Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 9, 2011 10:55:08 GMT -5
This is just about the dumbest thing I've ever read here. I guess I can blame Equifax, Experian and Transunion for the downgrade of my credit instead of my overindulgence, over spending and financial irresponsibility. Not dumb at all. If you read the S&P report on the downgrade several times the report mentions the politics involved & how the recent events proved that the US lacks the ability for effective policymaking. Two such quotes: "The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy." "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." If the TP wasn't refusing to negotiate & creating problems in the process, then likely an agreement could have been reached much sooner without all the grandstanding. Part of the reason we were downgraded is because of our current political climate & the TP is a big part of that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 14:52:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2011 11:03:11 GMT -5
If the TP wasn't refusing to negotiate & creating problems in the process, then likely an agreement could have been reached much sooner without all the grandstanding. Part of the reason we were downgraded is because of our current political climate & the TP is a big part of that.
I think the whole reason we were downgraded is that Congress has let spending (& debt) get out of hand & refuses to cut it. The TP is the only party that is forcing Congress to face the debt problems. The fact that the TP has members in congress does include them in the problem (congress is the problem) but the TP members are NOT part of the problem, they are part of the solution & just might be the solution if we could get enough of them in Congress.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 14:52:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2011 11:06:59 GMT -5
I am amazed by the weight those not in the credit field ascribe to the S&P rating. Truth is, the AA+ vs the AAA hardly makes a difference, but it does panic the great unwashed.
If you owe a buck ninety five the difference in interest between a credit rating of AA or AAA couldn't be measured. If you owe 16 Trillion the difference (over the time it takes to pay that off) would buy a small size country. The great unwashed should become the great armed & storm Washington.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 14:52:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2011 11:12:18 GMT -5
MSNBC pundits are blaming the Tea Party for the stock market sell off which is absurd but seems to be gaining favor among the Liberals
P.I. I am constantly just blown away at what the liberals believe & even blown away more that liberal leadership has the gonads to tell them out & out lies & expects them to believe it (& they do).
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Aug 9, 2011 11:14:42 GMT -5
I don't think the Tea Party would know a solution if it hit them in the face. The tea party and the Republicans are the reason for the downgrade - directly - and no 'innocent' cherry picking of their positions (they threw a tantrum like a little child) "The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights". Also the Tea Party loves to act and say idiotic things - no matter how real the underlying problems are. Link to example below. www.care2.com/causes/tea-party-calls-wisconsin-protesters-nazis-on-eve-of-recall-elections.html
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Aug 9, 2011 12:43:22 GMT -5
I don't think the Tea Party would know a solution if it hit them in the face. The tea party and the Republicans are the reason for the downgrade - directly - and no 'innocent' cherry picking of their positions (they threw a tantrum like a little child) "The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights". Also the Tea Party loves to act and say idiotic things - no matter how real the underlying problems are. Link to example below. www.care2.com/causes/tea-party-calls-wisconsin-protesters-nazis-on-eve-of-recall-elections.html...LOL... ...good one...
|
|
Trongersoll
Junior Member
former Software Engineer
Joined: Jul 1, 2011 11:51:53 GMT -5
Posts: 178
|
Post by Trongersoll on Aug 9, 2011 13:14:22 GMT -5
All this talk about TP, so much passion over Toilet Paper.
|
|
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 9, 2011 14:26:24 GMT -5
If the TP wasn't refusing to negotiate & creating problems in the process, then likely an agreement could have been reached much sooner without all the grandstanding. Part of the reason we were downgraded is because of our current political climate & the TP is a big part of that. If the dems in congress were not so ridgid in their demands & creating problems in the process, then likely an agreement could have been reached much sooner without all the grandstanding. But, if it makes you feel better, feel free to ignore the the fact that it always takes two....the "grandstanding" happened because neither side wanted to bend.
|
|
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 9, 2011 14:27:40 GMT -5
If the TP wasn't refusing to negotiate & creating problems in the process, then likely an agreement could have been reached much sooner without all the grandstanding. Part of the reason we were downgraded is because of our current political climate & the TP is a big part of that. If the dems in congress were not so ridgid in their demands & creating problems in the process, then likely an agreement could have been reached much sooner without all the grandstanding. But, if it makes you feel better, feel free to ignore the the fact that the "grand standing" happened because neither side wanted to bend. the Democrats really never got the chance to stand in the way, unless you count CC&B.
