amount less acceptable to them. On the S&P opinion, they went far too easy on the lousy final deal reached. It's really like two hands full of warming jello. It was the deal that wasn't a deal at all. I have absolutely no faith that the cuts will actually occur in the time frames noted and I have absolutely no faith that the Select Committee will succeed at anything whatsoever. The only thing of which I am confident is that the ceiling increases in that deal will occur, however, that will be regardless of whether the conditions are actually met. I don't think any but a few will have the balls to stand up and call 'bullshit' - and they will be ignored. Pretty cynical, huh? You more optimistic?
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Aug 6, 2011 17:15:05 GMT -5
The government was warned more than once over a period of time. It seems the President and both sides of Congress decided to call S&P's bluff and lost. It is obvious they are not good poker players. It is not like it was a big surprise. the S&P gave them a target to aim for and they totally ignored it. You cannot fault the S&P for that. People say mortgage rates will go up from 3.49% to maybe 4% heck in 1960 when I bought my first house the interest rate was 6.5% and 8% to buy a car.
|
|
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 6, 2011 19:41:23 GMT -5
verrip: ... the "grand compromise" that was proposed on July 6th (?) was about the ONLY measure that had any chance of passing by both S&P AND Obama (and, incidentally, contained concessions on medicare). why it wasn't really even debated is beyond me. Just going by recollection, I seem to remember that the cuts were very heavily weighted to years even beyond the ten years of the projected cuts in the final debt ceiling deal. I tried several google searches and cannot find the details of that proposal. I only found general news stories that it hit the $4T mark. Do you have a link to the details of that? i have this: www.defendmydividend.org/article.jsf?postId=3235i remember the sequence. Boehner and Obama met on the 6th and 7th, then Boehner walked out on Friday, and would not return calls. Obama then proposed "one of three options", the $4T deal, a $2T deal, and just letting him raise the debt ceiling with no strings attached. on Sunday, he was replaced by Cantor. what apparently happened during that time is that Cantor talked to the TP'ers and could not convince them to go along with the tax increases. so the whole thing collapsed. i have read this account in at least a dozen different places, including the NROnline, so i have little doubt it is accurate. it also makes perfect sense given what happened afterwards. NOTE: the original proposal contained major concessions on entitlements.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Aug 6, 2011 19:51:59 GMT -5
The government was warned more than once over a period of time. It seems the President and both sides of Congress decided to call S&P's bluff and lost. It is obvious they are not good poker players. It is not like it was a big surprise. the S&P gave them a target to aim for and they totally ignored it. You cannot fault the S&P for that. People say mortgage rates will go up from 3.49% to maybe 4% heck in 1960 when I bought my first house the interest rate was 6.5% and 8% to buy a car. I purchased my first home in that area of time, $13,500 and yep a 6 % rate.., put down I think $2500 or so, can't remember exact ..would think average mortgages now are at a level I can't even contemplate from my experiences..so a increas of say 1/2 % might just be the back breaker or close for some..just a thought.
|
|
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 6, 2011 20:10:24 GMT -5
The government was warned more than once over a period of time. It seems the President and both sides of Congress decided to call S&P's bluff and lost. i don't think the president had any choice, other than attempting to override the debt ceiling using untested authority. the ONLY compromise that would have met S&P's criteria was rejected before it was even drafted into legislation. but yes, clearly the idiots in congress felt that it was OK to call S&P's bluff. they have no sympathy from me.
|
|
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 6, 2011 20:12:25 GMT -5
It is not like it was a big surprise. the S&P gave them a target to aim for and they totally ignored it. You cannot fault the S&P for that. People say mortgage rates will go up from 3.49% to maybe 4% heck in 1960 when I bought my first house the interest rate was 6.5% and 8% to buy a car. i have heard 0.6% to 1.0%, which would put them back to where they were a year ago. no biggie. for now. the bigger deal is if the same thing happens to $14.4T of debt. you do the math.
