bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Aug 6, 2011 5:31:44 GMT -5
Is it just me but did the Ultra liberal Left Barbara Lee Cost America it AAA rating.. S&P quoted the liberal past member of the Berkeley Socialist left as unwilling to cut spending to make American Bonds strong enough to keep the AAA ratings.. Why .. Tax and spend.. All I heard her talk about was to to increase spending and Taxes on the rich!!!Yes, All I heard her say in the middle of the debate was "Tax and Spend""" So we could spend more on welfare and not to keep the AAA rates that will keep borrowing cost lowest in the world!! Just a thought, Bruce Buttons at her analysis.. Barking at the washer person on the window Attachments:
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,794
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Aug 6, 2011 6:11:54 GMT -5
OT, (partially because I hate inflammatory labels like ultra right liberal) has anyone been reading about Chile the mostly fiscally responsible Latin America country? It is the richest Latin America country in per capita income however the growing disparity in wealth distribution and the consequences of driving mostly private for profit higher education has the younger generation doing demonstrations all over the country. Might want to read up and check it out. PBP probably won't see it as the cautionary tale I do and I also LOL'ed at one of their demonstraions which was staging mass fake suicides.
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Aug 6, 2011 6:38:40 GMT -5
OT, (partially because I hate inflammatory labels like ultra right liberal) has anyone been reading about Chile the mostly fiscally responsible Latin America country? It is the richest Latin America country in per capita income however the growing disparity in wealth distribution and the consequences of driving mostly private for profit higher education has the younger generation doing demonstrations all over the country. Might want to read up and check it out. PBP probably won't see it as the cautionary tale I do and I also LOL'ed at one of their demonstraions which was staging mass fake suicides. You missed the Point>> The Comments Barbara Lee made on CNN did not command the S&P judgement on the system that the leader of their Sovereign Debt Group gave it.. I can not form the like understand why the lead reason was for open expression of feeling about Taxes.. OK she is a Tax and Spend Liberal.. Like the EU they have promise too much .. like too many SS payment for too little work.. THIS IS NO REAL REASON TO CUT OUR CREDIT RATING..HIS COMMENTS ARE OUT OF LINE...IMHO
Just a thought,Bruce
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Aug 6, 2011 6:43:23 GMT -5
ON THE OTHER SIDEIs the U.S. Credit Rating a Victim of GOP Sabotage? By Daniel Gross | Contrary Indicator – 7 hours ago tweet477 Share Email Print The fiscal clown show continues. A few days after Congress and the White House agreed to raise the debt ceiling and cut spending, Standard & Poor's has downgraded the United States of America's credit rating from AAA to AA+. S&P, which covered itself in a substance other than glory during the mortgage crisis, may have a poor record and strange methodology when it comes to sovereign ratings. France, which has a far higher debt per capita ratio than the U.S., still enjoys a AAA rating. And a downgrade, alone, doesn't mean U.S. interest rates will spike -- on Monday or at any time in the future. Japan's credit rating was downgraded several years ago, when the interest rates its government paid on bonds was already extremely low, and they've generally trended lower in the years since. Market conditions, the trajectory of economic growth and relative value can play as big -- if not a bigger -- of a role in determining interest rates than a rating. But that doesn't mean we should ignore S&P's Friday evening shot across the bow. In downgrading the U.S.'s credit rating, S&P points out what has long been obvious: Washington's inability to come to an agreement on how to close the large fiscal gaps that have emerged since the recession began is troubling. Recent events have sapped the agency's confidence that the government can and will do what is necessary to align revenues with spending commitments. And it's difficult to escape the conclusion that America's credit rating was intentionally sabotaged by Congressional Republicans. It has long been obvious to all observers -- to economists, to politicians, to anti-deficit groups, to the ratings agencies -- that closing fiscal gaps will require tax increases, or the closure of big tax loopholes, or significant tax reform that will raise significantly larger sums of tax revenue than the system does now. Today, taxes as a percentage of GDP are at historic lows. Marginal rates on income and investments are at historic lows. Corporate tax receipts as a percentage of GDP are at historic lows. Perhaps taxes don't need to rise this year or next, but they do need to go up in the future. Otherwise, the math of deficit reduction simply doesn't work. And that's how the deficit reduction deals signed off on by Republican presidents like Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush came about. Yet the action in Washington in the past year has all gone in the opposite direction. President Obama deserves some