Liberal free for all coming to an end

[TracyCoxx]

7/30/11

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

So back to this GRH... The senate is working on a bill that cuts $2 trillion over 10 years. Why? If S&P says we need to cut $4 trillion over 10 years why is the senate trying to cut $2 trillion over 10 years? And why has the senate tossed the only bill so far that does cut at least $4 trillion over 10 years?

8/6/11

Credit rating agency Standard & Poor's on Friday lowered the nation's AAA rating for the first time since granting it in 1917. The move came less than a week after a gridlocked Congress finally agreed to spending cuts that would reduce the debt by more than $2 trillion -- a tumultuous process that contributed to convulsions in financial markets. The promised cuts were not enough to satisfy S&P.

And Washington is now acting surprised. Idiots.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

And Washington is now acting surprised. Idiots.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury and many in Congress are disputing S&P's math, a fact that should be included with any statement about what S&P has done. Further, S&P -- in taking this decision -- calls attention as much to the political process as to anything specifically financial. In other words, it is a reasonable assumption that had the Tea Partiers not manufactured a debt ceiling "crisis" for political purposes, out of thin air, there would have been no such action.

Notably, neither Fitch nor Moody's, the other two main credit ratings agencies (Moody's being generally regarded as the most important), have downgraded their ratings. Both continue to maintain the AAA rating for the United States after this week's debt deal, although Moody's lowered its outlook on U.S. debt to "negative."

The $1 billion extra in interest it may now cost the United States to borrow money that it MUST borrow to pay for spending already approved by Congress -- including by Republicans -- is $1 billion that could have been spent on making life better for Americans. Instead, it will go to banks and other lending institutions. So, the Tea Partiers get the best of both worlds, from their perspective: they held the government hostage to a phony debt ceiling crisis that resulted in some cuts they wanted, and they get more money to their real, significant backers. In other words, more money for the wealthiest bankers and others who control the flow of capital.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

The U.S. Department of the Treasury and many in Congress are disputing S&P's math, a fact that should be included with any statement about what S&P has done. Further, S&P -- in taking this decision -- calls attention as much to the political process as to anything specifically financial. In other words, it is a reasonable assumption that had the Tea Partiers not manufactured a debt ceiling "crisis" for political purposes, out of thin air, there would have been no such action.

Notably, neither Fitch nor Moody's, the other two main credit ratings agencies (Moody's being generally regarded as the most important), have downgraded their ratings. Both continue to maintain the AAA rating for the United States after this week's debt deal, although Moody's lowered its outlook on U.S. debt to "negative."

The $1 billion extra in interest it may now cost the United States to borrow money that it MUST borrow to pay for spending already approved by Congress -- including by Republicans -- is $1 billion that could have been spent on making life better for Americans. Instead, it will go to banks and other lending institutions. So, the Tea Partiers get the best of both worlds, from their perspective: they held the government hostage to a phony debt ceiling crisis that resulted in some cuts they wanted, and they get more money to their real, significant backers. In other words, more money for the wealthiest bankers and others who control the flow of capital.

S&P is being completely irresponsible with this rating. It will just make the financial situation worse.
Like it or not, the economy is a "faith based system". If the public feel confident the economy is doing OK, they are willing to invest in it and companies are willing to expand, creating jobs. Endless "bad" news creats a poisoness atmosphere that pervades the entire economy.
It makes one wonder who runs S&P, are they part of the group determined to make the economy look terrible before the next election in order to get Obama out of office?

[ila]

Originally Posted by randolph

...Like it or not, the economy is a "faith based system". If the public feel confident the economy is doing OK, they are willing to invest in it and companies are willing to expand, creating jobs. Endless "bad" news creats a poisoness atmosphere that pervades the entire economy...

The situation would probably be better if you had a president with some backbone and principles. You don't need a leader who sways in the wind like a reed in a hurricane and who doesn't really have a vision of what your country should be and do.

[TracyCoxx]

The $2 trillion error not withstanding, S&P noted that we did not make the $4 trillion in cuts that they were looking for, and that much of the cuts we did plan on making were to come years from now under different presidents and different congresses. They have understandably lost faith that our idiots in washington can get things done and carry it out. When the president & congress promises cuts over 6 years from now, does anyone seriously thing they will happen?

Error or not, after August 2nd the dow dropped like 700 pts. People knew this was coming.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The $2 trillion error not withstanding, S&P noted that we did not make the $4 trillion in cuts that they were looking for, and that much of the cuts we did plan on making were to come years from now under different presidents and different congresses. They have understandably lost faith that our idiots in washington can get things done and carry it out. When the president & congress promises cuts over 6 years from now, does anyone seriously thing they will happen?

