S&P downgrades US credit rating

[Sooner5030]

wow (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/SampP-downgrades-US-credit-apf-2107320979.html?x=0)...I didn't think they had the balls. good jorb if that's what your analysis supported.


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Credit rating agency Standard & Poor's says it has downgraded the United States' credit rating for the first time in the history of the ratings.

The credit rating agency says that it is cutting the country's top AAA rating by one notch to AA-plus. The credit agency said late Friday that it is making the move because the deficit reduction plan passed by Congress on Tuesday did not go far enough to stabilize the country's debt situation.

A source familiar with the discussions said that the Obama administration believes S&P's analysis contained "deep and fundamental flaws."

[Boomer.....]

And the stocks continue to fall.

[soonerbub]

WOW on a Friday night huh? Well Monday (and the rest of our lives) will be different. Thanks a lot "professional politicians"

[Sooner5030]

most missed this headline yesterday:

US borrowing tops 100% of GDP: Treasury (http://news.yahoo.com/us-aaa-rating-still-under-threat-204040123.html)


The new borrowing took total public debt to $14.58 trillion, over end-2010 GDP of $14.53 trillion, and putting it in a league with highly indebted countries like Italy and Belgium.

[oumartin]

Obama=savior!

[Caboose]

but but but... the Tea Party... whaargarbleeety derp.

[diverdog]

most missed this headline yesterday:

US borrowing tops 100% of GDP: Treasury (http://news.yahoo.com/us-aaa-rating-still-under-threat-204040123.html)

Nothing a little hyper inflation won't fix.

Wasn't it David Stockman who said deficits don't matter?

[Jerk]

wow (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/SampP-downgrades-US-credit-apf-2107320979.html?x=0)...I didn't think they had the balls. good jorb if that's what your analysis supported.

I'm sure they're about to get a deep probe from the IRS and whatever alphabet soup agency is responsible for enforcement of the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act. And the Tea Party continues to be called 'hostage takers' and 'terrorists' for simply saying that we spend too much.

[Sooner5030]

this is thirty years in the making....some would argue 70+.

It's not just Bush, Obama, Reagan, Hastart, Pelosi, Reid, Lott, etc.

It's the MOB that has continued to demand huge government services at small government cost.

[oumartin]

Three years in control it's time to stop throwing blame upon everyone else.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Most of the financial talking heads don't seem to think it will matter much, if it stops there.

[Jerk]

Well, Bush was a big spender but the fact is he didn't come close to the Obama budgets. IIRC the most Bush ever spent in one year was 800 Billion. Zero is spending 1.7 Trillion per year.

[soonerbub]

Woe unto those who have anything but fixed rate mortgages.

I'm sure the phrase "priced in" will be uttered several times before Monday AM--I'm not so sure especially since the market acted like a crack whore most of the day.

[Sooner5030]

it doesn't matter. You cant continue to have $.8 to 1.4 trillion annual deficits over the next 10 years when total debt already exceeds GDP. You will never grow out of it.

We should have took the hit in '08 and found a natural bottom (especially housing) and cleansed ourselves of the practices that got us there in the first place. No one paid and no one learned a lesson. We just borrowed and printed our way so we can deal with it later.

[oumartin]

I'm sittin on a 4.5 fixed rate and thankful... thankful we have Obama for prez

[cccasooner2]

"A source familiar with the discussions said that the Obama, administration believes S&P's analysis contained "deep and fundamental flaws."

Fundamental flaws, too funny, I guess he dissagrees.

Reminds me of a friend that was a part-time bartender doing a statistical analysis for the California Board of Regents on whether some new BS they were doing worked. If it was workinng all the teachers got a bonus, including the regents. His analysis said no difference. The regents went balistic and said a reevauation was required. He changed his analysis and eveyone was happy. He got paid, the regents and teachers got their bonuses and life went on.

[Jerk]

it doesn't matter. You cant continue to have $.8 to 1.4 trillion annual deficits over the next 10 years when total debt already exceeds GDP. You will never grow out of it.

We should have took the hit in '08 and found a natural bottom (especially housing) and cleansed ourselves of the practices that got us there in the first place. No one paid and no one learned a lesson. We just borrowed and printed our way so we can deal with it later.

What irks me most about 2008 was the crony capitalism. You know, the gov't deciding which banks failed and which survived. The same 'crony capitalism' exists today: make a large donation, and your corporation will get a waiver from Obamacare. The politicians are picking winners and losers, and not letting the free market do its natural job.

[REDREX]

Why is anyone surprised ?----S&P said the cuts in spending were not enough---Anyone want to increase Gov't spending ?

[soonercruiser]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Credit rating agency Standard & Poor's says it has downgraded the United States' credit rating for the first time in the history of the ratings.

The credit rating agency says that it is cutting the country's top AAA rating by one notch to AA-plus. The credit agency said late Friday that it is making the move because the deficit reduction plan passed by Congress on Tuesday did not go far enough to stabilize the country's debt situation.

A source familiar with the discussions said that the Obama administration believes S&P's analysis contained "deep and fundamental flaws."

NO! Don't tell me they had the CBO do the analysis!
:D

I'm sure the administartion will give them some "better" numbers.
(Like 12 hours, and your family is dead!)
:rolleyes:

[diverdog]

Well, Bush was a big spender but the fact is he didn't come close to the Obama budgets. IIRC the most Bush ever spent in one year was 800 Billion. Zero is spending 1.7 Trillion per year.

Really. Did you forget about the financial bailout?

Any Republican who would be in office would have about the same deficit! It is not like the economy would have made a quicker recovery. The only difference is how the money would have been spent.

[diverdog]

What irks me most about 2008 was the crony capitalism. You know, the gov't deciding which banks failed and which survived. The same 'crony capitalism' exists today: make a large donation, and your corporation will get a waiver from Obamacare. The politicians are picking winners and losers, and not letting the free market do its natural job.

You are right. Our politicians are for sale and no one cares.

[MR2-Sooner86]

**** our government.

[REDREX]

Really. Did you forget about the financial bailout?

Any Republican who would be in office would have about the same deficit! It is not like the economy would have made a quicker recovery. The only difference is how the money would have been spent.--- How many Rep in the house voted for the $800 Billion Pork/ Stimulus package---I believe it was ZERO

[diverdog]

wow (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/SampP-downgrades-US-credit-apf-2107320979.html?x=0)...I didn't think they had the balls. good jorb if that's what your analysis supported.

Of course Moody and S&P are the same rating agencies who gave triple A ratings to all those bad mortgages. So I do not know what to think.

[cccasooner2]

Of course Moody and S&P are the same rating agencies who gave triple A ratings to all those bad mortgages. So I do not know what to think.

Good point. :)

[REDREX]

Of course Moody and S&P are the same rating agencies who gave triple A ratings to all those bad mortgages. So I do not know what to think.---So you think the rating should be lower ?

[diverdog]

--- How many Rep in the house voted for the $800 Billion Pork/ Stimulus package---I believe it was ZERO

Rex:

That was purely political and you know it. The vote would have been exact opposite if it were a trllion dollar tax cuts for the rich and corporations. One way or another someone would have put in a stimulus that would drive the deficits.

Oh....there is zero credibility if you want to hold the Republicans up as the party of fiscal responsibility.

[diverdog]

---So you think the rating should be lower ?

Honestly, I thought about it. I need to see the criteria. It is scary.

The good news is as a nation we have gone through a lot worse and came out just fine.

[OutlandTrophy]

this is thirty years in the making....some would argue 70+.

It's not just Bush, Obama, Reagan, Hastart, Pelosi, Reid, Lott, etc.

It's the MOB that has continued to demand huge government services at small government cost.

exactly. It's the white trash baby factory live on Gov't handouts that are grandparents at the age of 36 (honest to **** I know a guy from my hometown that is) that have ruined the country.

[Jerk]

Most of the financial talking heads don't seem to think it will matter much, if it stops there.

http://gulagbound.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Baghdad-Bob.jpg

[The Profit]

s&p placed some of the blame on the downgrade on the inability of congress to set policy. Thanks a bunch, tea bagged. Throw the idiots out.

[REDREX]

Rex:

That was purely political and you know it. The vote would have been exact opposite if it were a trllion dollar tax cuts for the rich and corporations. One way or another someone would have put in a stimulus that would drive the deficits.

Oh....there is zero credibility if you want to hold the Republicans up as the party of fiscal responsibility.---Not Political---just tired of paying a lot of tax just to watch it pissed away----Also tired of trying to wade through the maze of regulations to try and operate a business.

[Jerk]

s&p placed some of the blame on the downgrade on the inability of congress to set policy. Thanks a bunch, tea bagged. Throw the idiots out.

Oh yeah, it had nothing to do with Zero sh*tting away trillions of dollars with no end in sight.

[Sooner5030]

s&p placed some of the blame on the downgrade on the inability of congress to set policy. Thanks a bunch, tea bagged. Throw the idiots out.

yeah....if only the Tea Parties hadn't participated in our representative republic everything would be just fine.

Ideology has nothing to do with our situation. In fact I'd argue that bipartisanship has led to increased spending and decreased revenue.

[REDREX]

s&p placed some of the blame on the downgrade on the inability of congress to set policy. Thanks a bunch, tea bagged. Throw the idiots out.---Also said the did not cut enough---Thanks a lot Liberals ---throw those idiots out

[diverdog]

---Not Political---just tired of paying a lot of tax just to watch it pissed away----Also tired of trying to wade through the maze of regulations to try and operate a business.

I hear ya.

You getting any blow back from the Dodd Frank Bill?

[Sooner_Tuf]

Shame shame shame, those evil 'pubs making our boy look bad :(

What is it you all love about O'bama if he isn't doing something different?

Fact is he is doing something different. And it sucks.

[REDREX]

I hear ya.

You getting any blow back from the Dodd Frank Bill?---No Homeland Security and the EPA----We had to write two plans on the same subject because neither will accept the others---Its just stupid----

[MR2-Sooner86]

s&p placed some of the blame on the downgrade on the inability of congress to set policy. Thanks a bunch, tea bagged. Throw the idiots out.

http://work949.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/blindfolded-man2.jpg

Partisan politics, how does it work?

[Sooner5030]

more importantly....should I do anything over the weekend with our non-retirement savings?

I've got about 1/3 in digital FRNs in the bank, 1/3 of FRNs in the safe and 1/3 in PMs in the safe. I'm up about 25% on PMs net postage and shipping if I sold them.

I have options.

-do nothing
-sell FRNs and increase PMs
-sell PMs and increase FRNS
-convert PMs and FRNs to land.

[Blue]

The Tea party doesn't go far enough. Career politicians (D and Rs) and big bank mobsters need to be tried and hung for treason.

They sold us out a long time ago.

**** their dog and pony show. We don't need them.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

:cool: No new revenues in the package to reach the 4 trillion

[diverdog]

more importantly....should I do anything over the weekend with our non-retirement savings?

I've got about 1/3 in digital FRNs in the bank, 1/3 of FRNs in the safe and 1/3 in PMs in the safe. I'm up about 25% on PMs net postage and shipping if I sold them.

I have options.