of the blame. Several months ago, he struck a deal with Congress to make the fiscal situation worse -- extending the Bush tax cuts for two more years and enacting a temporary cut in the payroll tax. But Congressional Republicans deserve much more of the blame. For this calamity was entirely man-made -- even intentional. The contemporary Republican Party is fixated on taxes. It possesses an iron-clad belief that the existing tax rates should never go up, that loopholes shouldn't be closed unless they're offset by other tax reductions, that the fact that hedge fund managers pay lower tax rates than school teachers makes complete sense, that a reversion to the tax rates of the prosperous 1990's or 1980's would be unacceptable. In the past two years, this attitude has combined with a general hostility to playing ball with Democrats on large legislative issues, a near-blanket refusal to conduct business with President Obama, and, since the arrival of the raucous Tea Party freshman, a cavalier attitude toward the nation's obligations. It was common to hear duly elected legislators argue that it wouldn't be a big deal if the government were to pierce the debt ceiling and default on its debts. This downgrade is the logical outcome, to a degree, of the long-running "Deal or No Deal" dynamic in Washington. For much of the last two years, President Obama and various fiscal reform groups have urged a grand bipartisan deal that would make a dent in the short- and long-term deficits. Every group -- from the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson Commission on down -- argued that a large package of spending cuts and tax increases or reforms would be the way to go. Polls showed that American voters generally endorsed a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. And plenty of neutral observers thought that the approach of the debt ceiling expiration would help forge a grand bargain. Many observers (including this one) argued that such efforts were doomed to failure. For President Obama, all the incentives weighed toward making a big deal, even one that would upset his base. It would show an ability to work on a bipartisan basis and make concrete progress and take the issue off the table for 2012. But for Republicans, all the incentives weighed against a big deal. By definition, anything that is acceptable to President Obama and Democrats is unacceptable to today's Congressional Republicans. It almost doesn't matter what the substance is. Why would they sign off on any measure that would include revenue increases that the president wanted? Congressional Republicans don't believe in higher revenues as a matter of ideology, as a matter of economics or, most importantly, as a matter of political tactics. Top Congressional Republicans have expressed a desire to deny victories to the president. finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daniel-gross/u-credit-rating-victim-gop-sabotage-021622372.html
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Aug 6, 2011 6:58:25 GMT -5
Wah, wah, wah. The fact is that this happened on Obama's watch. But, he is never held accountable for his failures of leadership. As for wanting to deny him "victories", well Boo Hoo. I can't think of ANY President where this hasn't been the case. But, real leaders are able to lead. Sorry, but acquiescing to all the absurd notions of this President would be the absolute death knell of the nation. He asked for a blank check of $2.4 trillion in new spending with no real cuts in place. There is no fiscal accountability so that is why we are downgraded. And, as for the tax, tax, tax mantra. At some point, you have to end the constant upgrade to your maxxed out line of credit. At some point, you are going to pay the piper.
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Aug 6, 2011 7:03:02 GMT -5
Reposting from another- works even more here:
While I do not seek to minimize too much, it is only a minor down grade, correct? Could this, by itself, really do so much damage?
Anything it does, I can't see having a worse affect that our contiuned profligate spending on all government levels which not only crowds out private investing but takes away from the government what could be spent on possibly stimulative projects (including tax cuts) because instead it must be spent servicing an ever growing debt.
I will be honest; I'm shocked that our rating was not trashed even more after the government showed a virtually completely inability to get its financial house in order by cutting spenting. To those who do not think that spending is the issue, consider the following facts:
1. in 2007, the last GOP budget between Bush and a GOP Congress, the deficit was only 160 billion. 2. Since then, with a Democrat Congress, the deficit shot up considerably. Bush has a one time, 1.2 trillion deficit as part of a BI-PARTISAN plan called TARP which has since between repaid so that effectively the deficit was only about 400 billion. 3. Obama and the Democrats currently have a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit, an order of magnitude higher than BUsh's and the GOP's, with now TARP or stimulus to explain it away. Given that tax rates have stayed more or less the same since, it is NOT tax rates that are the issue so the only other place we can look and change is the spending.