Error or not, after August 2nd the dow dropped like 700 pts. People knew this was coming.

I guess S&P should be calling the shots for the U.S. economy, rather than the real working people who pay real taxes. Of course, the chance that Republocrats actually represent real taxpayers as opposed to the financial barons of whom the S&P leadership is part is, of course, a fiction.

Tracy Coxx, why don't we just let S&P run the country directly? Wouldn't it cut out all the political shenanigans in Washington and make people who think like you happy?

[randolph]

Originally Posted by ila

The situation would probably be better if you had a president with some backbone and principles. You don't need a leader who sways in the wind like a reed in a hurricane and who doesn't really have a vision of what your country should be and do.

It's becoming increasingly apparent that Obama is primarily interested in getting reelected rather than facing up to the right and their financial supporters. The devastation started by Ronald Reagan continues. Reagan seduced the nation with his friendly smooth talking style. Even now he is still considered a hero. Thirty years ago a man could support his family with a single job, buy a house and a car to get to work. His kids could get a college education for little cost. Public education was the best in the world.
When Reagan fired the airline controllers and nobody came to their support including other unions, the right wing was amazed and knew then that they could continue to screw the middle class by systematically transferring wealth to the wealthy.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

It's becoming increasingly apparent that Obama is primarily interested in getting reelected rather than facing up to the right and their financial supporters. The devastation started by Ronald Reagan continues. Reagan seduced the nation with his friendly smooth talking style. Even now he is still considered a hero. Thirty years ago a man could support his family with a single job, buy a house and a car to get to work. His kids could get a college education for little cost. Public education was the best in the world.
When Reagan fired the airline controllers and nobody came to their support including other unions, the right wing was amazed and knew then that they could continue to screw the middle class by systematically transferring wealth to the wealthy.

Randolph, you are getting close to the truth. If you can just realize that this is not about Obama, per se, but about the two parties that are controlled by big business and the wealthy. They disagree only in how to screw us. The Democrats want to do it on behalf of their benefactors somewhat benignly, recognizing that pushing too hard causes social turmoil. The Republicans are more honest in coming right out and telling people whose interests they represent. The fact that anyone, anyone, who works for a living (as opposed to those who live off the exploitation in our system) supports the latter is beyond me, when it is so obvious that they represent those who would exploit them even more. The fact that anyone who works for a living supports the former is a reflection of how well the Democrats have convinced people, falsely, that they are the party of the working class.

[ila]

Originally Posted by randolph

It's becoming increasingly apparent that Obama is primarily interested in getting reelected rather than facing up to the right and their financial supporters. The devastation started by Ronald Reagan continues. Reagan seduced the nation with his friendly smooth talking style. Even now he is still considered a hero. Thirty years ago a man could support his family with a single job, buy a house and a car to get to work. His kids could get a college education for little cost. Public education was the best in the world.
When Reagan fired the airline controllers and nobody came to their support including other unions, the right wing was amazed and knew then that they could continue to screw the middle class by systematically transferring wealth to the wealthy.

Originally Posted by smc

Randolph, you are getting close to the truth. If you can just realize that this is not about Obama, per se, but about the two parties that are controlled by big business and the wealthy. They disagree only in how to screw us. The Democrats want to do it on behalf of their benefactors somewhat benignly, recognizing that pushing too hard causes social turmoil. The Republicans are more honest in coming right out and telling people whose interests they represent. The fact that anyone, anyone, who works for a living (as opposed to those who live off the exploitation in our system) supports the latter is beyond me, when it is so obvious that they represent those who would exploit them even more. The fact that anyone who works for a living supports the former is a reflection of how well the Democrats have convinced people, falsely, that they are the party of the working class.

It's not just in your country. It seems that politicians everywhere are more interested in ganining and retaining power rather than looking after their respective countries.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

7/30/11


8/6/11


And Washington is now acting surprised. Idiots.

Why should we listen to S&P, when they along with Moodys completely fucked up the analysis of the derivitives market, leading to the financial meltdown?

[ila]

Originally Posted by randolph

Why should we listen to S&P, when they along with Moodys completely fucked up the analysis of the derivitives market, leading to the financial meltdown?

There are a great many more reasons for the financial mess that your country has caused to the rest of world than what S&P or Moody's had done or not done. One can start with social engineering and end with financial greed as the complete range of reasons.