-do nothing
-sell FRNs and increase PMs
-sell PMs and increase FRNS
-convert PMs and FRNs to land.

Any tax consequences. :D

Are you worried about a rising interest rate environment?

[Blue]

more importantly....should I do anything over the weekend with our non-retirement savings?

I've got about 1/3 in digital FRNs in the bank, 1/3 of FRNs in the safe and 1/3 in PMs in the safe. I'm up about 25% on PMs net postage and shipping if I sold them.

I have options.

-do nothing
-sell FRNs and increase PMs
-sell PMs and increase FRNS
-convert PMs and FRNs to land.

Knowing how ridiculous and rigged the market is it'll prob go up 600 points on Monday.

[diverdog]

:cool: No new revenues in the package to reach the 4 trillion

If the tax cuts expire in 2012 then you get to $4 trllion.

[Sooner5030]

I wont buy equities anyway. Just trying to decide if a move is needed and when to move on FRNs vs. PMs vs. land.

[Blue]

:cool: No new revenues in the package to reach the 4 trillion

Who gives a ****? When our liabilities our closer to 100 trillion than 10 trillion when you include entitlements, arguing about 4 trillion over 10 years and liberal this and conservative that is ****ing ridiculous.

The MFer is going down in a blaze of glory. 2 years? 10 years? Don't know but prepare to be poorer.

The partisan bickering is just stupid anymore. We'ra all in a sinking boat. We're not in their club. Quit acting like they give a **** about you.

[REDREX]

Who gives a ****? When our liabilities our closer to 100 trillion than 10 trillion when you include entitlements, arguing about 4 trillion over 10 years and liberal this and conservative that is ****ing ridiculous.

The MFer is going down in a blaze of glory. 2 years? 10 years? Don't know but prepare to be poorer.

The partisan bickering is just stupid anymore. We'ra all in a sinking boat. We're not in their club. Quit acting like they give a **** about you.

---Come on---The unfunded liabilities are only $50 Trillion---and rising

[Blue]

And that makes 64? Closer to 100 than 10.

Meh. Who cares right? The keynesians got it under control. Cue TommieHarris...

Rant over.

[diverdog]

---No Homeland Security and the EPA----We had to write two plans on the same subject because neither will accept the others---Its just stupid----

Now you got me scratching my head. I thought you traded commodities....specifically crude and were subjected to things like FNRA and SOX. Did you get into drilling or are you taking on warehousing oil? The EPA thing through me for a loop. Are they making you do an EIS?

[MR2-Sooner86]

New revenue?

In fact, in tax year 2009 (the last year for which IRS has published statistics), the combined gross income of all Americans earning $500,000 per year or more was about $1.03 trillion ($1,029,256,075,000.00)

Also during tax year 2009, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, the national debt increased by $1.61 trillion ($1,611,544,812,899.90).

After taxing away 100 percent of the income of those earning $500,000 or more in 2009, the Obama administration would still have needed to increase taxes on Americans earning less than $500,000 by a total of $839 billion ($838,988,236,899.90)--just to balance federal accounts for the year. (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/100-percent-tax-those-earning-500k-or-mo)

We don't have a spending problem. Nope we just need to raise taxes a little more. Just a little. Our federal government is spending money perfectly fine and being very reasonable with our money. Don't worry folks both parties got this well under control.

[REDREX]

Now you got me scratching my head. I thought you traded commodities....specifically crude and were subjected to things like FNRA and SOX. Did you get into drilling or are you taking on warehousing oil? The EPA thing through me for a loop. Are they making you do an EIS?---No production---just Terminalling---crude blending --trucking---small pipelines---equipment ---- Traded for a long time but now take as few risks as possible---hedge everything

[Mjcpr]

If the Tea Party got their way, this wouldn't have happened. You can thank Reid and Obama for this one.

Right, because everyone else, regardless of political affiliation WANTED a downgrade of the US debt obligations.

:rolleyes:

[Curly Bill]

Right, because everyone else, regardless of political affiliation WANTED a downgrade of the US debt obligations.

:rolleyes:

Wanted...? No

Care about anything other than getting reelected enough to make some tough choices? That's a no too.

[Mjcpr]

Wanted...? No

Care about anything other than getting reelected enough to make some tough choices? That's a no too.

Give me a break. That is the goal of every politician, no matter their party.

[Curly Bill]

Give me a break. That is the goal of every politician, no matter their party.

Don't be so defensive!

Is there somewhere I said that wasn't the case?

[Mjcpr]

That was defensive?

Okay. This is why I rarely talk politics.

Oy.

[Curly Bill]

I don't think any of em, from either party, are losing any sleep over this tonight, other than what it might do to their reelection chances. I genuinely think that's the only thing that matters to any of them.

They go about it in different ways: the donks try to appeal to the lower levels of society, pubs set their sights a little higher, but other than that they're after the same thing - job security.

[Serenity Now]

I have no problem with the concept that we're spending too much. But, to think that we can have the lowest tax rate in 60ish years in the face of the spending that we've seen in the last decade is foolish. I get a kick out of the right thinking that cutting government income without cutting government expenses will work. Bush and Reagan both increased spending in the face of tax cuts. Foolish. The good news for the GOP. The rich are getting richer.

[Boomer.....]

:les: We're ****ed!!!!

[OU_Sooners75]

Until our politicians become fiscally responsible, we will never see a surplus.

[Blue]

I have no problem with the concept that we're spending too much. But, to think that we can have the lowest tax rate in 60ish years in the face of the spending that we've seen in the last decade is foolish. I get a kick out of the right thinking that cutting government income without cutting government expenses will work. Bush and Reagan both increased spending in the face of tax cuts. Foolish. The good news for the GOP. The rich are getting richer.

Yeah because liberals are the champions of the poor.

You just bought that lie hook line and sinker.

[mgsooner]

Ultimately, taxes will have to rise.

[diverdog]

New revenue?

In fact, in tax year 2009 (the last year for which IRS has published statistics), the combined gross income of all Americans earning $500,000 per year or more was about $1.03 trillion ($1,029,256,075,000.00)

Also during tax year 2009, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, the national debt increased by $1.61 trillion ($1,611,544,812,899.90).

After taxing away 100 percent of the income of those earning $500,000 or more in 2009, the Obama administration would still have needed to increase taxes on Americans earning less than $500,000 by a total of $839 billion ($838,988,236,899.90)--just to balance federal accounts for the year. (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/100-percent-tax-those-earning-500k-or-mo)

We don't have a spending problem. Nope we just need to raise taxes a little more. Just a little. Our federal government is spending money perfectly fine and being very reasonable with our money. Don't worry folks both parties got this well under control.


Tell us how you would cut over a trillion dollars from the budget next year and not destroy the economy?

[tommieharris91]

And that makes 64? Closer to 100 than 10.

Meh. Who cares right? The keynesians got it under control. Cue TommieHarris...

Rant over.

Hi.

[tommieharris91]

Tell us how you would cut over a trillion dollars from the budget next year and not destroy the economy?

The economy has already been destroyed.

[Serenity Now]

Yeah because liberals are the champions of the poor.

You just bought that lie hook line and sinker.
Whatever. I didn't learn about voodoo economics and the laffer curve from ferris bueller. I learned from an economics professer in grad school.

[tommieharris91]

Here (http://www.standardandpoors.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobheadername3=MDT-Type&blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobheadervalue2=inline%3B+filename%3DUS_Downgrade d_AA%2B.pdf&blobheadername2=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue1=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobheadername1=content-type&blobwhere=1243942957443&blobheadervalue3=UTF-8) is the S&P report on the downgrade. I'm not sure it has been posted yet.

ETA: Here (http://www.standardandpoors.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobheadername3=MDT-Type&blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobheadervalue2=inline%3B+filename%3DCriteriaGove rnmentsSovereignsSovereignGovernmentRatingMethodol ogyAndAssumptions.pdf&blobheadername2=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue1=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobheadername1=content-type&blobwhere=1243943646614&blobheadervalue3=UTF-8) is where you can find S&P's rating methodology. The report refers to paragraph's 36-41 often.

[hawaii 5-0]

I'm just thankful the rich are getting richer.

The Middle Class is way overrated.


5-0


Trump/ Bob Cratchet 2012

[tommieharris91]

The last 2 pages of the S&P report pretty much damn anyone who thinks even restoring taxes to Clinton levels would have hurt the deficit. Their upside scenario allowed the Bush tax cuts (which Obama extended) to expire.

[trwxxa]

s&p placed some of the blame on the downgrade on the inability of congress to set policy. Thanks a bunch, tea bagged. Throw the idiots out.

Hard to blame the tea party. They were elected on their platform and are staying true to the platform.

If the Dems would have had any kind of message last year, they could have gotten humpty dumpty elected to Congress.

[tommieharris91]

s&p placed some of the blame on the downgrade on the inability of congress to set policy.

Some?!? Try all.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Tell us how you would cut over a trillion dollars from the budget next year and not destroy the economy?

Would you rather keep spending that trillion and defiantly destroy the economy?

The only bad thing is, yes, there is going to be a swell of unemployment when the government shrinks. I mean that's just the nature of the beast. The current road we're going down right now however isn't exactly full of win.

The reason I put that is people still are saying, "we just need to raise taxes." We have a spending problem, period.

I'm willing to go back to Clinton's tax rates if a small bump in taxes got a big cut in spending. Is the other side willing to cut besides the military?

I saw this posted. What does everybody think? I'm not saying I'm 100% supporting all of these cuts but I think it's a good start.

Take a chainsaw to the budget. (http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2011/07/29/take-chainsaw-budget-2#ixzz1TokLzWqf)


Defense cut by 2/3: $475 billion (Federal Budget, pg. 58)
Medicare/Medicaid*: $441 billion (Cato Institute)
Social Security Means Testing: $170 billion (Heritage Foundation)
Eliminate Dept. of Education (includes Pell Grants): $106.9 billion (Cato Institute)
Social Security*: $85.7 billion (Cato Institute)
Eliminate Dept. of Transportation: $84.8 billion (Cato Institute)
Tax Amnesty: $80 billion (Rep. Jared Polis D-Co.)
Eliminate Dept. of Labor*: $78.6 billion (Department of Labor and White House)
Eliminate HUD: $60.8 billion (Cato Institute)
Eliminate Dept. of Agriculture*: $33 billion (Cato Institute)
Cut civilian employee compensation: $30 billion (Cato Institute)
Stop maintaining vacant federal property: $25 billion (Heritage Foundation)
Eliminate Foreign Aid: $21.2 billion (Cato Institute)
Eliminate Dept. of Energy*: $20.8 billion (Cato Institute)
Eliminate NASA: $19.6 billion (Cato Institute)
Federal Drug War: $15 billion (White House)
Earmark moratorium: $16 billion (Heritage Foundation)
Eliminate Fannie/Freddie Subsidies: $14 billion (Federal Housing Finance Agency (p. 10))
Eliminate Dept. of Commerce: $13.9 billion (Department of Commerce)
Eliminate Dept. of Interior: $12 billion (White House)
Legalize Pot, Online gambling, Immigrants: $12 billion (Rep. Jared Polis D-Co.)
Privatize Army Corps of Engineers: $10.6 billion (Cato Institute)
Cut federal employee travel budget: $10 billion (Heritage Foundation)
Eliminate National Science Foundation: $7.4 billion (National Science Foundation)
End EPA’s State and Local grants: $6.5 billion (Cato Institute)
Repeal Davis-Bacon: $6 billion (Republican Study Committee)
Privatize TSA: $5.7 billion (Federal Budget)
Cut Dept. of Justice’s State and Local grants: $5 billion (Heritage Foundation)
Privatize Post Office: $4 billion (White House)
Eliminate Small Business Administration: $1.8 billion (Small Business Administration)
Lease coastal plain of ANWR: $1.5 billion (Heritage Foundation)
Eliminate Federal Flood Insurance: $1.3 billion (CBO, pg. 3)
Abolish SEC: $1.3 billion (SEC)
Eliminate Corporation for National Community Service: $1 billion (Cato Institute)
Suspend acquisition of federal office space: $1 billion (Heritage Foundation)
End subsidies for public broadcasting: $500 million (Cato Institute)
Eliminate the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corp: $480 million (Heritage Foundation)
Eliminate the FCC: $439 million (FCC)
Eliminate the Endowments for Arts/Humanities: $332 million (NEA/NEH)
Total Cut: $1,882,619,000,000
Current deficit: $1,645,000,000,000
Surplus Achieved: $237,619,000,000

[MamaMia]

Trillion. TRILLION! I dont remember that word being used until Obama was in office. Geithner needs to go.