|
|
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 9, 2011 14:38:11 GMT -5
the Democrats really never got the chance to stand in the way, unless you count CC&B. Who are you trying to sell that line of bovine excrement to? Repubs control the house, dems control the senate and neither have filibuster proof majorities. Both parties did stand in the way no matter how hard you try to deny it.
|
|
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 9, 2011 14:56:42 GMT -5
the Democrats really never got the chance to stand in the way, unless you count CC&B. Who are you trying to sell that line of bovine excrement to? Repubs control the house, dems control the senate and neither have filibuster proof majorities. Both parties did stand in the way no matter how hard you try to deny it. how hard do you think am i trying?
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Aug 9, 2011 15:28:11 GMT -5
Anyone blaming the Tea Party backed members would presumably have to also blame the Democrats who voted no on this bill or am I missing something? The only ones I saw throwing a fit was the Democrats and the President, who by the way offered no solution of their own. The report from S&P never said the Tea Party members were wrong on their position. As a matter of fact they wanted the what the Tea Party position is. A balanced budget! What they mentioned in their report was the unpredictability and effectiveness of American policy. Now I might not be the sharpest tool in the shed but that sounds like they don't like or have confidence in the leadership in Washington and they don't like the most likely outcome of anything that will get passed in Washington right now. Funny how words can be twisted around to make them mean what you want.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 9, 2011 15:41:49 GMT -5
As a matter of fact they wanted the what the Tea Party position is. A balanced budget! Yes, but unlike the tea party, they aren't opposed to new taxes. That is the hardline the tea party is taking which I think is a huge mistake. We can't balance the budget on spending cuts alone, it just can't happen. Like conservatives keep pointing out - we can't tax enough to get ourselves out of this mess, we also can't cut enough to get ourselves out of this mess. And we really can't balance the budget by cutting taxes like Ryan suggested in his plan.
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Aug 9, 2011 15:55:39 GMT -5
If you owe a buck ninety five the difference in interest between a credit rating of AA or AAA couldn't be measured. If you owe 16 Trillion the difference (over the time it takes to pay that off) would buy a small size country. The great unwashed should become the great armed & storm Washington. oldtex, where did you acquire your credit expertise? There really is very little difference in the ratings. More weight should be given to the payment history than the rating. S&P has even admitted it made mistakes in it's calculation. That is one of the reasons my company never used them. Surely, you are not advocating armed rebellion.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 14:52:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2011 16:59:48 GMT -5
oldtex, where did you acquire your credit expertise?
Many years (like 30) dealing in credit. If there were no difference between AA & AAA then why do they have 2 separate categories? Get real.
There really is very little difference in the ratings. More weight should be given to the payment history than the rating. S&P has even admitted it made mistakes in it's calculation. That is one of the reasons my company never used them.
The way to find out what will actually happen is to watch the interest rate on our next round of borrowing. Then we will see.
Surely, you are not advocating armed rebellion.
I used to think that it might come to it. Now I'm pretty sure that at the very least a few people are going to be killed. It might get a lot worse than I predict. Both the ultra right & ultra left have histories of violet behavior. I would be shocked if no one was murdered & I wouldn't be surprised at armed people taking to the streets (& then a short step to violence). I would choose armed rebellion over some things myself (or I would have to think long & hard before ruling it out).