With all that information, the only rational takeaway is that spending is out of control and we must reduce our spending signficantly. Despite that, the government refuses to do so and we can laid that blame at the feet of Obama and the Democrat Senate which refused to pass and sign into law Cut, Cap, and Balance,
It is obvious to the world: the Democrats will not cut spending nor balance the budget unless forced to or replaced. Mathematically, it is impossible for us to balance our 1.6 trillion dollar budget with tax hikes on the "rich" since they are simply not enough of them out there.
Also, despite what people think, 200K for singles and 250K for families is not rich. Comfortable sure, at least in MCOLA's and LCOLA's but they are not idling the day away on their yachts.
Anyway, the government will continue to borrow money which will require more revenue to go to interest payments. Eventually, this shell game will be unsustainable and we will default.
Thus, our credit downgrade and it is likely just beginning unless we can get more of those evil Tea Partiers in there who understand that we must put the government on a very strict diet and stop subsidizing the non producers and penalising the producers of wealth.
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Aug 6, 2011 7:03:25 GMT -5
More on the weak reason for the 3rd derivative of POSITION.... Why the S&P downgrade was delayed Aug 5, 2011 19:56 EDT inShare sovereign debt The S&P downgrade noise out of Washington right now is decidedly unclear; most of it seems to be confined to Twitter, with this being one of the few exceptions. But the general understanding is that S&P decided to downgrade the US, told the White House, got serious pushback, and ultimately — for the time being — did nothing. There are three points worth making here, even in ignorance of the details of what went on behind the scenes today. Firstly, talk of debt-to-GDP ratios and the like is a distraction. You can gussy up your downgrade rationale with as many numbers as you like, but at heart it’s a political decision, not an econometric one. Secondly, the US does not deserve a triple-A rating, and the reason has nothing whatsoever to do with its debt ratios. America’s ability to pay is neither here nor there: the problem is its willingness to pay. And there’s a serious constituency of powerful people in Congress who are perfectly willing and even eager to drive the US into default. The Tea Party is fully cognizant that it has been given a bazooka, and it’s just itching to pull the trigger. There’s no good reason to believe that won’t happen at some point. Finally, it’s impossible to view any S&P downgrade without at the same time considering the highly fraught and complex relationship between the US government and the ratings agencies. The ratings agencies are reliant on the US government in many ways, and would be ill-advised to needlessly annoy the powers that be. On the other hand, the government has been criticizing them harshly for failing to downgrade mortgage-backed securities even when they could see that there were serious credit concerns. So by that measure they have to downgrade the US: the default concerns we saw during the debt-ceiling debate were real and can’t be ignored. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that substantially all of today’s market action was attributable to the status of the S&P downgrade. Stocks opened higher on the strength of a decent jobs report, fell off when it looked as though the downgrade was coming, and then rallied back when it became clear that it wasn’t, ultimately ending the day flat. If that’s the case, then we can probably expect an immediate sell-off of no more than a few hundred points on the Dow if and when the S&P downgrade finally arrives. But that won’t be the end of the story, by any means. Alan Taylor and Christopher Meissner have a long new paper out looking at the value of America’s “exorbitant privilege” — they put it at roughly 1% of GDP and falling. That’s $150 billion a year or so. An S&P downgrade would surely accelerate the decline, by some unknown amount. Do the mandarins at S&P — people who, it seems, can’t even get basic macro sums right — really want to cost the US economy tens of billions of dollars a year by downgrading the country’s debt and causing all manner of potential market mischief as a result? I can’t see that there’s much in it for them, even if a downgrade is the intellectually honest thing to do. Eventually, we can be sure that the US will be downgraded. But this is a bit like the banks’ rearguard action on debit interchange: simply delaying the inevitable is worth billions to the government. So expect as many delaying tactics as Treasury can lay its hands on. You can be sure that everybody in the sovereign group at S&P is under enormous pressure right now. They’re going to take their time before taking this essentially irrevocable step.... YES YOU CAN BET ON THAT.. READ WHAT A WIMP.. THEIR MATH IS STILL WRONG!!BRUCE Update: This was, obviously, posted about half an hour too early: S&P went ahead and downgraded the US after all. It’s not a surprising move, but it’s seismic all the same. The immediate consequences will be significant; the long-term consequences will be orders of magnitude larger. And I do think it’s fair to pin the lion’s share of the blame on the existence of the debt ceiling. Attachments:
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Aug 6, 2011 7:24:19 GMT -5
PS!! You know that in fact if you add the 5 Trillion Drug trade in California alone the Debt / gdp is now 74%.. IE we would get the AAA on fact alone!!