[tommieharris91]

Trillion. TRILLION! I dont remember that word being used until Obama was in office. Geithner needs to go.

It's been used since Reagan.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Trillion. TRILLION! I dont remember that word being used until Obama was in office. Geithner needs to go.You really think Geithner is the problem?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I just saw John Chambers of S&P interviewed by Neil Cavuto. He, in so many words, said the rating was due to irresponsible financial behavior by the US govt. Other major factors were state and local govts. in trouble financially. S&P has been rating bonds since the 1920's. We've had a AAA for over 70 years, until now. Our new rating is now just above Spain. He said their rating committee is an international committee. The rating period is 6-24 months, and his estimate, considering his analysis, is that there is a one in 3 probability that the rating might drop another notch at the next rating.

Watch the dems and their MSM to soon go full-throttle attack against Chambers or S&P itself.

[bigfatjerk]

s&p placed some of the blame on the downgrade on the inability of congress to set policy. Thanks a bunch, tea bagged. Throw the idiots out.

Much of the Tea Party backed reps and Sens voted against the debt deal because it didn't really cut spending.

The problem was it didn't cut future spending at all. S&P said that it would downgrade if the cuts of future spending weren't at least 4 trillion. When all is said and done the cuts will end up being maybe 2 trillion if that. So there's a downgrade. I'm kinda amazed that one of these agency actually stood by it's principles and did what it said it would do.

[bigfatjerk]

I have no problem with the concept that we're spending too much. But, to think that we can have the lowest tax rate in 60ish years in the face of the spending that we've seen in the last decade is foolish. I get a kick out of the right thinking that cutting government income without cutting government expenses will work. Bush and Reagan both increased spending in the face of tax cuts. Foolish. The good news for the GOP. The rich are getting richer.

Well the only thing you can say about Bush and Reagan is they looked like they were saving money compared to the last few years under Obama. The day Obama took office the debt was at 8 trillion, deficit was at 498 billion. By the end of his first and probably only term he'll have doubled the debt and maybe gotten the deficit to 2 trillion in only 4 years. Just to compare that to Bush it took him 8 tears to get the debt up 3 trillion and deficit was only up about 100-200 billion. I say only on both of those accounts because comparison to Obama.

I agree 100% on Bush being way too big a spender and was one of the most liberal republican in the history of the party. I can't insult the guy enough. It's just sad how good he looks compared to Obama all around because I really hate George W. Bush.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Much of the Tea Party backed reps and Sens voted against the debt deal because it didn't really cut spending.

The problem was it didn't cut future spending at all. S&P said that it would downgrade if the cuts of future spending weren't at least 4 trillion. When all is said and done the cuts will end up being maybe 2 trillion if that. So there's a downgrade. I'm kinda amazed that one of these agency actually stood by it's principles and did what it said it would do.I doubt the S&P people have any idea what's in store for their business, and maybe even their personal lives.

[SoonerKnight]

Well, Bush was a big spender but the fact is he didn't come close to the Obama budgets. IIRC the most Bush ever spent in one year was 800 Billion. Zero is spending 1.7 Trillion per year.

WOW! You are a smart one!

The annual deficit reached record current-dollar levels of US$374 billion in 2003 and US$413 billion in 2004. National debt, the cumulative total of yearly deficits, rose from US$5.7 trillion (58% of GDP) to US$8.3 trillion (67% of GDP) under Bush,as compared to the US$2.7 trillion total debt owed when Ronald Reagan left office, which was 52% of the GDP.

[JohnnyMack]

The S&P is the same bunch of *** clowns who were paid off by Wall Street to rate all the **** mortgages as AAA. Putting any faith in what those whores say is laughable.

[MamaMia]

You really think Geithner is the problem? This nearly doubling of the national debt in 5 years is insane; 5.5 trillion under Pelosi and Obama. We were warned by S&P. Unbelievable that this was not prevented by both parties but you cant keep blaming the previous administration with a straight face. The 'Deal' stinks; this deal that had to be made by the date Geithner pulled out of his hat was a joke. In the end it adds an additional 2.1 to the debt. They are not cutting spending. A 300 billion net cut is nothing. At this rate, its going to be impossible for elected officials to put the fiscal profile of the country on a long term sustainable path. This country has only a net of 75% in liquid assets of the GDP. We printed money. That was stupid.

We have to get to a point where we are spending less than we are taking in. Over half of the American people pay nothing in taxes. Nothing. How is that fair? Everyone who lives in this country and benefits from all it has to offer should pay something if they are able bodied. You raise revenue by creating growth and Obama is scaring the people who create growth into not hiring because we don't know what shenanigans hes going to come up with next. Our employment pool is taking a big hit because people are afraid to hire. I know we aren't hiring. Some of our large companies are taking their business out of the country because there is no incentive to keep them here; too much regulation...too much taxes. Boeing is a perfect example. They took their business elsewhere to avoid high union wages, over regulation and through the roof taxes.

Geithner is part of the problem and should be the first to to go. I would like Obama to bring in someone who's not a politician, someone like Jack Welsh. I doubt Obama will ask Geithner to step down though. He hired him knowing he was a tax swindler, so his bad habits and reputation that put our country in jeopardy meant less to this administration than did our financial security. It was all about friendship.

S&P could move us to yet another downgrade if we keep spending more than we take in. We need a balanced budget.

Obama keeps saying that hes pivoting to the job market but he has done NOTHING.

People vote with their pocket books. This will hurt Obama. It happened on his watch. There is no denying that.
The S&P is the same bunch of *** clowns who were paid off by Wall Street to rate all the **** mortgages as AAA. Putting any faith in what those whores say is laughable.

Ya think? Tell that to the banks and credit card companies.

[tommieharris91]

Here (http://www.standardandpoors.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobheadername3=MDT-Type&blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobheadervalue2=inline%3B+filename%3DUS_Downgrade d_AA%2B.pdf&blobheadername2=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue1=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobheadername1=content-type&blobwhere=1243942957443&blobheadervalue3=UTF-8) is the S&P report on the downgrade. I'm not sure it has been posted yet.

ETA: Here (http://www.standardandpoors.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobheadername3=MDT-Type&blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobheadervalue2=inline%3B+filename%3DCriteriaGove rnmentsSovereignsSovereignGovernmentRatingMethodol ogyAndAssumptions.pdf&blobheadername2=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue1=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobheadername1=content-type&blobwhere=1243943646614&blobheadervalue3=UTF-8) is where you can find S&P's rating methodology. The report refers to paragraph's 36-41 often.
I'm going to post this again.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I'm going to post this again.


We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process

Well, there you go. Had congress and the president following my prescription of letting the Bush tax cuts expire and cutting 3 trillion in social security and medicare for those over 80, we'd still be AAA.

[JohnnyMack]

This nearly doubling of the national debt in 5 years is insane; 5.5 trillion under Pelosi and Obama. We were warned by S&P. Unbelievable that this was not prevented by both parties but you cant keep blaming the previous administration with a straight face. The 'Deal' stinks; this deal that had to be made by the date Geithner pulled out of his hat was a joke. In the end it adds an additional 2.1 to the debt. They are not cutting spending. A 300 billion net cut is nothing. At this rate, its going to be impossible for elected officials to put the fiscal profile of the country on a long term sustainable path. This country has only a net of 75% in liquid assets of the GDP. We printed money. That was stupid.

We have to get to a point where we are spending less than we are taking in. Over half of the American people pay nothing in taxes. Nothing. How is that fair? Everyone who lives in this country and benefits from all it has to offer should pay something if they are able bodied. You raise revenue by creating growth and Obama is scaring the people who create growth into not hiring because we don't know what shenanigans hes going to come up with next. Our employment pool is taking a big hit because people are afraid to hire. I know we aren't hiring. Some of our large companies are taking their business out of the country because there is no incentive to keep them here; too much regulation...too much taxes. Boeing is a perfect example. They took their business elsewhere to avoid high union wages, over regulation and through the roof taxes.

Geithner is part of the problem and should be the first to to go. I would like Obama to bring in someone who's not a politician, someone like Jack Welsh. I doubt Obama will ask Geithner to step down though. He hired him knowing he was a tax swindler, so his bad habits and reputation that put our country in jeopardy meant less to this administration than did our financial security security. It was all about friendship.

S&P could move us to yet another downgrade if we keep spending more than we take in. We need a balanced budget.

Obama keeps saying that hes pivoting to the job market but he has done NOTHING.

People vote with their pocket books. This will hurt Obama. It happened on his watch. There is no denying that.

Ya think? Tell that to the banks and credit card companies.

Don't bitch about wanting free markets and then complain when a company chooses to move jobs overseas because of those same free markets. Trusting corporations will do the right thing is as naive as trusting Obama to fix a problem.

[Chuck Bao]

The S&P is the same bunch of *** clowns who were paid off by Wall Street to rate all the **** mortgages as AAA. Putting any faith in what those whores say is laughable.

Yeah, nobody should ever trust any of those credit rating agencies because 1) they're stupid, 2) they have never really ever predicted anything and 3) they're stupid.

But OMG!!! This thing has turned my world upside down. Yeah, the entire world was valued and largely by the asset pricing models using US bonds as the risk free rate.

Well yeah, we completely ****ed that up. And, there is now no risk free rate anywhere in the whole damn world. The valuation models collapse and we get silly, really, really silly.

[Caboose]

Did any retards show up and blame the Tea Party yet?
(Too lazy to read the entire thread)

[pphilfran]

Don't bitch about wanting free markets and then complain when a company chooses to move jobs overseas because of those same free markets. Trusting corporations will do the right thing is as naive as trusting Obama to fix a problem.

Your problem is that your want corporations to be different from what they actually are...

A corp is in business to do one thing....make money and make more each and every year...