It seems to me that this country was created by armed rebellion. I believe that there are those that would resort to it again if they felt the country was in danger. To rule it out would be foolish.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 10, 2011 9:25:20 GMT -5
When Obama came before the cameras Friday to say that "any solution to avoid default must be bipartisan," many Democrats wish he had just gone all unilateral and taken Bill Clinton's advice to invoke the 14th Amendment. They yearned to see the president beat the political suicide bombers over the head with the Constitution. Impeaching a constitutional lawyer for saving the economy would be an even more difficult sell than impeaching a rogue for fibbing about a dalliance. The Gingrich revolution pulled Republicans to the right of the Reagan revolution and the Tea Party revolution pulled Republicans to the right of the Gingrich revolution. The difference, though, is existentially striking: The Reagan and Gingrich forces wanted a leaner government, but they still believed in government. The sighing, spectral Harry Reid does not look up to the task of taking on the freshman wolfen. The laconic president emerges from the sidelines periodically to warn about economic default, but we're already in political default. Consider what the towel-snapping Tea Party crazies have already accomplished. They've changed the entire discussion. They've neutralized the White House. They've whipped their leadership into submission. They've taken taxes and revenues off the table. They've withered the stock and bond markets. They've made journalists speak to them as though they're John Calhoun and Alexander Hamilton. Obama and John Boehner have been completely outplayed by the "hobbits," as The Wall Street Journal and John McCain called them. What if this is all a cruel joke on us? What if the people who hate government are good at it and the people who love government are bad at it? Maureen Dowd is a columnist for The New York Times. www.news-record.com/content/2011/08/01/article/maureen_dowd_tempest_in_a_tea_party
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Aug 10, 2011 11:17:20 GMT -5
Oldtex, very little difference, not none. However in this case the US should only be on credit watch. Once again S&P jumped the gun. I also fear the armed rebellion thing. Something is coming. Too much unrest.
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Aug 10, 2011 11:23:26 GMT -5
Oldtex, very little difference, not none. However in this case the US should only be on credit watch. Once again S&P jumped the gun. I also fear the armed rebellion thing. Something is coming. Too much unrest. Wasn't the US on credit watch for quite a while? Didn't S&P come right out and state what the terms were to avoid a downgrade? Didn't we choose to blow them off? When else did S&P jump the gun before they downgraded The USG? Last I heard there were more people concerned that they'd entirely slept through the gun going off during the whole securitization debacle.
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Aug 10, 2011 11:27:41 GMT -5
Driftr, I question the validity of S&P. My company never used them because of reliability factors. I think Moody's action is much more reasonable.
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Aug 10, 2011 11:33:49 GMT -5
Driftr, I question the validity of S&P. My company never used them because of reliability factors. I think Moody's action is much more reasonable. Fair enough, and probably a good thing that most (all?) money markets get to use the higher of S&P/Moodys/Fitch when determining whether or not something qualifies as AAA. They did issue plenty of warnings though didn't they? It's not like we couldn't have seen this coming when we reached the compromise we reached was it?
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Aug 10, 2011 11:35:58 GMT -5
S&P is always overly dramatic. Just to prove they are right, they downgraded many municipal bonds today. Keep digging that hole!
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Aug 10, 2011 11:38:32 GMT -5
S&P is always overly dramatic. Just to prove they are right, they downgraded many municipal bonds today. Keep digging that hole! Yes. Please do. Please force municipalities and USG to start living a little more within their means. Please force them to think twice before issuing more debt. Please.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 14:52:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2011 11:39:51 GMT -5
FY, It involved global corporations. The rating did not matter as much as the payment history.
First off Bluerobin, I'm not saying your wrong. If I were to look at this as if I were loaning the money I would look at the total picture. The total picture to me is a history of spending more than your taking in. Not great BUT we are talking a government which can raise more money if needed. They could probably bleed the country dry with taxes pretty quickly & raise a lot of money. So that part makes them a good risk. (As a lender as long as I get my money back I could care less what happens to the borrower).
Then we look at the escalating spending & that is the worrisome part. They just keep spending more & more at a tremendous rate & that means that they keep borrowing at a tremendous rate. Add to that the huge amount of interest that they will be paying pretty much forever..... I say pretty much forever because there is on way you can figure a pay off date until the spending is lowered & you can't figure that up until someone faces the problem. Sure the Tea Partiers did but they are a minor party & through unique circumstances they had input but that may not happen again. Neither Democrats or Republicans want to cut spending & they have proved that by their actions.
Add those facts together & I wouldn't loan money to someone or even a business that had finances like our country does. Will they default, probably not. I would just rather loan money to someone or something that is financially responsible & not only do I view the U.S. as financially irresponsible, I see nothing to indicate that there is any change in policy.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 14:52:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2011 11:52:01 GMT -5
Once again S&P jumped the gun.