Just a thought, Bi Metal Au Pt
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Aug 6, 2011 7:46:53 GMT -5
Daniel Gross is such a moronic shill, I'm shocked he can even tie his shoes. He must wear loafers:
And it's difficult to escape the conclusion that America's credit rating was intentionally sabotaged by Congressional Republicans.
What is difficult to escape is that clearly it is the Democrats who are at fault. They had TWO YEARS to get the budget under control and undo the evil over spending that they condemned Bush for. Instead, they blew up the last GOP budget deficit of 2007 from 160 billion to 1.6 Trillion. They are even projecting trillion dollar deficits for the next decade without a TARP or stimulus to account for it.
It has long been obvious to all observers -- to economists, to politicians, to anti-deficit groups, to the ratings agencies -- that closing fiscal gaps will require tax increases, or the closure of big tax loopholes, or significant tax reform that will raise significantly larger sums of tax revenue than the system does now.
Nonsense. For one, tax rates and loops holes have not changed that much since 2007 yet the budget deficit has exploded. Why? SPENDING!
Also, he ignores historical evidence that high tax hikes do not equate with higher revenues. The rich will simply hide their money or send it overseas. Right now, businesses have trillions overseas since they would be taxed on it again when bringing it the US. That money thus goes neither to federal revenue nor domestic job creation.
The idiot also whines about the Buh tax cuts. The number I have heard tossed about is that the tax cuts on the "rich" cost us about 800 billion over 10 years. Assuming that you believe that (I don't), that is 80 billion each year or a mere 5% of the budget deficit; it's not helping that much nor would increasing the tax rates even more bring in nearly enough to offset the HUGE levels of federal spending.
Today, taxes as a percentage of GDP are at historic lows. Marginal rates on income and investments are at historic lows. Corporate tax receipts as a percentage of GDP are at historic lows. Perhaps taxes don't need to rise this year or next, but they do need to go up in the future.
Tax revenue needs to rise, not rates, and you that with a powerful and growing economy. Tax hikes, stealing money from those who create wealth, do not grow an economy.
BTW, taxes are not an historic low of GDP once you toss in higher state and local taxes, including the many fees and fines. Heck, the statement is ludicrous when you consider that about 100 years ago, we did not even have an income tax yet they make states like taxes are at a historic low? Really?
I can see coporate tax receipts be low because they are moving jobs to more business friendly and lower tax nations. We should drop corporate taxes to zero. Jobs would flood back here and any loss in corporate taxes would be more than offset by increases in personal income revenue.
Otherwise, the math of deficit reduction simply doesn't work. And that's how the deficit reduction deals signed off on by Republican presidents like Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush came about.
He forgot Clinton who also had deficits. Indeed, it was only when the GOP swept to power that we had true fiscal discipline, including the death of Hillary care and welfare reform.
Yet the action in Washington in the past year has all gone in the opposite direction. President Obama deserves some of the blame.
Obama and Democrats deserve most of the blame. Again, two years to balance the budget and they blew it up instead.
Also, they could have extended the Bush tax cuts for everyone but the the singles making 200K and families making 250K in their first day but they did not because, despite his promises, he wanted to rise taxes on EVERYONE. He wanted the tax cuts to expire and then he would smugly claim that he didn't raise taxes even as we paid more at tax time.
So instead, they left themselves wide open to Americans demanding tax relief and thus were vulnerable to the GOP.
But Congressional Republicans deserve much more of the blame. For this calamity was entirely man-made -- even intentional.
No, they just wanted to stop the out of control spending. If Obama and the Democrats had passed cut, cap, and balance we would have been fine.
The contemporary Republican Party is fixated on taxes.
As are the Democrats who want to increase taxes on EVERYONE whether it's cap and trade, letting the Bush tax cuts expire, the many taxes in Obamacare, value added tax, etc...
the fact that hedge fund managers pay lower tax rates than school teachers makes complete sense
Someone slap this idiot, please. First of all, someone please explain how a hedge fund manager is paying a lower tax rate? If most of his compensation is in income, then he is being taxed at a much higher rate. If most of it is in stocks that are taxed at long term capital gains, he is being taxed at 15%
Take a 50K/year teacher with a 5K standard deduction. Working through the math, and not including 401K or other deductions, she pays about 7375 in personal income taxes or 15%, the same as the capital gains.