It's primary function not to create jobs....

[MamaMia]

Don't bitch about wanting free markets and then complain when a company chooses to move jobs overseas because of those same free markets. Trusting corporations will do the right thing is as naive as trusting Obama to fix a problem.Where in my post did I "bitch about free markets" brainfreeze?

[soonercruiser]

Did any retards show up and blame the Tea Party yet?
(Too lazy to read the entire thread)

I'll do it!
"Those crazy Tearbaggers wanting to balance the budget, and cut the growing costs of social programs.....what are they thinking"???

Sounds like the Teabaggers aren't the only ones that know what needs to be done. I believe, as I posted twice last week, that the other credit agencies will follow with downgrades soon.
:rolleyes:

[MamaMia]

Your problem is that your want corporations to be different from what they actually are...

A corp is in business to do one thing....make money and make more each and every year...

It's primary function not to create jobs....

You have to hire people to make money and the more you expand, the more people you have to hire.

[tommieharris91]

Did any retards show up and blame the Tea Party yet?
(Too lazy to read the entire thread)

Well, kind of... (http://www.standardandpoors.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobheadername3=MDT-Type&blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobheadervalue2=inline%3B+filename%3DUS_Downgrade d_AA%2B.pdf&blobheadername2=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue1=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobheadername1=content-type&blobwhere=1243942957443&blobheadervalue3=UTF-8)


Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.

[BU BEAR]

The S&P is the same bunch of *** clowns who were paid off by Wall Street to rate all the **** mortgages as AAA. Putting any faith in what those whores say is laughable.

You are right because they are late to the party on this one as well. They should have downgraded the U.S. government several months ago when it took the Federal Reserve's intervention to purchase the requisite amount of Treasury debt to keep the government running. If foreign central banks have no faith or interest in U.S. government debt, why should the rating agencies?

[pphilfran]

You have to hire people to make money and the more you expand, the more people you have to hire.

Only if there is demand for the product...

[tommieharris91]

You are right because they are late to the party on this one as well. They should have downgraded the U.S. government several months ago when it took the Federal Reserve's intervention to purchase the requisite amount of Treasury debt to keep the government running. If foreign central banks have no faith or interest in U.S. government debt, why should the rating agencies?

It's going to be interesting to see what happens to US bonds going forward, because the interest rates on US debt do not corroborate with what you said. (Remember, rates down = price up, and there is plenty of supply.)

[MamaMia]

Only if there is demand for the product...
Well, yeah. :D

[JohnnyMack]

Your problem is that your want corporations to be different from what they actually are...

A corp is in business to do one thing....make money and make more each and every year...

It's primary function not to create jobs....

No, I understand what they are. I understand their primary responsibility is to the bottom line. They've proven over and over that they're not to be trusted and that they must be regulated. It's not their fault, they can't help themselves.

[JohnnyMack]

Where in my post did I "bitch about free markets" brainfreeze?

I was connecting the dots from your previous rant.

[tommieharris91]

Well, yeah. :D

pphilfran just mentioned the major underlying problem with the US economy. There isn't as much demand as there was at the end of 2008.

[Sooner5030]

We’re in a pickle. Cut spending and/or raise revenue and you contract that all important statistical inference known as GDP….ceteris paribus of course. Then the ratings agencies can still downgrade the US further based on lower revenue expectations in future periods…..due to a likely recession.

All this and we are still servicing a debt that can never be repaid. There’s no crafty strategy to get us out of this mess. We were already too leveraged in 08 to take the steps we did.

[Sooner5030]

No, I understand what they are. I understand their primary responsibility is to the bottom line. They've proven over and over that they're not to be trusted and that they must be regulated. It's not their fault, they can't help themselves.

trusted to do what exactly? If you're not a stakeholder and they dont break any laws they don't owe you shiat!

[MamaMia]

Well the only thing you can say about Bush and Reagan is they looked like they were saving money compared to the last few years under Obama. The day Obama took office the debt was at 8 trillion, deficit was at 498 billion. By the end of his first and probably only term he'll have doubled the debt and maybe gotten the deficit to 2 trillion in only 4 years. Just to compare that to Bush it took him 8 tears to get the debt up 3 trillion and deficit was only up about 100-200 billion. I say only on both of those accounts because comparison to Obama.

I agree 100% on Bush being way too big a spender and was one of the most liberal republican in the history of the party. I can't insult the guy enough. It's just sad how good he looks compared to Obama all around because I really hate George W. Bush.It was $5.7 Trillion when George W. Bush took office. In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan. The point is that it has to stop, not whos fault it is.

[MamaMia]

No, I understand what they are. I understand their primary responsibility is to the bottom line. They've proven over and over that they're not to be trusted and that they must be regulated. It's not their fault, they can't help themselves. Regulated to what extent though? That is the trillion dollar question. I know we need some regulations in place to keep people safe but speaking from personal experience, I can tell you that many times companies are regulated by both federal and state agencies, that they even have to pay money to, and thats over the top.

[MamaMia]

Rasmussen: Only 6% of voters say that Congress is doing a good job. 61% say they suck. 62% say to send them all packing. Only 15% would keep any of them. 50% say Obama is doing a poor job. We are going to see some kind of change this next election; probably a bigger change in all of history.

[JohnnyMack]

trusted to do what exactly? If you're not a stakeholder and they dont break any laws they don't owe you shiat!

No ****?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

next stop, primary election 2012

[MamaMia]

I was connecting the dots from your previous rant.

I wasn't ranting JM. I was having a nice time, all comfy in my chair, chatting, expressing my views in what any sane person would perceive as in a polite manner. Why are you so rude? Can you not agree to disagree with folks without making accusations of "bitching", "ranting" and the like; using words to provoke negativity? You really need to work on your people skills.

[JohnnyMack]

next stop, primary election 2012

Hopefully tha Jesus freak Rick Perry doesn't enter the fray.

[diverdog]

The economy has already been destroyed.

This is complete hyperbole. Unlike Europe we have the ability to tax a lot more. Our taxes are low compared to most industrial nations. No doubt we need to reign in spending but we can get out of this mess. The problem is there is a lack of will power on both sides.

[diverdog]

It was $5.7 Trillion when George W. Bush took office. In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan. The point is that it has to stop, not whos fault it is.

It is both Obama and Bushes fault.

[Sooner5030]

It is both Obama and Bushes fault.

just to one up you;)

.....and Hastart, Lott, Boner, Pelosi, PACs and most importantly the mob!

oh....and the AARP.

[diverdog]

just to one up you;)

.....and Hastart, Lott, Boner, Pelosi, PACs and most importantly the mob!

oh....and the AARP.

I would say about every politician since and including Carter.

Honestly old folks are a huge issue.

[MamaMia]

It is both Obama and Bushes fault.I agree but Obama spent like Bush on steroids, and the printing of all that money. Geeze. That didnt bode well, for me anyway. :D

[TitoMorelli]

This is complete hyperbole. Unlike Europe we have the ability to tax a lot more. Our taxes are low compared to most industrial nations. No doubt we need to reign in spending but we can get out of this mess. The problem is there is a lack of will power on both sides.

Personally I'd rather we rein in spending instead of reigning in that area.

(/smartass)

[sheepdogs]

Rasmussen: Only 6% of voters say that Congress is doing a good job. 61% say they suck. 62% say to send them all packing. Only 15% would keep any of them. 50% say Obama is doing a poor job. We are going to see some kind of change this next election; probably a bigger change in all of history.

Approval ratings are not a good measuring stick. If you are a parent and your child(ren) does something wrong and you rightfully punish the child I wonder if your child will have a high approval rating of your parenting skills? Not likely is it? In actuallity, if a politician does his/her job effectively in a prudent manner and in the process calls out all the worms in society for what they are, and there are many of these worms to call out, then I doubt they would be given a high approval rating. If I were President of the U.S. I would be lucky to get through my first term for the back of my hand would be covered in blisters for slapping the silly, pathetic,lazy, troublemaking,petty,greedy,selfish, disrespectful, dishonorable people upside the head and in doing so I would become a marked man by many. In doing so, I doubt my approval rating would be higher than a hill of beans comprised of one solitary bean. In closing, a high approval rating given to politicians is likely because they are nothing but an arse kisser and arse kissers is the last thing any society needs, including ours.

[MamaMia]

Approval ratings are not a good measuring stick. If you are a parent and your child(ren) does something wrong and you rightfully punish the child I wonder if your child will have a high approval rating of your parenting skills? Not likely is it? In actuallity, if a politician does his/her job effectively in a prudent manner and in the process calls out all the worms in society for what they are, and there are many of these worms to call out, then I doubt they would be given a high approval rating. If I were President of the U.S. I would be lucky to get through my first term for the back of my hand would be covered in blisters for slapping the silly, pathetic,lazy, troublemaking,petty,greedy,selfish, disrespectful, dishonorable people upside the head and in doing so I would become a marked man by many. In doing so, I doubt my approval rating would be higher than a hill of beans comprised of one solitary bean. In closing, a high approval rating given to politicians is likely because they are nothing but an arse kisser and arse kissers is the last thing any society needs, including ours. I still believe that we will see a big turnover in Congress on election day because we aren't going to be able to crawl out from under this mess by then.

[diverdog]

I still believe that we will see a big turnover in Congress on election day because we aren't going to be able to crawl out from under this mess by then.

I think you under estimate the stupidity of the American electorate. :D

[bigfatjerk]

Well, there you go. Had congress and the president following my prescription of letting the Bush tax cuts expire and cutting 3 trillion in social security and medicare for those over 80, we'd still be AAA.

Cutting the Bush tax cuts wouldn't raise nearly enough revenue, you are talking about raising taxes on 1% of the population about 5% total it's really not even a drop in the bucket. We need to get the amount of people paying federal income taxes from about 50% like it is now to about 80%.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Cutting the Bush tax cuts wouldn't raise nearly enough revenue, you are talking about raising taxes on 1% of the population about 5% total it's really not even a drop in the bucket. We need to get the amount of people paying federal income taxes from about 50% like it is now to about 80%.We need the private sector to rebound. That will only happen after the democrats take their jack-boots off of America's throat.

[diverdog]

Cutting the Bush tax cuts wouldn't raise nearly enough revenue, you are talking about raising taxes on 1% of the population about 5% total it's really not even a drop in the bucket. We need to get the amount of people paying federal income taxes from about 50% like it is now to about 80%.

It would raise $4 trillion over 10 years if all the cuts including middle class tax cuts were allowed to expire.

[diverdog]

We need the private sector to rebound. That will only happen after the democrats take their jack-boots off of America's throat.

Rush it is not that simple. Bush only created 7 million jobs in 8 years. Do the math.....it works out to less than 100,000 jobs being created on average per month. And he had a housing boom.

We need another spark to get this country going. Something like the car industry or tech industry. Something really revolutionary. I think it could be in the energy field. The Bloom device is a great example.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Rush it is not that simple. Bush only created 7 million jobs in 8 years. Do the math.....it works out to less than 100,000 jobs being created on average per month. And he had a housing boom.

We need another spark to get this country going. Something like the car industry or tech industry. Something really revolutionary. I think it could be in the energy field. The Bloom device is a great example.Unparalled fed. govt. spending is wrecking the country. It is likely intentional, rather than misguided. Pure rocket science.