|
|
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 6, 2011 21:43:39 GMT -5
>>>>On the S&P opinion, they went far too easy on the lousy final deal reached. It's really like two hands full of warming jello. It was the deal that wasn't a deal at all. I have absolutely no faith that the cuts will actually occur in the time frames noted and I have absolutely no faith that the Select Committee will succeed at anything whatsoever. The only thing of which I am confident is that the ceiling increases in that deal will occur, however, that will be regardless of whether the conditions are actually met. I don't think any but a few will have the balls to stand up and call 'bullshit' - and they will be ignored. Pretty cynical, huh? You more optimistic? <<<< Not cynical, more of a realist. Also after taking so much time dithering about the "bad deal", was also taken into consideration by S&P. .
|
|
ungenteel
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 20:26:26 GMT -5
Posts: 560
|
Post by ungenteel on Aug 6, 2011 22:31:46 GMT -5
righties ... wring your hands if you must ... don't you geddit??? what toasted this country was corporate America moving manufacturing to Asia. The only thing that creates wealth (needed to retire debt) is value added activities (manufacturing, agriculture, construction, mining, etc). Construction is in the toilet and far too large of a percentage of manufacturing has been moved to other countries.
Henry Ford had the wisdom to realize that he needed to pay his workers a good wage, so that they could buy the products he was selling. Current corporate chieftains basically threw down the gauntlet to American workers and, in essence, told them that there would be no jobs if they weren't willing to work for Asian wages
|
|
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 7, 2011 0:03:29 GMT -5
Sure we geddit!!! My friend in Chicago has worked for a medical firm that makes radioactive beads that are used for testicular cancer. It is an established company and does business worldwide. Just talked with him and the orders have not let up. Now, my friend is not college educated, but a friend gave him a lead and he was hired, which as the old adage goes, "it's who you know, not what you know". Isn't that obvious in the Obama Administration? He's surrounded himself with his Chicago type thugs, however they were not equipped for the job as my friend is. He owns a Porsche, Vintage Mustang and a 3rd car and his house is almost paid off. The stocks have maintained their strength overall. So, stop with the negative garbage as that's all it is.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 7, 2011 7:13:50 GMT -5
What does a downgrade have to do with the Republicans??? Both parties voted for the so called debt reduction bill that Moody & S&P looked at and still decided to give the Treasury a AA rating instead of a AAA...blaming the repubs makes about as much sense as blaming Bush which you also liked to do but that old dog wont hunt Zippity so come up with a new oneHow many times does this have to be explained to you? The issue was increasing the debt ceiling to pay for spending THAT WAS ALREADY APPROVED AND SPENT. The debt ceiling should have passed through on a clean bill. Every argument that took place in the run up to Aug. 2nd should have taken place over the budget WHICH is due on September 30th and still hasn't been written. How dumb do people have to be to believe that threating to default on the nation's debt was a good idea? If you're thinking "as dumb as a freshman republican member of the tea party" you're right. If you can't understand that then trying to explain the damage done to this country by your idol Bush is simply beyond you. You don't cut taxes, start an unnecessary war, bungle a necessary war and increase spending without doing extreme damage to the country. The effects of Clinton's stupidity didn't end when Bush was elected OR did you forget about 9/11, certainly you wouldn't be suggesting that Bush was responsible for 9/11 your talking points aren't that deep, so why do you think Bush is absolved of all his stupidity just because his term ran out? Or is is because you still miss Pelsosi as the Speaker of the House pushing her Liberal agenda throught congress??Put up or shut up, find me one quote I have ever made where I said something nice about Pelosi. Throwing around the name 'pelosi' and the word 'liberal' is the sign of a weak mind when it's all you've got. You should try do avoid doing it as regularly as you do. which slammed the nation’s political process and said lawmakers failed to cut spending enough to reduce record deficits.They failed to manage the debt, that means spending cuts AND tax increases. Now let me see, which party was against tax increases? Oh yea the brain dead republican freshman elected by the tea party. Even the idiotic Cut, Cap and Balance was massively flawed. If you cap spending at 18% (assuming you get to 18%) AND you refuse to raise taxes above 14.5%, what do you do with the extra 3.5%? Borrow!!! Face it, CC&B was dumb AND dead from the start. I suggest you read John Chamber's statement that explains why the S&P downgraded the nation's debt. You are just playing the blame game again which is not factual. Raising the debt celing without any debt reduction which was pushed by your Liberal hero Congresswoman Barbara Lee is exactly what S&P warned the congress NOT to do for several months.... If you want to blame someone then blame your other hero Obama because he ignored the Simpson/Boiles committee recommendations to cut spending by @$4 Trillion over the next ten years. Obama establlished this debt committee and then just ignored what they suggested he do to manage our debt BTW the Liberals like Pelosi and Lee said Social Security and Medicare would be off the table. Boehner said Republicans have learned their lesson from out-of-control spending in Washington for decades.