Now, if you toss in SS and other taxes which are capped, it pushes it up. Now we could remove the caps but I don't want to see the SSA paying out 100K SS checks.
But if it's still a problem, hey just drop all federal income tax rates to 10%. They want you to infer that one must raise taxes on the hedge fund manager but why no drop taxes on the poor teacher? Heck, why raise the capital gains tax rate when even Hillary Clinton says is reduces revenue? Of course Obama by his own words doesn't care that it might hurt economic growth or overall revenue as long as it's "fair."
Regarding the rates, I still do not , that a reversion to the tax rates of the prosperous 1990's or 1980's would be unacceptable.
We did not have the huge levels of federal spending on the 1990's and 1980's that we do now. We were less globalized back then.
In the past two years, this attitude has combined with a general hostility to playing ball with Democrats on large legislative issues
For God sake, doesn't this idiot remember the arrogant attitude of the Democrats as they cramed down finreg, stimulus, and Obamacare down our throats in a very partisan and other unethical manner?
Besides, why SHOULD they play ball with the people who blew up the budget? Cut, cap, and balance would have done a ton of good and the Democrats rejected it.
, a near-blanket refusal to conduct business with President Obama, and, since the arrival of the raucous Tea Party freshman, a cavalier attitude toward the nation's obligations.
Like the obligations to not crush a nation under too much federal spending, taxations, and regulations?
It was common to hear duly elected legislators argue that it wouldn't be a big deal if the government were to pierce the debt ceiling and default on its debts.
Not that common and default is inevitable if we continue to spend; it is a mathematical certainly.
This downgrade is the logical outcome, to a degree, of the long-running "Deal or No Deal" dynamic in Washington. For much of the last two years, President Obama and various fiscal reform groups have urged a grand bipartisan deal that would make a dent in the short- and long-term deficits.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
Oh my God, in light of history, did he just REALLY type that?!?!?!
Besides the above mentioned partisanship, Obama HAD NO DEAL! NO IDEAS! NOTHING FOR THE CBO TO SCORE! All he has done is added 5 trillion to the debt and somehow Obama is going to make a dent into the deficits?!?!?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Every group -- from the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson Commission on down -- argued that a large package of spending cuts and tax increases or reforms would be the way to go. Polls showed that American voters generally endorsed a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. And plenty of neutral observers thought that the approach of the debt ceiling expiration would help forge a grand bargain.
Democrats do not want to cut; they refuse to cut. They will not cut and indeed have done the exact opposite. They had two years to do that and failed miserably. We need a new party in power, a GOP infused with the Tea Party sensibility of cut, cut, and cut some more. Start with Obamacare; kill it in its crib before it grows to be a monster.
Any lefty who doesn't like that can send a check to charity. That's right; you need to use your OWN money from now on to support YOUR causes!
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 6, 2011 7:52:06 GMT -5
Is it just me but did the Ultra liberal Left Barbara Lee Cost America it AAA rating..
Congresswoman Lee is from Oakland CA and her progressive mantra has and will always be to increase both spending and taxes for the good of all who are on social welfare, especially in her district where black unemployment, crime, and homeless are probably the highest in the state of CA. Oakland almost laid off @ 1/3 of their police and firemen to pay for all of their welfare programs..
Ms Lee and John Chamber (S&P) ought to debate this issue and she might just learn that our debt is a major concern thus the downgrade of our debt rating from AAA to AA...and now we have to live with the consequences because of her and Pelosi who had their chance to do something about our debt three years ago when the alarms were being sounded by the rating agencies of this country and abroad
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Aug 6, 2011 8:27:47 GMT -5
Is it just me but did the Ultra liberal Left Barbara Lee Cost America it AAA rating..Congresswoman Lee is from Oakland CA and her progressive mantra has and will always be to increase both spending and taxes for the good of all who are on social welfare, especially in her district where black unemployment, crime, and homeless are probably the highest in the state of CA. Oakland almost laid off @ 1/3 of their police and firemen to pay for all of their welfare programs.. Ms Lee and John Chamber (S&P) ought to debate this issue and she might just learn that our debt is a major concern thus the downgrade of our debt rating from AAA to AA...and now we have to live with the consequences because of her and Pelosi who had their chance to do something about our debt three years ago when the alarms were being sounded by the rating agencies of this country and abroad To continue what I said... S&P quoted the liberal past member of the Berkeley Socialist left as unwilling to cut spending to make American Bonds strong enough to keep the AAA ratings.. Why .. Tax and spend.. All I heard her talk about was to to increase spending and Taxes on the rich!!!Yes, All I heard her say in the middle of the debate was "Tax and Spend""" So we could spend more on welfare and not to keep the AAA rates that will keep borrowing cost lowest in the world!! ,, She is doing her job and the fact she had was we need to cut spending.. The huge spending did little to the GDP except make the Rating agents mad.. Well they used this as an excuse to use bad math??? She is doing her job as repersenting Oakland are the rating agents doing there job..NO!! Bruce
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Aug 6, 2011 8:35:11 GMT -5
>> By definition, anything that is acceptable to President Obama and Democrats is unacceptable to today's Congressional Republicans.<< Interesting analysis since the republicans voted up two plans and it was the DEMOCRATS that tabled both of them...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 9:53:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2011 8:46:19 GMT -5
Tax & spend....What a flawed theory.