[soonercruiser]

Rush it is not that simple. Bush only created 7 million jobs in 8 years. Do the math.....it works out to less than 100,000 jobs being created on average per month. And he had a housing boom.

We need another spark to get this country going. Something like the car industry or tech industry. Something really revolutionary. I think it could be in the energy field. The Bloom device is a great example.

DD,
You are correct in saying it isn't that simple.
But, look at the year by year stats...
You don't have very many jobs left to create when unemployment was that much lower. (4-6% unemployment)

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html

[diverdog]

Unparalled fed. govt. spending is wrecking the country. It is likely intentional, rather than misguided. Pure rocket science.

Our deficits were the same percentage of GDP in 2010 as they were during WWII. We got out of that just fine.

Everyone is focusing on the wrong problem. We need jobs not talks about balancing the budget. That needs to happen but first lets get America back to work. Scrapping NAFTA and GATT would be a good start. Incenting companies to bring jobs home would help.

[diverdog]

DD,
You are correct in saying it isn't that simple.
But, look at the year by year stats...
You don't have very many jobs left to create when unemployment was that much lower. (4-6% unemployment)

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html

Cruiser real unemployment is higher than that. Even under Bush.

[bigfatjerk]

If you go by real unemployment it's probably double today what it was under Bush even. Look Bush was terrible as a president, but his record looks a lot better compared to Obama in every area. That just shows how low Obama has been.

[sappstuf]

Our deficits were the same percentage of GDP in 2010 as they were during WWII. We got out of that just fine.

Everyone is focusing on the wrong problem. We need jobs not talks about balancing the budget. That needs to happen but first lets get America back to work. Scrapping NAFTA and GATT would be a good start. Incenting companies to bring jobs home would help.

Because the rest of the world economy was destroyed and we rebuilt it... DD, I know you are smart enough to see the difference.

[tommieharris91]

Rush it is not that simple. Bush only created 7 million jobs in 8 years. Do the math.....it works out to less than 100,000 jobs being created on average per month. And he had a housing boom.


The job losses in 2008 left his administration with net job losses.

[tommieharris91]

Because the rest of the world economy was destroyed and we rebuilt it... DD, I know you are smart enough to see the difference.

He didn't mean post-WWII.

[diverdog]

Because the rest of the world economy was destroyed and we rebuilt it... DD, I know you are smart enough to see the difference.

Sapp

We did that after fighting a World War and going massively into debt. So my point is still valid. We can get out of this if there is political will do so. The problem is that during the Reagan years there were a bunch of anti government types who wanted to starve the government of revenue and bring it down. To bad those fools did not realize it would bring them down as well.

[sappstuf]

Sapp

We did that after fighting a World War and going massively into debt. So my point is still valid. We can get out of this if there is political will do so. The problem is that during the Reagan years there were a bunch of anti government types who wanted to starve the government of revenue and bring it down. To bad those fools did not realize it would bring them down as well.

The debt never really went down... $11 billion in 46-47 out of $269 billion. It just became a smaller percentage because our GDP grew so fast.

[Sooner_Tuf]

It was $5.7 Trillion when George W. Bush took office. In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan. The point is that it has to stop, not whos fault it is.

Arrow meet bullseye. Of course they are all too busy trying to place blame to do anything.

Raising taxes is not the solution. Possibly making some people pay what they really owe is a partial solution. The real solution is to quit spending and make people get back to work.

If people were cramming money into savings you have a shot at increasing revenue by raising taxes. Since most Americans spend every dime they get their hands on (and more) raising taxes just means people will spend less. You know what happens when people spend less? You are gonna have to raise taxes again because revenues will drop and unemployment will increase.

The only way to fix any deficit is to QUIT SPENDING. If we quit paying deadbeats most of them will seek employment. More employment = more revenue. It's not rocket science (which like school buses we cannot afford to fund anymore).

[The Profit]

It was $5.7 Trillion when George W. Bush took office. In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan. The point is that it has to stop, not whos fault it is.



Mama, you have to remember that the Bush administration deferred the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to 2009, which represents more than half of the debt accumulated during the Obama administration. Last week's Sunday Oklahoman had a great breakdown of which president (Bush or Obama) was most responsible for the size of the debt. Three-fourths of the current debt is attributal to the Bush administration.

[Serenity Now]

I think a solution might be to kill NAFTA and other things moving manufacturing out of the US. Our downturns started with steel mills and other manufacturing migrated out of the US.

[diverdog]

The debt never really went down... $11 billion in 46-47 out of $269 billion. It just became a smaller percentage because our GDP grew so fast.

Thanks. You keep reinforcing my point that we can get out of this. Everyone is in a panic and if we get some great leaders in government we will be alright. The problem is finding great leaders. Sort of like finding an honest man in parliament. :)

[diverdog]

Mama, you have to remember that the Bush administration deferred the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to 2009, which represents more than half of the debt accumulated during the Obama administration. Last week's Sunday Oklahoman had a great breakdown of which president (Bush or Obama) was most responsible for the size of the debt. Three-fourths of the current debt is attributal to the Bush administration.

Spot on. I keep saying that no matter who is in office we would have huge deficits. There is no getting around that fact. Now one could argue that McCain may have spent a few hundred billion less but the fact is trillion dollar deficits were coming on quick.

[Sooner5030]

Mama, you have to remember that the Bush administration deferred the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to 2009, which represents more than half of the debt accumulated during the Obama administration. Last week's Sunday Oklahoman had a great breakdown of which president (Bush or Obama) was most responsible for the size of the debt. Three-fourths of the current debt is attributal to the Bush administration.

Seriously dude...please stop. What expenditures during W's years were incurred yet deferred payments to later FYs?

[sappstuf]

Spot on. I keep saying that no matter who is in office we would have huge deficits. There is no getting around that fact. Now one could argue that McCain may have spent a few hundred billion less but the fact is trillion dollar deficits were coming on quick.

No it wasn't spot on... It showed the cost of Obamacare to be something like $200 Billion until 2019...

It simply isn't factual.

[BU BEAR]

Three-fourths of the current debt is attributal to the Bush administration.

3/4ths of $15Trillion is $11.25 Trillion. Bush did not add $11.25 Trillion to the debt. Would you like to try again? If so, do not to pull figures and terms out of your rear end.

[diverdog]

No it wasn't spot on... It showed the cost of Obamacare to be something like $200 Billion until 2019...

It simply isn't factual.

Are you talking about the article or Profits comments?

[sappstuf]

Thanks. You keep reinforcing my point that we can get out of this. Everyone is in a panic and if we get some great leaders in government we will be alright. The problem is finding great leaders. Sort of like finding an honest man in parliament. :)

We can get out of it the same way we got out then... Drastically cutting federal spending..

You wanted it, you got it. Here are the cuts need to balance the budget without raising taxes..


The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the 2012 deficit will amount to 7 percent of GDP, or about $1.1 trillion. At 16.6 percent of GDP, federal tax revenue is 1.3 percentage points off its historical average of 17.9 percent of GDP; spending, at 23.6 percent of GDP, is significantly farther off the trendline, 2.9 percentage points more than its historical average of 20.7 percent of GDP. Spending, not revenue, is the real outlier.

What would a cuts-only balanced budget look like? There are lots of options. Eliminating Social Security would almost get you there by itself. Eliminating Social Security and Medicare would put you well into the black. But that isn’t going to happen. Neither is what I’m going to propose, but here’s my back-of-the-envelope balanced budget, with no tax increases:

1. Social Security: Yeah, they’ll say you’re throwing Granny off the cliff. But it’s her or the grandkids. So implement aggressive means-testing and other reforms to cut 20 percent of spending for $150 billion in savings.

2. Medicare: Ditto, for $100 billion in savings.

3. Keep on going and reduce Medicaid and other health-care services spending by 10 percent: $33 billion.

4. National defense: Republicans will howl, but there’s room for a 10 percent cut to all national-defense spending, including non-DoD activities such as DoE’s work maintaining our nuclear arsenal. That nets $74 billion in savings. Surely we can slaughter hapless desert barbarians more cheaply.

5. “Other income security.” That’s the welfare state bits and pieces not included in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps, etc. Welfare of the checks-from-Uncle variety. Eliminating it entirely saves $159 billion.

6. Welfare for bureaucrats: Making federal-employee retirement and disability systems totally self-funding saves $123 billion.

7. Eliminate federal education spending entirely: elementary, secondary, and higher-ed. Leaving it to the states and to the market saves us $106 billion. Harvard will figure something out.

8. Eliminate “community and regional-development” spending, a.k.a. boondoogles and slush funds, except for disaster relief: $15 billion.

9. Get farmers off welfare: $19 billion. Suck it up, Elmer.

10. Foreign aid, international development, international-security assistance, etc. Quit meddling abroad and propping up Third World potentates, and save $44 billion.

11. Cut all the “energy” spending on “energy information,” “energy emergency preparedness,” etc. — all the energy spending that doesn’t actually produce any energy. And throw federal energy-conservation spending on the fire, too. Cutting the bureaucratic answer to Jimmy Carter’s sweater saves $12 billion.

12. “Advancing commerce” doesn’t. We’re looking at you, SBA et al.: $23 billion.

13. Federal law enforcement: Cut spending by 10 percent. Legalizing it saves us $3 billion.

14. Space flight: We aren’t flying in space anymore. Staying grounded saves $17 billion.

15. Downsize Smokey the Bear: Cutting land-management, recreation, natural resources, etc., by half saves $21 billion.

16. Quit subsidizing suburban sprawl: Cutting transportation spending by 10 percent saves $10 billion.

17. Save $36 billion by cutting health research and training. Let Pfizer do it.

18. The real-estate market isn’t going to make a comeback. So eliminate federal housing assistance and save $60 billion.

19. Cut food stamps by 10 percent, save $11 billion.

20. I know, I promised no tax increases, so that’s a 19-point plan to balance the budget: Just over $1 trillion in savings. No. 20 is a bonus tax hike: Eliminate the stupid and destructive mortgage-interest deduction and have the national debt paid off by the time the kids being born this year graduate from college.

[diverdog]

Seriously dude...please stop. What expenditures during W's years were incurred yet deferred payments to later FYs?

Bush never included the cost of the wars in the Pentagon baseline budget. I am pretty sure that is what Profit is referring to.

[Sooner5030]

Bush never included the cost of the wars in the Pentagon baseline budget. I am pretty sure that is what Profit is referring to.

although not budgeted as noted, the appropriations were approved for all F_ING current expenditures that had to be paid at THAT time for the wars. It's not like OIF/OEF 01-08 was paid for under O's spending.

Plus you’re assuming that the deficit can be attributable to one thing when all revenues are netted against all expenditures. There’s not a f’ing OIF/OEF tax that can be compared to the OIF/OEF expenditures.

We could totally shut down OIF/OEF and our entire DoD and still have a deficit. Why can’t liberals realize that defense spending is not the only/major problem here?

[diverdog]

We can get out of it the same way we got out then... Drastically cutting federal spending..

You wanted it, you got it. Here are the cuts need to balance the budget without raising taxes..