"The spending binge has resulted in job-destroying economic uncertainty and now threatens to send destructive ripple effects across our credit markets, Boehner said.
"Republicans have listened to the voices of the American people and worked to bring the spending binge to a halt," Boehner said. "We are no longer debating how much to spend, but rather how much to cut. Unfortunately, decades of reckless spending cannot be reversed immediately, especially when the Democrats who run Washington remain unwilling to make the tough choices required to put America on solid ground." "The administration and Democrats in Congress had sought an increase in the debt limit without any spending cuts or reforms. Republicans made clear the American people would not tolerate that and fought for the largest spending cuts possible. With the Budget Control Act, we made a positive first step toward reducing the debt, but much more must be done.
"As S&P noted, reforming and preserving our entitlement programs is the 'key to long-term fiscal sustainability,' " Boehner said.www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44043408/ns/politics/
|
|
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 7, 2011 8:58:46 GMT -5
Boehner said Republicans have learned their lesson from out-of-control spending in Washington for decades."The spending binge has resulted in job-destroying economic uncertainty and now threatens to send destructive ripple effects across our credit markets, Boehner said.
if that were true today, it would be true in 1949, as well.
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Aug 7, 2011 11:17:33 GMT -5
dj:
I read your link to the July 6 wire service blurb about a $4T proposal. I got no additional hits when I googled its title and various edits of the title. I went to the White House website and found nothing about such a proposal under Statements and Releases or on the Press Briefing that day.
I'm starting to wonder just what form this 'proposal' ever took. It doesn't seem to be documented by the principals involved, and the press coverage is quite sketchy and poorly sourced.
I remember hearing about it, but I'm not convinced at this time that there ever was a defined plan on the table. Is this some sort of beltway legend about a brainstormed idea that never received serious definition by either side? I'm not sure. But I'm starting to find it hard to take seriously in retrospect.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 7, 2011 16:26:15 GMT -5
Standard and Poor's (S&P) lowered its long-term credit rating on the United States to AA+ from AAA late Friday evening. At the same time, it affirmed the A-1+ short-term rating and removed both ratings from credit watch, but held the long-term outlook as negative. This means that another downgrade is possible within the next two years if there is less deficit reduction than expected or economic or financial conditions change. S&P's rationale for the downgrade was its assessment that the recently negotiated budget agreement fell short of what is needed to stabilize the rising US debt. An additional factor for S&P was the contentious nature of the budget process itself, which has reduced its confidence in the ability of policy makers to address rising US deficits. It's important to remember that a credit rating is an opinion issued by a private organization, not a seal of approval. And S&P is only one of three major rating agencies. The other two--Moody's Investors Service and Fitch Ratings--have not lowered their ratings, although they assigned a negative outlook. Nonetheless, credit ratings do matter. Investors use credit ratings as a standardized way of assessing and comparing the risks of various issuers and securities, just as banks often use credit scores to assess the risk of an individual borrower. It is only one of many metrics that investors use when buying bonds, but it is an important one. While the downgrade by S&P may be potentially disappointing for the markets, we don't believe that it will necessarily cause borrowing costs to rise or that it will have much impact on the real economy in the short run. It is the opinion of one entity, albeit an influential one, but our view is that the impact is likely to be limited. It may cause some erosion in investor confidence in the near term. Of course, if the longer-term budget issues are addressed in a credible way, we would expect confidence to recover. For investors who are concerned about the potential impact of the downgrade, we suggest a few small adjustments to bond portfolios to reduce exposure to riskier sectors of the fixed income market. In stocks, although the downgrade may heighten volatility, we don't see that as a reason to alter portfolios within the context of a long-term strategy and financial plan. Source: www.schwab.com
|
|
zipity
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 0:32:17 GMT -5
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by zipity on Aug 7, 2011 23:00:08 GMT -5
I suggest you read John Chamber's statement that explains why the S&P downgraded the nation's debt.