We can't sell our products overseas because they are over prices & many of them are poorly made. So raise taxes on the people who "might" be willing to buy them IF they have the money. Can there possibly be any other result than a downward spiral of our economy? The only way to make it an even more grim outcome is to tax mostly the small number of working people to fund the support for the growing number of non workers, which is what we have. If 48% of the people make so little that they don't pay federal taxes (& if nothing else they get more back in taxes than they pay in) just how long can 52% keep funding the country & that 48%?
If your neighbor was to lose their job tomorrow, how long could you support your household & his? Would you (after 5 years or so) get tired of paying his way? Well you & your neighbor would equal 50% each & right now this country is 52% & 48%...Damn near the same thing. This is simple common sense stuff.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,794
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Aug 6, 2011 9:15:51 GMT -5
Is it just me but did the Ultra liberal Left Barbara Lee Cost America it AAA rating.. I haven't been following this all that closely to be honest Bruce. My personal credit rating is not what it should be due to job loss as a direct result of the CDO/Banking crap. So did whatever passed or didn't pass was the result of a single vote and we can equivocally assign it to her only not other congress critters?
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Aug 6, 2011 10:23:33 GMT -5
Is it just me but did the Ultra liberal Left Barbara Lee Cost America it AAA rating.. I haven't been following this all that closely to be honest Bruce. My personal credit rating is not what it should be due to job loss as a direct result of the CDO/Banking crap. So did whatever passed or didn't pass was the result of a single vote and we can equivocally assign it to her only not other congress critters? Optimist 4 life,' What I am doing is making fun of the reason S&P gave for the down grade and the delay in doing so. The head of S&P is quoted as saying the Problem was directly related to the Hugh infighting over the needed 4 Trillion dollars in Spending cuts.. They result 2.4 was not large enough but the problem was the huge infighting.. I Gave S&P a grade of F- with a negative outlook.!! This is pure political noise they are using to cover up their own Ineptness. You may not agree with the views of Barbara Lee but she gets an A++ for being the repetitive that does indeed represent her voters.. ( IMHO) That is what they voted for her to do!! Just a thought, Bi Metal Au Pt
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 6, 2011 10:26:49 GMT -5
Is it just me but did the Ultra liberal Left Barbara Lee Cost America it AAA rating.. I haven't been following this all that closely to be honest Bruce. My personal credit rating is not what it should be due to job loss as a direct result of the CDO/Banking crap. So did whatever passed or didn't pass was the result of a single vote and we can equivocally assign it to her only not other congress critters? Optimist 4 life,' What I am doing is making fun of the reason S&P gave for the down grade and the delay in doing so. The head of S&P is quoted as saying the Problem was directly related to the Hugh infighting over the needed 4 Trillion dollars in Spending cuts.. They result 2.4 was not large enough but the problem was the huge infighting.. I Gave S&P a grade of F- with a negative outlook.!! This is pure political noise they are using to cover up their own Ineptness. You may not agree with the views of Barbara Lee but she gets an A++ for being the repetitive that does indeed represent her voters.. ( IMHO) That is what they voted for her to do!! Just a thought, Bi Metal Au Pt FYI Barbara Lee is not alone in her thinking about the debt ceiling her colleagues in the congressional black caucus also think as she does.. If you want to check it out you should read what they have to say in addition to congresswoman Lee you have congressman Cleaver and the infamous congresswoman Maxine Waters from Warts in LA
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Aug 6, 2011 10:27:58 GMT -5
I heard Barbara Lee on a radio talk show Thursday. She bemoaned the radical "Tea Party" for their intransigence in the debt ceiling fiasco.