LOL

Try passing that through congress.

Secondly those are pie in the sky numbers with no basis in reality. I could say eliminate defense altogether plus corporate welfare and we have just balanced the budget. On top of all that it does nothing to address future recipients of SS and Medicare with the expanding baby boom population. Now I do appreciate the effort and I think if they could get a quarter of the cuts we would be better for it.

Taxes will go up eventually.

[diverdog]

although not budgeted as noted, the appropriations were approved for all F_ING current expenditures that had to be paid at THAT time for the wars. It's not like OIF/OEF 01-08 was paid for under O's spending.

The are a few other issues. First the decline in taxes received by the government which is now around 15% of GDP....historically you need 19%-20%. Bush also had SS surpluses to mask his deficits.....Obama doesn't. And in the spirit of fairness a lot of Presidents before Bush also masked their deficits by raiding SS.

None the less deficits were projected to be over $400 billion dollars after Bush left office and before the current recession. You throw in the forward deficits plus the loss of tax revenue and you are easily approaching a trillion dollars. The next guy who comes into office will be dealing with deficits from Obama.

[sappstuf]

DD,

let me ask you a simple question based on the prevaling sentiment of our country right now, which is the federal government spends too much money.

Will there be more or less Tea Party types in Congress after the 2012 elections?

[Sooner5030]

The are a few other issues. First the decline in taxes received by the government which is now around 15% of GDP....historically you need 19%-20%. Bush also had SS surpluses to mask his deficits.....Obama doesn't. And in the spirit of fairness a lot of Presidents before Bush also masked their deficits by raiding SS.

None the less deficits were projected to be over $400 billion dollars after Bush left office and before the current recession. You throw in the forward deficits plus the loss of tax revenue and you are easily approaching a trillion dollars. The next guy who comes into office will be dealing with deficits from Obama.

none of this changes the fact that some dude (profit) stated that the cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars were deferred to 2009 and that W was responsible for 1/2 of the accumulated debt during O's term. Stop taking up for folks that don't know what they're talking about just because you may be ideologically aligned with them.

[diverdog]

DD,

let me ask you a simple question based on the prevaling sentiment of our country right now, which is the federal government spends too much money.

Will there be more or less Tea Party types in Congress after the 2012 elections?

Given the stupidity of the American electorate I would say more. Once the Tea Party guts SS and Medicare from granny they will be voted out in droves. How would you feel if they means tested your retirement or yanked it from you?

I also think that the mainstream Republican Party is going to figure out that the Tea Party is a bunch of mouthy little ba*st*rds with no real power and they are going to tell them to sit in a corner and sh*t the f*ck up. But that is just my opinion.

[diverdog]

none of this changes the fact that some dude (profit) stated that the cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars were deferred to 2009 and that W was responsible for 1/2 of the accumulated debt during O's term. Stop taking up for folks that don't know what they're talking about just because you may be ideologically aligned with them.

He was just repeating what he read in the local Oklahoma paper. Don't blame me. I also think you are confusing two issues. The deficit (the amount spent over the budget) did not include the wars. They were done through emergency supplemental appropriations outside of the budget. So in other words the actual deficit was higher than reported.

By the way when did Obama start the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Sooner5030]

He was just repeating what he read in the local Oklahoma paper. Don't blame me. I also think you are confusing two issues. The deficit (the amount spent over the budget) did not include the wars. They were done through emergency supplemental appropriations outside of the budget. So in other words the actual deficit was higher than reported.

By the way when did Obama start the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I'm not confusing anything. Although the wars were not budgeted the appropriations were still approved, expenditures were paid and the amounts were accurately reflected in the US financial statements in those years that they were paid. The actual deficit was not any different than the audited statements provided by the GAO for those years.

[sappstuf]

Given the stupidity of the American electorate I would say more. Once the Tea Party guts SS and Medicare from granny they will be voted out in droves. How would you feel if they means tested your retirement or yanked it from you?

I also think that the mainstream Republican Party is going to figure out that the Tea Party is a bunch of mouthy little ba*st*rds with no real power and they are going to tell them to sit in a corner and sh*t the f*ck up. But that is just my opinion.

You do realize how successful the Tea Party has been don't you? Obama wanted a clean debt ceiling hike. When he couldn't get that, he wanted a tax increase on the rich.

Obama took it up the rump from the Tea Party and they didn't even give him the courtesy of a reach-a-round.

How much were we talking about cutting spending in the 2008 elections?? It is amazing the change that has happened in 2 years. No honest person can look at the political climate and think the Tea Party is going to do anything but strengthen in the next election. There might be a Tea Party Speaker after 2012.

The Repubs will take the Senate, it is just a matter by how many seats.

Dems are losing ground on all fronts again in 2012.. It is just a matter of if it becomes a complete route with Obama being voted out.

[diverdog]

I'm not confusing anything. Although the wars were not budgeted the appropriations were still approved, expenditures were paid and the amounts were accurately reflected in the US financial statements in those years that they were paid. The actual deficit was not any different than the audited statements provided by the GAO for those years.

Yes they were reflected as debt but not as part of the deficit. The project FY 2008 deficit (Bush numbers) was $455 billion dollars. The debt increased that year by $1,017 trillion dollars. The budgeted spending that year was $2.98 trillion dollars and the actual spending was $3.5 trillion dollars. A lot of that was due to supplemental appropriations that were outside of the budget process and not included in the reported deficit. And yes I know the financial bailout was part of that number. So was the war.

I think we maybe arguing over semantics. The next time I am going to let Profit defend himself.

[diverdog]

You do realize how harmful the Tea Party has been don't you? Obama wanted a clean debt ceiling hike. When he couldn't get that, he wanted a tax increase on the rich.

Obama took it up the rump from the Tea Party and they didn't even give him the courtesy of a reach-a-round.

How much were we talking about cutting spending in the 2008 elections?? It is amazing the change that has happened in 2 years. No honest person can look at the political climate and think the Tea Party is going to do anything but strengthen in the next election. There might be a Tea Party Speaker after 2012.

The Repubs will take the Senate, it is just a matter by how many seats.

Dems are losing ground on all fronts again in 2012.. It is just a matter of if it becomes a complete route with Obama being voted out.

Sapp:

The problem is Americans have not felt the pain that the Tea Party advocates. Most Americans think the debt is driven by poor people, foreign aid, spending on the Arts and NPR. Wait till they get their SS and Medicare cut. Wait till federal employees start losing benefits and farmers lose their funding. You will see the Tea Party disappear in a matter of years.

BTW I have no doubt they will make gains next year.

Hey it has been fun but I need to hit the rack. Got to get up in the morning and go cycling. Trying to get in shape for a 150 mile ride.

[MamaMia]

Mama, you have to remember that the Bush administration deferred the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to 2009, which represents more than half of the debt accumulated during the Obama administration. Last week's Sunday Oklahoman had a great breakdown of which president (Bush or Obama) was most responsible for the size of the debt. Three-fourths of the current debt is attributal to the Bush administration.

The same rag that thought oSu might go all the way last year. http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y86/OUmom/smilies/giggle-1.gif

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The same rag that thought oSu might go all the way last year. http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y86/OUmom/smilies/giggle-1.gifAre orange aggy commies running that paper, now? I saw one write-up recently that said they have a shot to win a football NC this yr. Don't remember the source, but I DID LOL.

[pphilfran]

It would raise $4 trillion over 10 years if all the cuts including middle class tax cuts were allowed to expire.

No way in hell would we see that much revenue...one trillion of ten years...maybe a little more when you consider GDP growth...

All of Clinton's revenue gains came from cap gains...I would expect a maximum increase of .5% of GDP...and that is a stretch...

In 2012 the Obama budget projects a GDP of 16 trillion...80 billion in new revenue
2016 GDP of 20 trillion....100 billion in new revenue...
2020 GDP of 25 trillion (high end est)....125 billion in new revenue..

[pphilfran]

Our deficits were the same percentage of GDP in 2010 as they were during WWII. We got out of that just fine.

Everyone is focusing on the wrong problem. We need jobs not talks about balancing the budget. That needs to happen but first lets get America back to work. Scrapping NAFTA and GATT would be a good start. Incenting companies to bring jobs home would help.

Funny you bring this up...I have been doing a little digging into this over the last week...

First up is the debt chart along with net interest paid....both as a % of GDP...

Look at the interest payment from the late 70's - 90's...public debt was growing but not at the rate of the interest payments...interest payments more than doubled...

Starting in 2008 we can see debt skyrocketing to historical levels...with debt servicing moving up into level of the earlier peak...

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/debtandnetinterest.jpg

In the following chart we see the Prime Rate vs interest payments as a % of GDP...

Look what drove that big debt payment increases...those high prime rates from the late 70's and early 80's....we had to issue bonds with stratospheric interest rates and we paid the price in later years...

But thing be different this time...our debt servicing is rocketing up...and it isn't interest rates like in earlier times..

As you have said we have battled back in the past...but if interest rates increase and we have to start paying higher rates and debt servicing down the road we are screwed....

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/netintandprime.jpg

[diverdog]

Funny you bring this up...I have been doing a little digging into this over the last week...

First up is the debt chart along with net interest paid....both as a % of GDP...

Look at the interest payment from the late 70's - 90's...public debt was growing but not at the rate of the interest payments...interest payments more than doubled...

Starting in 2008 we can see debt skyrocketing to historical levels...with debt servicing moving up into level of the earlier peak...

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/debtandnetinterest.jpg

In the following chart we see the Prime Rate vs interest payments as a % of GDP...

Look what drove that big debt payment increases...those high prime rates from the late 70's and early 80's....we had to issue bonds with stratospheric interest rates and we paid the price in later years...

But thing be different this time...our debt servicing is rocketing up...and it isn't interest rates like in earlier times..

As you have said we have battled back in the past...but if interest rates increase and we have to start paying higher rates and debt servicing down the road we are screwed....

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/netintandprime.jpg

Phil:

I have always said that the elephant in the room is interest rate increases. That is why that whole cap and balance scheme won't work. SS, medicare and the servicing of the debt will eat up the entire budget because of what is coming up on the horizon.

[diverdog]

No way in hell would we see that much revenue...one trillion of ten years...maybe a little more when you consider GDP growth...

All of Clinton's revenue gains came from cap gains...I would expect a maximum increase of .5% of GDP...and that is a stretch...

In 2012 the Obama budget projects a GDP of 16 trillion...80 billion in new revenue
2016 GDP of 20 trillion....100 billion in new revenue...
2020 GDP of 25 trillion (high end est)....125 billion in new revenue..

Phil :

You might be right, I know the CBO has said if the tax cuts on people making over $200,000/year were allowed to expire we would have about another trillion in revenue over ten years.

I thought the tiered rates under Clinton were a lot higher.

[pphilfran]

You are supposed to be out riding your bike...

[pphilfran]

Yep..we have always been in agreement on the impact of future rates...

It would be the chits if we actually lowered the debt but debt servicing continued to increase due to higher interest rates...

[diverdog]

You are supposed to be out riding your bike...

I am heading out now. We had a small thunderstorm that needed to pass. I hate lightning.