I did read it but unlike you I actually understood what he was saying. People here have been trying to explain it to you but you just don't want to hear it. The pubs are working for a bunch of brain dead tea party freshmen now, they're not interested in cutting the deficit they're only interested in talking tough and breaking Obama. Unlike the pubs, most Americans have come to grips with the fact that taxes need to be raised and so did the credit agencies. A huge majority of Americans would rather see taxes increase than see cuts in SS or Medicare but the pubs want to destroy Medicare. Pubs aren't interested in the country, they're only interested in pubs.
If you want to blame someone then blame your other hero Obama because he ignored the Simpson/Boiles committee recommendations to cut spending by @$4 Trillion over the next ten years. Obama establlished this debt committee and then just ignored what they suggested he do to manage our debt
Yet it was Boehner who walked away from $3 trillion in cuts and $1 trillion in taxes, that's a $4 trillion cut to the deficit. Unfortunately doing the right thing wasn't the game the pubs wanted to play.
which was pushed by your Liberal hero Congresswoman Barbara Lee BTW the Liberals like Pelosi and Lee said Social Security and Medicare would be off the table
You really need to believe that I'm a democrat don't you? Yet you haven't provided one example of anything I've posted that shows me supporting Pelosi, as you claimed. Very, very weak. I know this isn't what you need to hear but I think the dems focus on jet owners and "rich" people is stupid. Oil companies should be targeted but not just to close loopholes. American's deserve a share of ever drop of oil pulled from federal lands including off shore leases. Bush tax cuts should go away and FICA taxes should be calculated on every penny of income. Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages should be increased by 5 years over the next 50 as should eligibility for all federal pensions. Regarding pensions, anyone with less than 10 years service should have their pension contributions converted to a 401k account. The military budget should be cut until the pentagon can no longer afford bases in Europe, Korea, Japan or Iraq. You can clean up the deficit or cut the debt when all you want to target is public schools, planned parenthood, the EPA and NPR.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Aug 8, 2011 6:50:59 GMT -5
Wow...6 pages of finger pointing. That's 15 minutes of my life wasted.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 8, 2011 7:10:05 GMT -5
did read it but unlike you I actually understood what he was sayingIf you read it then I suggest you read it again so you will know that the reason for the S&P Downgrade was because the nation's debt is not being managed by the congress or the administration..all you are interested in is playing the blame game and insulting those here who think you are wrong again.. Instead of finger pointing and name calling why not let us know what you think needs to be done to fix this problem..... Go for it and forget about all of the negative comments we don't need that today since the stock market is about to sell off becuase of this debt crisis and who cares who you think is to blame for this mess. Standard and Poor's managing director John Chambers defended his agency's controversial decision to downgrade the credit rating of the United States from AAA, saying "it could take awhile" for the U.S. to recover its higher rating because of "political gridlock" in Washington. "We've been saying for some time that the fiscal trajectory of the United States was on a bad path," Chambers said in an interview with "This Week" anchor Christiane Amanpour. Chambers, who serves as chairman of Standard & Poor's sovereign ratings committee, said it may be years before the U.S. recovers its AAA rating, citing examples of countries that took nine to 18 years to get their ratings upgraded after having their credit-worthiness lowered. "If history is our guide, it could take awhile," Chambers said. "The political gridlock in Washington leads us to conclude that policymakers don't have the ability to put the public finances of the U.S. on a sustainable footing." On Friday, S&P lowered the United States rating on long-term U.S. debt from a pristine AAA rating to a tier lower, AA+. This is the first time in 70 years that U.S. Treasury debt has not been AAA. Soon after the downgrade was announced, controversy arose after reports showed that S&P overstated the U.S. debt by $2 trillion. ABC News Standard & Poor's Managing Director, John... View Full Size ABC News Standard & Poor's Managing Director, John Chambers is interviewed on "This Week." S&P Downgrade Blasted by Treasury Sec'y Geithner Watch Video Interview with Gov. Martin O'Malley and Sen. Jeff Sessions Watch Video Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley said he disagreed with the S&P downgrade because of their miscalculation. "I don't think it's justified in terms of when you look at the math here. They made a $2 trillion mistake. The other rating agencies did not downgrade the U.S. debt because they did not make that $2 trillion mistake," said O'Malley, who is also the chairman of the Democratic Governors Association. Despite the recent budget deal to cut spending by at least $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years, Chambers said that there still remains pessimism and uncertainty about Washington's ability to address the debt crisis. As a part of the recent budget deal, a bipartisan "super committee" will be formed to tackle the debt crisis. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, says he is confident that the committee will be able to broker an agreement. "I do believe that committee can function and be successful in the limited goal we've given them," Sessions said. But Sessions questioned whether the current proposals being discussed will make large enough long-term reductions to the deficit to satisfy S&P. "S&P is saying it's not enough. It's only about $2 trillion, a little over, when we're going to increase our debt in the next ten years $13 trillion," Sessions said. "So that's why they're concerned. Even the plan is insufficient if successful." Sessions emphasized the need to cut spending over raising revenues to reach a final agreement on deficit reduction. "We've got a problem, and we've got to bring that spending down, not increase the burden on the private sector," Sessions said. But O'Malley disagreed, saying that a combination of spending cuts and raising tax revenues would be required to balance the budget. "We need a balanced approach, and the extremism, the Tea Party obstructionism here in Washington, is keeping us from restoring that balanced approach that America's always used," O'Malley said. Chambers said that the lack of agreement among policy makers over how to address growing deficits was a major factor in lowering the United States rating. "I think as time passes people will come to see that the United States' credit standing is really not quite the same level as the ones that we rate AAA," Chambers said. More from ABC News WH Advisor: No Budget Deal Reached Yet PIMCO CEO: Debt Deal Only Short-Term Relief Geithner: Obama, Boehner Resume Talks on Comprehensive Deal S&P Downgrade Blasted by Treasury Sec'y Geithner Interview with Gov. Martin O'Malley and Sen. Jeff Sessions More Video » From Around the Web 50% unemployment, 90% stock market drop, 100% inflation. See the Evidence (Newsmax.com) 16 Early Signs of Pregnancy (Parenting.com) G-20 nations ready for action to stabilize markets (MarketWatch.com) ECB should cut rates to zero: Roubini (MarketWatch.com) 5 Concepts to Teach Kids for Improved Money Management (Coupon Shoe Box) [What's This?]EmailPrintShareComment & ContributeDo you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News. View All Comments (15)rbth3 7:21 AM EDT Aug 08, 2011The hatred between Democrats and Republicans is now so great, both sides would happily see America destroyed, as long as they could put the blame on the other party. WAKE UP, AMERICA!rbth3 7:17 AM EDT Aug 08, 2011Republicans and Democrats both held out to the last minute trying to gain political points instead of watching out for the good of the nation. They should have reached a reasonable compromise in a reasonable time, then fought it out politically in the next election. This is incredibly BAD for our nation. Both parties are willing to let the country go down the tubes if it will make the other party look bad. Unless we stop all the political bickering, we are in serious trouble.show lessbianchishark 2:35 AM EDT Aug 08, 2011silence the Tea Party? rise Up? sounds a bit undemocratic to me. How about going to your local polling booth and voting them out of office. Isn't that the American way?View All Comments (15) abcnews.go.com/Politics/sps-john-chambers-defends-agency-decision-downgrade-us/story?id=14250108
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Aug 8, 2011 9:43:09 GMT -5
Just for the record, I wanted to reiterate that the downgrade was not factored in. Dow -370 S&P -47. Good day for those people that new to short the heck out of stocks
|
|
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 8, 2011 10:33:50 GMT -5
dj: I read your link to the July 6 wire service blurb about a $4T proposal. I got no additional hits when I googled its title and various edits of the title. I went to the White House website and found nothing about such a proposal under Statements and Releases or on the Press Briefing that day. I'm starting to wonder just what form this 'proposal' ever took. It doesn't seem to be documented by the principals involved, and the press coverage is quite sketchy and poorly sourced. I remember hearing about it, but I'm not convinced at this time that there ever was a defined plan on the table. Is this some sort of beltway legend about a brainstormed idea that never received serious definition by either side? I'm not sure. But I'm starting to find it hard to take seriously in retrospect. as far as i know there was not a detailed proposal. but there was a set of guidelines which match the S&P's guidelines surprisingly well. i don't think it was a coincidence. the S&P was pretty open about what it wanted to see. it is a pity that congress didn't do their homework. but that is more the norm than the exception.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 8, 2011 11:57:58 GMT -5