I laughed my ass off, since Lee, Henry Waxman, Fortney Fucking Stark and Crooked Maxine Waters all voted to oppose, just like Bachmann, Paul, et al did.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 6, 2011 10:30:54 GMT -5
I heard Barbara Lee on a radio talk show Thursday. She bemoaned the radical "Tea Party" for their intransigence in the debt ceiling fiasco. I laughed my ass off, since Lee, Henry Waxman, Fortney Fucking Stark and Crooked Maxine Waters all voted to oppose, just like Bachmann, Paul, et al did. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Some of these progressives out here in northern california are a scary bunch of liberal zealots but they lost their power in the House of Representatives and are now fighting amongst themselves and some are ticked off at Obama if you can believe it??
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Aug 6, 2011 10:59:50 GMT -5
Lee was asked about rumblings that progressive Dems want to run somebody in the primaries opposing Obama. She strongly supported the President and likened herself to 'a loyal opposition' trying to pull Obama back to her level of leftness (yeah, I doubt it's a real word, too - but the meaning is there).
If there were anyone in the Dem Party to support a move to a sitting Dem President for not being far enough to the left, she'd be it. It appears to me that she values color more than ideology. That's surprising to me, and I'm as strong a cynic as anybody else on this board.
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Aug 6, 2011 11:00:16 GMT -5
I heard Barbara Lee on a radio talk show Thursday. She bemoaned the radical "Tea Party" for their intransigence in the debt ceiling fiasco. I laughed my ass off, since Lee, Henry Waxman, Fortney Fucking Stark and Crooked Maxine Waters all voted to oppose, just like Bachmann, Paul, et al did. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Some of these progressives out here in northern california are a scary bunch of liberal zealots but they lost their power in the House of Representatives and are now fighting amongst themselves and some are ticked off at Obama if you can believe it??PI, Yes I can believe they problems Obama has created for himself with the far left.. We see the same in New York with the very well to do bankers who gave big $$$$ to Obama. They fell the same about what he has done to Israel!!The question I have been playing with is does S&P have the right to defocus from the problem of their math model that has failed in the Financial Crash and Now with the AAA they have overshot using the press story about the infighting of the Far right and Far Left to justify their own ineptness!!.. I give S&P F- with STRONG NEGATIVE OUTLOOK.. BUT MS LEE AND A++ FOR REPRESENTING HER DISTRICT SUPERBLY EVEN IF SHE HAD TO COST THE USA ITS AAA RATING TO DO SO.. JUST MY THOUGHT,BRUCE PS K4U and for Ms Lee
|
|
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 11:00:47 GMT -5
PS!! You know that in fact if you add the 5 Trillion Drug trade in California alone the Debt / gdp is now 74%.. IE we would get the AAA on fact alone!! Just a thought, Bi Metal Au Pt bimetal- i think that the 100% thing is totally arbitrary. there are (20) countries that exceed it, and several of them have AAA ratings.
|
|
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 11:02:20 GMT -5
I heard Barbara Lee on a radio talk show Thursday. She bemoaned the radical "Tea Party" for their intransigence in the debt ceiling fiasco. I laughed my ass off, since Lee, Henry Waxman, Fortney Fucking Stark and Crooked Maxine Waters all voted to oppose, just like Bachmann, Paul, et al did. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Some of these progressives out here in northern california are a scary bunch of liberal zealots but they lost their power in the House of Representatives and are now fighting amongst themselves and some are ticked off at Obama if you can believe it?? they are approximately as scary as the Tea Party. i mean this in the sense that they will place idealogy over what is necessary.