[bigfatjerk]

although not budgeted as noted, the appropriations were approved for all F_ING current expenditures that had to be paid at THAT time for the wars. It's not like OIF/OEF 01-08 was paid for under O's spending.

Plus you’re assuming that the deficit can be attributable to one thing when all revenues are netted against all expenditures. There’s not a f’ing OIF/OEF tax that can be compared to the OIF/OEF expenditures.

We could totally shut down OIF/OEF and our entire DoD and still have a deficit. Why can’t liberals realize that defense spending is not the only/major problem here?

Also you have a democrat president and had dem controlled congress for most of 3 years. With a good plan they could have gotten out of Iraq/Afghanistan completely or at least out of Iraq. And we are now a bigger force in the middle east than we ever were under Bush in both Lybia and Pakistan. You can't blame Bush and the republicans if the dems continue the same policies and double down on them.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Also you have a democrat president and had dem controlled congress for most of 3 years. With a good plan they could have gotten out of Iraq/Afghanistan completely or at least out of Iraq. And we are now a bigger force in the middle east than we ever were under Bush in both Lybia and Pakistan.

You can't blame Bush and the republicans if the dems continue the same policies and double down on them.WANNA BET?

[diverdog]

You are supposed to be out riding your bike...

Gawd that ride sucked. Our heat index is about 95 with a dew point of 75 when I walked out the door. Had a head wind most of the way and my fricken left ball kept getting squished in my lycra riding pants. I know TMI. On top of all that I am in worse shape than I thought. After one and half hours I had enough.

[diverdog]

Also you have a democrat president and had dem controlled congress for most of 3 years. With a good plan they could have gotten out of Iraq/Afghanistan completely or at least out of Iraq. And we are now a bigger force in the middle east than we ever were under Bush in both Lybia and Pakistan. You can't blame Bush and the republicans if the dems continue the same policies and double down on them.

We have the same number of forces in Pakistan. Did you mean Afghanistan and the surge?

[bigfatjerk]

I don't know if we have anymore troops in Pakistan but we've had more drone attacks there, and the raid on Bin Ladin of course. But still my point was instead of for financial reasons cutting back on overseas like say Clinton did a little bit we've increased our middle east war machine.

[The Profit]

The same rag that thought oSu might go all the way last year. http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y86/OUmom/smilies/giggle-1.gif




I can't argue with that, Mama!!

[tommieharris91]

The Treasury defends itself. (http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Pages/Just-the-Facts-SPs-2-Trillion-Mistake.aspx)

[sappstuf]

I see the new Dem talking point this morning is that the downgrade was the Tea Party's fault..

Yes, of course... The Tea Party that has been around for 8 months is responsible for careless, excessive spending and the debt.... :rolleyes:

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I see the new Dem talking point this morning is that the downgrade was the Tea Party's fault..

Yes, of course... The Tea Party that has been around for 8 months is responsible for careless, excessive spending and the debt.... :rolleyes:GET YOUR MIND RIGHT!

Here's how it works: If the Teapartiers weren't there to vote no on insane spending, then it would have sailed through much more quickly, and WHAT UPSET STANDARD AND POORS IS THAT THERE WAS BICKERING AND STRIFE AND STUFF ON THE VOTE.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

So a credit downgrade means the dollar and treasuries rally.

[Ike]

Not for nothing, but this made me 'heh'. Perhaps the people driving the bond rally are more in agreement with this guy than with S&P.

http://economicsofcontempt.blogspot.com/2011/08/on-s-downgrades-and-idiots.html

[sappstuf]

Obama about to give a speech on the downgrade.

I put the over/under at 3 for the number of times Obama mentions "corporate jet owners"...

[soonercruiser]

I see the new Dem talking point this morning is that the downgrade was the Tea Party's fault..

Yes, of course... The Tea Party that has been around for 8 months is responsible for careless, excessive spending and the debt.... :rolleyes:

Axelrod blaming the Tea Party!!!
He is insane and needs to be commited for the good of the country!

If that were the case, (imagine) simply raising the debt limit without strings attached would have pleased S&P????
Right! :rolleyes:

I heard them talking and answering questions on the TV all weekend long. And, they were consistent on the message that the downgrade was a result of no plan in the long-term to reduce the debt and out-of-control spending on social programs.
What universe are the Demoncrats living in???? :mad:

[pphilfran]

Axelrod blaming the Tea Party!!!
He is insane and needs to be commited for the good of the country!

If that were the case, (imagine) simply raising the debt limit without strings attached would have pleased S&P????
Right! :rolleyes:

I heard them talking and answering questions on the TV all weekend long. And, they were consistent on the message that the downgrade was a result of no plan in the long-term to reduce the debt and out-of-control spending on social programs.
What universe are the Demoncrats living in???? :mad:

S&P was also very critical of the fiasco in Congress leading up to the deadline...S&P also wants the Clinton tax package...

[Veritas]

I don't get the blaming of the Tea Party. That's just idiotic.

It's not the Democrat's fault and it's not the Republican's fault. It's not Obama's fault and it's not Bush's fault.

It's our fault. The blame lies at the feet of the American people for allowing the abuse of credit to become a pervasive practice.

[sappstuf]

Obama is 43 minutes late to his own press conference about the downgrade... I hope we don't get downgraded again for fiscal punctuality...

[soonercruiser]

S&P was also very critical of the fiasco in Congress leading up to the deadline...S&P also wants the Clinton tax package...

Phil,
I am talking about when they were asked about why the downgrade after the extension was passed. They were almost uniformly relating to the long-term outlook.

If the rankor in Congress was a reason, they would have downgraded US two years ago!
Can't get any worst than the healthcare debate!

[diegosooner]

Axelrod blaming the Tea Party!!!
He is insane and needs to be commited for the good of the country!

If that were the case, (imagine) simply raising the debt limit without strings attached would have pleased S&P????
Right! :rolleyes:

I heard them talking and answering questions on the TV all weekend long. And, they were consistent on the message that the downgrade was a result of no plan in the long-term to reduce the debt and out-of-control spending on social programs.
What universe are the Demoncrats living in???? :mad:

You can't blame the Tea Party for the accumulation of 14 Trillion dollars of debt. But they are partly to blame for the fact Congress did not get 4 trillion in debt reduction. They would not agree to a 1 trillion increase in revenue paired with 3 trillion in cuts = 4 trillion.

[pphilfran]

Phil,
I am talking about when they were asked about why the downgrade after the extension was passed. They were almost uniformly relating to the long-term outlook.

If the rankor in Congress was a reason, they would have downgraded US two years ago!
Can't get any worst than the healthcare debate!

Friday night when the news broke the S&P rep said on CNN that the discourse was a major concern...he really stressed the fact...

Here it is...

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=cnn&tnr=21&vid=1168976446908&l=186&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts1.mm.bing.net%2Fvideos%2Fthumb nail.aspx%3Fq%3D1168976446908%26id%3Dd10bd31e547e2 2826a8b36507934a206%26bid%3DmSZ%252bCgSYnh1SOQ%26b n%3DThumb%26url%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252fwww.cnn.com%2 52fvideo%252f%253f%252fvideo%252fbusiness%252f2011 %252f08%252f06%252fac.sp.downgrades.us.credit.cnn&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2Fvideo%2F%3F%2Fvide o%2Fbusiness%2F2011%2F08%2F06%2Fac.sp.downgrades.u s.credit.cnn&sigr=12jq0bgc8&newfp=1&tit=S%26P+Downgrades+U.S.+credit+rating

[sappstuf]

S&P was also very critical of the fiasco in Congress leading up to the deadline...S&P also wants the Clinton tax package...

Actually, S&P was very noncommittal about that.


Standard & Poor’s takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.’s finances on a sustainable footing.

Compare that to how they feel about our entitlement problem.


The plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.

And since I know you understand that we could not possibly tax enough to fulfull our unfunded liabilities, there is only one choice of what we need to do. So, which party is trying to reform the entitlement programs and which is making commercials with the other side literally throwing grandma off a cliff?

That answer should lead you to who S&P is putting the blame on.

[sappstuf]

You can't blame the Tea Party for the accumulation of 14 Trillion dollars of debt. But they are partly to blame for the fact Congress did not get 4 trillion in debt reduction. They would not agree to a 1 trillion increase in revenue paired with 3 trillion in cuts = 4 trillion.

Can you show where that plan was brought to the floor by the Dems and voted upon? I mean, Harry controls the Senate and he can call a vote pretty much anytime...

[pphilfran]

sap...listen to that video....there was a lot more to the interview not shown...you might search CNN and Anderson Cooper for the entire thing

He seemed to want to call Congress incompetent because of their delay...he stated it numerous times...

Wants the Clinton tax rate...

The budget didn't go after entitlements...

[sappstuf]

Friday night when the news broke the S&P rep said on CNN that the discourse was a major concern...he really stressed the fact...

Here it is...

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=cnn&tnr=21&vid=1168976446908&l=186&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts1.mm.bing.net%2Fvideos%2Fthumb nail.aspx%3Fq%3D1168976446908%26id%3Dd10bd31e547e2 2826a8b36507934a206%26bid%3DmSZ%252bCgSYnh1SOQ%26b n%3DThumb%26url%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252fwww.cnn.com%2 52fvideo%252f%253f%252fvideo%252fbusiness%252f2011 %252f08%252f06%252fac.sp.downgrades.us.credit.cnn&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2Fvideo%2F%3F%2Fvide o%2Fbusiness%2F2011%2F08%2F06%2Fac.sp.downgrades.u s.credit.cnn&sigr=12jq0bgc8&newfp=1&tit=S%26P+Downgrades+U.S.+credit+rating


To me the "discourse" is a red herring. We could have had 10 times the discourse, but if we would have actually cut $4 trillion from spending, we would not have been downgraded.

We were downgraded, because in the big scheme of things, this was still a small deal and the Dems fought until the bitter end against even those small cuts to growth in the future.

Wait until we start making actual cuts....

I bet if Obama in March would have froze all federal spending at current levels and for the next 5 years we would not have been downgraded..

He did mention the debt commission that Obama completely ignored.

[pphilfran]

Here is a better vid of the whole enchilada...

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/08/05/ac.man.behind.downgrade.cnn?iref=videosearch

[pphilfran]

To me the "discourse" is a red herring. We could have had 10 times the discourse, but if we would have actually cut $4 trillion from spending, we would not have been downgraded.

We were downgraded, because in the big scheme of things, this was still a small deal and the Dems fought until the bitter end against even those small cuts to growth in the future.

Wait until we start making actual cuts....

I bet if Obama in March would have froze all federal spending at current levels and for the next 5 years we would not have been downgraded..

He did mention the debt commission that Obama completely ignored.

They guy says that mid to long term it is not near enough...that was a big concern...

watch the guy when they talk about S&P missing the 2 trillion...he seems to be holding back...he wanted to explode...

[bigfatjerk]

You can't blame the Tea Party for the accumulation of 14 Trillion dollars of debt. But they are partly to blame for the fact Congress did not get 4 trillion in debt reduction. They would not agree to a 1 trillion increase in revenue paired with 3 trillion in cuts = 4 trillion.
Most of the Tea Party Senators(if not all) and most of the Tea Party congressmen voted against the deal.