NEW YORK, Aug 8 (Reuters) - The fallout from Standard & Poor's downgrade of the United States pushed world stocks to their lowest level in nearly a year on Monday and drove investors into the safety of gold and bonds. Strange as it may be, investors sought shelter in the asset that was downgraded -- choosing U.S. government bonds for their liquidity and perception of the high quality of U.S. credit. Investors shunned stocks and commodities, struggling to discern the effects of the downgrade, which could hit various components of the financial sector, from mortgage lenders to municipal issuers and insurers. U.S. stocks lost around 3 percent by late morning and European stocks hit a 2-year low. Wall Street's favored gauge of investor anxiety briefly spiked above 40, a sign investors are afraid of more declines to come. The CBOE Volatility Index <.VIX> was up 18.1 percent to 37.79. MSCI's all-country world stock index <.MIWD00000PUS> dropped 3.3 percent. The index was at its lowest level since September 2010. The sell-off since July 29 has wiped $3.4 trillion off the value of global stocks, the equivalent of Germany's gross domestic product. "Everyone's hair is on fire," said Stephen Massocca, managing director at Wedbush Morgan in San Francisco. The sell-off crowded out any relief from news that the European Central Bank was buying Italian and Spanish government bonds in the latest move to staunch the euro zone debt crisis. For details, see [nLDE7770NM] The downgrade -- and the threats of subsequent moves by S&P or the other ratings agencies -- raise uncertainty as to the credibility of the United States in the global economy and come as investors increasingly worry about another recession. Central to S&P's argument was that the political paralysis in Washington had reached a point where it would be unable to deal with worsening deficits and sagging economic growth. This burdens a stock market already skittish after last week's outbreak of fear. Several major brokerages have in recent days lowered their expectations for economic growth and share appreciation for 2011 and 2012. SEARCH FOR SAFETY Moody's repeated a warning that it could downgrade the United States before 2013 if the fiscal or economic outlook weakened significantly. But it said it saw the potential for a new deal in Washington to cut the budget deficit before then. [ID:nN1E77700L] Investors looking for a safe place to park their money pushed gold to a record high above $1,700 an ounce. The dollar dropped against the Swiss franc and yen, while the euro fell. The euro <EUR=EBS> last traded at $1.4174, near a session low of $1.4150 on trading platform EBS and well off a session peak of $1.44320. The dollar <JPY=EBS> fell 0.8 percent to 77.79 yen and was down 0.5 percent at 0.7635 Swiss franc <CHF=EBS>. The 10-year Treasury note <US10YT=RR> was last up 52/32 in price and yielding 2.38 percent, down from 2.57 percent late on Friday, while the 30-year bond <US30YT=RR> was last trading 84/32 points higher in price and yielding 3.71 percent, down from Friday's close at 3.85 percent. The Dow Jones industrial average <.DJI> fell 295.40 points, or 2.58 percent, at 11,149.21. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index <.SPX> was down 38.68 points, or 3.22 percent, at 1,160.70. The Nasdaq Composite Index <.IXIC> was down 86.49 points, or 3.42 percent, at 2,445.92. European shares <.FTEU3> provisionally closed down 3.4 percent after earlier registering gains on the ECB action. "The sell-off is mainly due to the fear that we will relapse into recession. Many investors have finally realized that the U.S. economy will not grow at 3 percent," said Klaus Wiener, chief economist at Generali Investments, which manages 330 billion euros ($468 billion). "I will attach a one-third probability to a renewed recession, not so much because it is fundamentally inherent in the system, but because the political risk has gone up." (Additional reporting by Chuck Mikolajczak in New York, Blaise Robinson in Paris, Atul Prakash in London; Editing by Dan Grebler) ((leah.schnurr@thomsonreuters.com; +1 646-223-6026; Reuters Messaging: leah.schnurr.thomsonreuters.com@reuters.net)) ((Multimedia versions of Reuters Top News are now available for: * 3000 Xtra: visit topnews.session.rservices.com * BridgeStation: view story .134 For more information on Top News: Keywords: MARKETS GLOBAL/
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Aug 8, 2011 14:30:13 GMT -5
Wow...6 pages of finger pointing. That's 15 minutes of my life wasted. ...oh, you know we love it...