Maybe your right but does it really make a difference? If the U.S. defaults this year or in 4 years what's the real difference? Also wouldn't it be part of the S & P's job to foresee & address problems like this? After every single company goes belly up isn't the normal cry "Why didn't anybody see this coming & say something" & "Why wasn't there any warning"?. Well Stevie Wonder could see that the U.S. was heading for trouble (as a matter everybody could see it if they wanted to look & weren't Congressmen). They (the S & P) just pointed it out sooner than any body else.
Just to bring up, didn't anyone but me find it strange that the government was able to point out errors & respond to the S & P in HOURS? Sorry but that doesn't happen UNLESS they knew that it was coming or that there was a good chance that it was coming. The government was prepared to respond. Kind of strange that they spend time getting ready to respond to this & yet they spent NO TIME trying to avoid this. They blamed the Tea Party, which is laughable. Nope, once again this is political bullshit to try to make the other party look bad & get a few votes. Politicians are shameless & without honor & this is just another example.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 10, 2011 11:52:39 GMT -5
The White House is poised to revive efforts to repeal the Bush-era tax cuts, according to the website Humanevents.com
Read more on Newsmax.com: White House to Push Repeal of Bush-Era Tax Cuts !
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Aug 10, 2011 11:56:13 GMT -5
The White House is poised to revive efforts to repeal the Bush-era tax cuts, according to the website Humanevents.com Read more on Newsmax.com: White House to Push Repeal of Bush-Era Tax Cuts ! Why not just let them expire next time they come up for renewal?
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Aug 10, 2011 12:41:27 GMT -5
Oldtex, you know as well as I that everytime you ever declined credit, the denial calls came in very quickly. Like I said, I always paid more attention to payments than ratings - not saying either is inconsequential. Yep, we do have to clean up our act, no one not even dems dispute this. It is just that no one, including the tp knows what to do. Driftr, I favor letting them expire. Less hassle that way. But, we do need more revenue somehow - real quick.
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Aug 10, 2011 13:14:01 GMT -5
I disagree. I think we need less spending. Slowly.
|
|
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 10, 2011 13:18:42 GMT -5
I disagree. I think we need less spending. Slowly. i agree with you. slowly reducing spending is a very good idea.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 14:52:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2011 14:07:51 GMT -5
Yep, we do have to clean up our act, no one not even dems dispute this. It is just that no one, including the tp knows what to do.
Sorry Bluerobin but I disagree. It's obvious what to do. You spend less. How? That's easy too. You review the money you have going out & see if you can cut that. There's tons of pork in past bills & some of it you can eliminate. Then you review monthly expenditures & start cutting there. Lastly you make congressmen agree to cut non essential bull shit (get me re elected) spending. If they won't then you point it out as non essential bull shit every time someone tried to push it though.
Now why haven't they done this? Again, simple. 1. It's monopoly money to them. 2. They equate spending in their home districts with being elected. 3. At least a medium percentage of them are on the take.
Then there's the political consequences. If you cut ANYTHING somebody out there won't vote for either you are your party. With the coming election nobody wants to chance that & besides you might give ammunition to the other political party that they can use against you. In other words, "To hell with the country" my needs & wants come first.
As far as "We need to cut slowly" sorry but no. We need to cut a lot, we need to start cutting now, & putting it off just means that maybe the public will forget about it & then it will never happen (just like in the past). That's exactly what got us where we are now & we as a country can't afford that.
Have you seen the commercial when the woman holding a 2 year old answers the door? A voice off screen says that they are the government & are needed money. they need this much money for the next 65 years to pay off the debt. The woman says you have got to be crazy, I'd be 85 years old before I paid it off & I just can't afford to pay that much for that long. The voice says "I wasn't talking to you"....meaning of course he was talking to the 2 year old. Not only is that true but it's something to think about. Do we continue to screw ourselves & our kids & grand kids or do we act? Do we pay it off slowly & clearly it won't be paid off....Just look at history....Or do we take the hard road & address this issue NOW. I say now.
One last thing as far as my comments before. If I were loaning money to the government another thing that would make be think twice about it is their history of changing contracts after the fact. Run a bill through Congress & your interest rate is cut in half. Another bill & they get a free year of no interest. When you make the laws you can screw anyone you want to legally. Like I said before I wouldn't loan them money if it were me.
|
|