[Veritas]

Jeebus. Stop acting like we got here overnight. This problem has been building for decades.

[tommieharris91]

So what's actually going on in the bond market today must be the elephant in the room. The 10 year T-note yield is down almost 20 basis points. It's like no one there cares.

[Ike]

So what's actually going on in the bond market today must be the elephant in the room. The 10 year T-note yield is down almost 20 basis points. It's like no one there cares.

Maybe because everyone was too busy selling their equities...

[tommieharris91]

Maybe because everyone was too busy selling their equities...

Yea, but I would think the money would fly to some other kind of safe, AAA rated bonds, like French, German, or Canadian bonds.

[soonercruiser]

Friday night when the news broke the S&P rep said on CNN that the discourse was a major concern...he really stressed the fact...

Here it is...

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=cnn&tnr=21&vid=1168976446908&l=186&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts1.mm.bing.net%2Fvideos%2Fthumb nail.aspx%3Fq%3D1168976446908%26id%3Dd10bd31e547e2 2826a8b36507934a206%26bid%3DmSZ%252bCgSYnh1SOQ%26b n%3DThumb%26url%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252fwww.cnn.com%2 52fvideo%252f%253f%252fvideo%252fbusiness%252f2011 %252f08%252f06%252fac.sp.downgrades.us.credit.cnn&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2Fvideo%2F%3F%2Fvide o%2Fbusiness%2F2011%2F08%2F06%2Fac.sp.downgrades.u s.credit.cnn&sigr=12jq0bgc8&newfp=1&tit=S%26P+Downgrades+U.S.+credit+rating

Phil,
I guess you are correct in his.
This is pretty much what he said on FOX Sunday. (making two points) But, he does go on to say......"in the broader perspective"...."the failure to dewal with the lonmg-term debt".
(towards the end of that clip he discounts any short-term outlook)
So, I think that they are looking at the Dems unwillingness to deal with debt from SS and Medicare in the long-term.

[pphilfran]

Yea, but I would think the money would fly to some other kind of safe, AAA rated bonds, like French, German, or Canadian bonds.

Nobody could handle the massive volume of US bonds...

[pphilfran]

Phil,
I guess you are correct in his.
This is pretty much what he said on FOX Sunday. (making two points) But, he does go on to say......"in the broader perspective"...."the failure to dewal with the lonmg-term debt".
So, I think that they are looking at the Dems unwillingness to deal with debt from SS and Medicare in the long-term.

Not saying he wasn't critical of many areas...just that our inept Congress was taken into account...

Notice he didn't complain about short term spending...only about mid and long term debt to GDP...

[soonercruiser]

Most of the Tea Party Senators(if not all) and most of the Tea Party congressmen voted against the deal.

None, NO ONE needed the Tea Party votes to pass a House bill, or the final bill.
It is a red herring!
It's merely a talking point for the left to attack the Repugs.

[tommieharris91]

Hmmm... So what I'm seeing right now means the stock market crash going on right now isn't caused by the debt downgrade? :D

[OklahomaTuba]

Owebomba just opening his piehole is enough to crater the market & the economy, or what's left of it anyhow.

[pphilfran]

Hmmm... So what I'm seeing right now means the stock market crash going on right now isn't caused by the debt downgrade? :D

Too much bad news and this was the straw that broke the camel's back...the downgrade means little in the grand scheme of things...though it is a terrible blow to DC....

[bigfatjerk]

If the downgrade didn't happen, the stock market wouldn't be near as volatile. It would probably still be down because of how bad it is in Europe right now. But not 500 pts bad.

[tommieharris91]

If the downgrade didn't happen, the stock market wouldn't be near as volatile. It would probably still be down because of how bad it is in Europe right now. But not 500 pts bad.

It would still be down today. But hey, we can refi our debt at like 2.00% interest now. It was 2.2% on Friday. Maybe I should max out all of my credit cards right now so I can get a lower interest rate.

[bigfatjerk]

The DOW is now only down 370 points, nice rally.

[OklahomaTuba]

Plunge Protection Team to the Rescue!!!!!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Phil,
I am talking about when they were asked about why the downgrade after the extension was passed. They were almost uniformly relating to the long-term outlook.

If the rankor in Congress was a reason, they would have downgraded US two years ago!
Can't get any worst than the healthcare debate!pphilfran must have me on iggy, or else post #175 would have been internalized...or, maybe he's like most libs, in that market economics just bounces off their minds.

[jkjsooner]

pphilfran must have me on iggy, or else post #175 would have been internalized...or, maybe he's like most libs, in that market economics just bounces off their minds.

I don't know what pphilfran's political ideology but I do know you couldn't hold his candle when it comes to discussions on economics.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

You obviously do not not know RLIMC very well, he has one trump card in economic discussion that that phil can't beat or hold a handle to and that is the simple fact that until Democrats came along the US lived in a world of pure Imagination... Hold your breath
Make a wish
Count to three
Come with me
And you'll be
In a world of
Pure imagination
Take a look
And you'll see
Into your imagination
We'll begin
With a spin
Traveling in
The world of my creation
What we'll see
Will defy
Explanation
If you want to view paradise
Simply look around and view it
Anything you want to, do it
Want to change the world?
There's nothing
To it
There is no
Life I know
To compare with
Pure imagination
Living there
You'll be free
If you truly wish to be
If you want to view paradise
Simply look around and view it
Anything you want to, do it
Want to change the world?
There's nothing
To it
There is no
Life I know
To compare with
Pure imagination
Living there
You'll be free
If you truly
Wish to be

[OklahomaTuba]

or, maybe he's like most libs, in that market economics just bounces off their minds.I think they are in total denial at this point at the total failure of liberalism.

Even Europe can't believe that liberalism/socialism doesn't work, and they are in near total collapse.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Well 10 Triple A rated countries reside in Europe so they are at least respected in their near total collapse!

[diverdog]

Too much bad news and this was the straw that broke the camel's back...the downgrade means little in the grand scheme of things...though it is a terrible blow to DC....

Exactly. I have bought bonds with much lower ratings to junk status and have done just fine. Plus short term treasuries were not downgraded.

[OklahomaTuba]

Well 10 Triple A rated countries reside in Europe so they are at least respected in their near total collapse!By Europe, I do mean the EU, not the continent.

[pphilfran]

pphilfran must have me on iggy, or else post #175 would have been internalized...or, maybe he's like most libs, in that market economics just bounces off their minds.

No....I just considered the source of post #175....

[Blue]

Obama says we are still Triple A in his mind. Good enough for me.

[StoopTroup]

Obama says we are still Triple A in his mind. Good enough for me.

LOL....I have to agree...

I understand what he's trying to say but I'm not sure him getting involved in finger-pointing only opens the door for him to get all of the blame.

He should have STFU IMO.

Big mistake.

[pphilfran]

Why are they so shocked? S&P told them in advance that they expected 4 trillion in reductions over 10 years....our leadership puts together a 2 trillion plan and it gets downgraded...

What were they expecting?

[soonercruiser]

I don't know what pphilfran's political ideology but I do know you couldn't hold his candle when it comes to discussions on economics.

Phil's THE MAN$!
I hope he takes Geither's place on the Fed.!
;)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

No....I just considered the source of post #175....You would be much smarter to consider the content of what is said, rather than do that bounce off your mind stuff.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I don't know what pphilfran's political ideology but I do know you couldn't hold his candle when it comes to discussions on economics.Sure thing, tiger.

[sappstuf]

Why are they so shocked? S&P told them in advance that they expected 4 trillion in reductions over 10 years....our leadership puts together a 2 trillion plan and it gets downgraded...

What were they expecting?

Great post. I give it an AA+....

[diverdog]

Why are they so shocked? S&P told them in advance that they expected 4 trillion in reductions over 10 years....our leadership puts together a 2 trillion plan and it gets downgraded...

What were they expecting?

Phil:

The S&P is down grading everything.....munis, states, insurance companies, financials. They are on tear.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

You would be much smarter to consider the content of what is said, rather than do that bounce off your mind stuff.

LOL

[sappstuf]

Phil:

The S&P is down grading everything.....munis, states, insurance companies, financials. They are on tear.

The irony being, that after the wall street meltdown the Dems blasted S&P for keeping businesses rated too high for too long, and rightly so.

So S&P downgrades us on legitimate concerns and Obama thinks they acted to hastily...

Catch 22.

[OklahomaTuba]

I think this will make a nice bumper sticker going into election season.

http://pl-mgroup-akamai.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2011/08/ODowngradev2b.jpg

[pphilfran]

Phil:

The S&P is down grading everything.....munis, states, insurance companies, financials. They are on tear.

I guess payback is a mother...

They are getting what they wanted...they felt S&P was too lenient and should have graded more critically in the past...

So S&P is doing just that.....

It is a lesson the Obama hasn't learned...don't burn no bridges...he just can't do that...if he gets a chance to slap someone around he will take the shot and not think about his future needs from the organization that he just beat up in a public forum...

Slap round big business and then ask them to create new jobs...

Talk about raising taxes and then plead to not ship jobs overseas...

Beat up on the repubs and then beg them to compromise and move over to his side...

Criticize big oil about obscene profits and then want them to keep prices low...

Yep...it is always somebody else...

[The Profit]

Phil's THE MAN$!
I hope he takes Geither's place on the Fed.!
;)




Geitner is not on the fed, MOE'RON!!!

[soonercruiser]

Geitner is not on the fed, MOE'RON!!!

Apologies to Profit.
I was wrong in posting quickly. I was a moran at that point.
Geitner is Treasury.

[soonercruiser]

http://members.cox.net/franklipsinic/Economy/still%20AAA.jpg

[OutlandTrophy]

We sure heard a lot of "I" during Obama's speech telling us about how he caught and killed bin Laden. We haven't heard many "I"s about the downgrade that were not directly followed by "blame".

[XingTheRubicon]

he's irrelevant now, just a matter of who replaces him

[JohnnyMack]

he's irrelevant now, just a matter of who replaces him

Hopefully it'll be the closeted Jesus freak Rick Perry!

[soonercruiser]

Apologies to Profit.
I was wrong in posting quickly. I was a moran at that point.
Geitner is Treasury.

[Veritas]

Hopefully it'll be the closeted Jesus freak Rick Perry!
I don't care if his replacement is a gay Muslim abortion doctor as long as he's got a ****ing clue about economics and foreign policy.

[sappstuf]

I don't care if his replacement is a gay Muslim abortion doctor as long as he's got a ****ing clue about economics and foreign policy.

Veritas, you should really give Obama a break. After three years in office, debt has skyrocketed, unemployment is up, we have been downgraded and while the market was in freefall on Monday he said this.


I intend to present my own recommendations over the coming weeks on how we should proceed.

See help is coming! It is only weeks away. He has been sandbagging for 3 years just to unleash these recommendations at our darkest hour in the coming weeks.

He truly is the smartest president we have ever had....

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Where the hell is Albus Dumbledore when you need his gay ***!!!

[XingTheRubicon]

Hopefully it'll be the closeted Jesus freak Rick Perry!

Unlike yourself, I don't think he's closeted. An evangelical from texas has zero chance.