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Aug 9, 2011 0:34:07 GMT -5
dj: I read your link to the July 6 wire service blurb about a $4T proposal. I got no additional hits when I googled its title and various edits of the title. I went to the White House website and found nothing about such a proposal under Statements and Releases or on the Press Briefing that day. I'm starting to wonder just what form this 'proposal' ever took. It doesn't seem to be documented by the principals involved, and the press coverage is quite sketchy and poorly sourced. I remember hearing about it, but I'm not convinced at this time that there ever was a defined plan on the table. Is this some sort of beltway legend about a brainstormed idea that never received serious definition by either side? I'm not sure. But I'm starting to find it hard to take seriously in retrospect. as far as i know there was not a detailed proposal. but there was a set of guidelines which match the S&P's guidelines surprisingly well. i don't think it was a coincidence. the S&P was pretty open about what it wanted to see. it is a pity that congress didn't do their homework. but that is more the norm than the exception. But as to a specific proposal with such conditions, there is no there there. It's not reasonable to criticize people for not discussing a proposal that was never on the table.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Aug 9, 2011 6:39:30 GMT -5
It's not reasonable to criticize people for not discussing a proposal that was never on the table.
Sure it is reasonable. Obama did a stump speech stating what he would like to see in a reduction, stump speeches for 3 days touting what he would do, what he would like to see. He made it sound good, but for some reason he nor the Democratic Senate, nor the Democratic Minority in the house could be bothered to actually draw up and plans, couldn't be bothered to write it down and show anyone, economists, senators or the American people how or what his actual proposal was.
So it's easy to criticize those people who don't blindly take your word for it, they are after all the reason we are in this mess. /sarcasm
|
|
zipity
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 0:32:17 GMT -5
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by zipity on Aug 12, 2011 17:15:31 GMT -5
If you read it then I suggest you read it again so you will know that the reason for the S&P Downgrade was because the nation's debt is not being managed by the congress or the administration..all you are interested in is playing the blame game and insulting those here who think you are wrong again..
"not being managed by the congress or administration"? Exactly what I said in post 153 and as I said then, "managed" means cuts and tax increases, which tea party proposal supported both?
Instead of finger pointing and name calling why not let us know what you think needs to be done to fix this problem.....
Exactly what I did in post 167. I still haven't seen you back up your statement about me supporting Pelosi, I'll take it that your just too ashamed to admit that you were wrong about me supporting her.
|
|
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 12, 2011 19:07:00 GMT -5
as far as i know there was not a detailed proposal. but there was a set of guidelines which match the S&P's guidelines surprisingly well. i don't think it was a coincidence. the S&P was pretty open about what it wanted to see. it is a pity that congress didn't do their homework. but that is more the norm than the exception. But as to a specific proposal with such conditions, there is no there there. It's not reasonable to criticize people for not discussing a proposal that was never on the table. it is not generally the responsibility of a president to offer specific proposals. that is what legislators are for. ie- i can't remember Bush drafting legislation, either. i didn't hold it against him. in fact, as bad as he fucked everything i am kinda glad.
|
|