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Aug 6, 2011 11:09:07 GMT -5
PS!! You know that in fact if you add the 5 Trillion Drug trade in California alone the Debt / gdp is now 74%.. IE we would get the AAA on fact alone!! Just a thought, Bi Metal Au Pt bimetal- i think that the 100% thing is totally arbitrary(AGREED 100%,BTI). there are (20) countries that exceed it, and several of them have AAA ratings. .. D.J., You get my point exactly.. It is pure politics to cover up there Ineptness of the staff at S&P missed the whole Financial crises are now trying to create a thesod of Correctness.. I gave them an F- with the strong Negative outlook.. You also get my AAA and K4U.. Great Post.. ALSO IN MANY OF THE COUNTRIES MS LEE WOULD BE CLASS AS A CONSERVATIVE. Just a thought, Bi Metal Au Pt
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Aug 6, 2011 15:30:51 GMT -5
Lee was asked about rumblings that progressive Dems want to run somebody in the primaries opposing Obama. She strongly supported the President and likened herself to 'a loyal opposition' trying to pull Obama back to her level of leftness (yeah, I doubt it's a real word, too - but the meaning is there). If there were anyone in the Dem Party to support a move to a sitting Dem President for not being far enough to the left, she'd be it. It appears to me that she values color more than ideology. That's surprising to me, and I'm as strong a cynic as anybody else on this board. Verrip1, I only worked at the State Level for Nixon but How do you think you could get anyone elected that would be that far from the centre. The Republican party would find a Radical Centralist like Tony Blair and Clean House.. They may do it anyway.. It is all about the problem of the Left and what the Americans think about losing the AAA and why.. A real run on facts or story will be how they spin doctors at S&P try to escape with their income stream in tack.. I think they will need to find 'Chapter 7" by the time..Bet they are not allowed to receive any form of Government permit to preform Ratings for Hard number rates every again.. It will be some weak system with about as much meaning as the "Tip Sheets" at the dog races!!! Just a thought, Bi metal Au Pt
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Aug 6, 2011 17:49:54 GMT -5
Lee was asked about rumblings that progressive Dems want to run somebody in the primaries opposing Obama. She strongly supported the President and likened herself to 'a loyal opposition' trying to pull Obama back to her level of leftness (yeah, I doubt it's a real word, too - but the meaning is there). If there were anyone in the Dem Party to support a move to a sitting Dem President for not being far enough to the left, she'd be it. It appears to me that she values color more than ideology. That's surprising to me, and I'm as strong a cynic as anybody else on this board. Verrip1, I only worked at the State Level for Nixon but How do you think you could get anyone elected that would be that far from the centre. The Republican party would find a Radical Centralist like Tony Blair and Clean House.. They may do it anyway.. It is all about the problem of the Left and what the Americans think about losing the AAA and why.. A real run on facts or story will be how they spin doctors at S&P try to escape with their income stream in tack.. I think they will need to find 'Chapter 7" by the time..Bet they are not allowed to receive any form of Government permit to preform Ratings for Hard number rates every again.. It will be some weak system with about as much meaning as the "Tip Sheets" at the dog races!!! Just a thought, Bi metal Au Pt
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Aug 6, 2011 17:50:16 GMT -5
Liberals, leftests, conservatives. You cannot blame any one party or person. This mess has been a long time coming. When something like this finally hits the bottom just remember it took two to tango.
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Aug 6, 2011 18:09:48 GMT -5
Liberals, leftests, conservatives. You cannot blame any one party or person. This mess has been a long time coming. When something like this finally hits the bottom just remember it took two to tango. Handy Man, I am not.. It is S&P that has been blaming the system for a wild open crashing debate they claim has destroyed there faith in the resolve to reduce the budget deficit.. I said they are using it as a smoke screen to defocus from their own Math errors and the fact their math model missed the whole approaching Financial crash.. Do you recall the long pieces I had on the Black Swans in the EU sovereign funds.. and the effect of the savers like True Finn..The missed the whole insurance problem with CDO backed with 1/100 capital tier1 insurance funds of AIG. Now we get from S&P how the debate caused the reduction.. If so why did it take four day to downgrade!! from AAA to AA+.. Fact is their numbers are wrong.. No need to downgrade except their lame excuse to regain creditability.. It will not work.. and Tim is made.. Bet they will not get the needed Permits.. If so it will be as effective as the "Tip Sheet" for the Dog race!! Well come to think of it, In Abilene,TX Hendricks Medical Centers S&P rating is also AA+!! With insurance it is AAA.. Insurance is about 0.4%... Just a thought, Bi Metal Au Pt Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Aug 6, 2011 18:19:07 GMT -5
...boy, do I need to post to this thread... lots of karma being given here...
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Aug 6, 2011 18:22:23 GMT -5
...boy, do I need to post to this thread... lots of karma being given here...
|
|
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 19:47:52 GMT -5
LOL
|
|