On August 09 2011 04:44 Romantic wrote: It should be obvious but it seems people haven't figured it out... the US was downgraded by ONE ratings agency that shouldn't have credit to begin with. If you want to give it credit, it specifically blamed Republicans for being unwilling to raise revenue.
The second thing that should be obvious is the markets have already rejected S&P's rating. They downgraded Treasuries. Surprise! 10-year rates have fallen from 2.55% to below 2.4%. Obviously the markets don't share S&P's fear of US public debt.
Quote from Financial Times with regard to most recent Treasury auction.
The most extreme move is in yields on 30-year Treasuries, which are rising by the most since the early 1980s, a rise of more than 27 basis points to yields of 3.75 per cent. That followed an auction with the poorest demand in nearly three years, as investors balked at buying risky, long-term notes that yielded just a bit more than inflation, and dealers were left with inventory to sell.
On August 09 2011 04:44 Romantic wrote: It should be obvious but it seems people haven't figured it out... the US was downgraded by ONE ratings agency that shouldn't have credit to begin with. If you want to give it credit, it specifically blamed Republicans for being unwilling to raise revenue.
The second thing that should be obvious is the markets have already rejected S&P's rating. They downgraded Treasuries. Surprise! 10-year rates have fallen from 2.55% to below 2.4%. Obviously the markets don't share S&P's fear of US public debt.
Quote from Financial Times with regard to most recent Treasury auction.
The most extreme move is in yields on 30-year Treasuries, which are rising by the most since the early 1980s, a rise of more than 27 basis points to yields of 3.75 per cent. That followed an auction with the poorest demand in nearly three years, as investors balked at buying risky, long-term notes that yielded just a bit more than inflation, and dealers were left with inventory to sell.
Huh? 30-year treasuries have been above 4% nearly all year before now. It is no surprise that 30-year treasuries are more than shorter treasuries, especially when the markets are trying to predict when robust recovery happens.
I follow the election abit, some candidates seems to have serious issues (that bachman woman?! WTF?)
The only candidate that seems to know what he is talking about seems to be Ron Paul, also taking into account that he predicted alot of things about the economy that happened(happens right now).
On August 13 2011 03:32 Senorcuidado wrote: Did anyone watch the debate yesterday? Ron was completely and blatantly ignored the whole time. I'm curious if anyone tracked this kind of thing, but it seemed to me that Bachmann and Pawlenty got about ten times the attention Ron got. I expect more integrity out of any "news" network, even Fox. The stream was full of people clamoring for Ron Paul to get asked a question about...anything and everything.
Yes. Here's a basic summary:
Romney: Came out ahead and even stronger than before. I can't believe how few shots were taken at him by the other candidates.
Pawlenty: Went down in flames. He was incredibly unprepared. He came off as being smug and petty. His campaign is over.
Bachmann: Weathered attacks fairly well and should be well-positioned going forward.
Gingrich: Surprisingly had the best showing at the debate. He's definitely the smartest guy in the room, but I don't think that he's going to be able to translate it into any kind of political success.
Cain: Was himself again. Good showing, some solid answers, but I doubt he's going anywhere.
Santorum: Doctors who give abortions in accordance with the law should be imprisoned? Really?
Paul: I want to like the guy, but what he said about Iran was sheer lunacy. Paul's biggest problem is that he suffers from diarrhea of the mouth. His answers are always rambling and tended to drift to a couple off-topic points.
Huntsman: "I have no economic plan." lol
As for my opinion, all of the candidates are flawed in one way or another. Realistically, only Romney and Perry have a shot at winning, with Bachmann having an outside chance at winning. I'd vote for any of the candidates over Obama in a heartbeat.
how is what RP said about iran lunacy?
It absolutely wasn't. The real lunacy is all these "conservatives" that insist on an unsustainable foreign policy of imperialism. The liberals have bought into it too, despite their rumblings about PNAC not so long ago. Nothing will change under any of these other candidates. Just as Obama ended up becoming Bush 2.0, whoever takes his place will be the 3.0. They bicker about minutia while ignoring fundamental problems.
This Iran garbage is the fault of Fox News. No offense to xdaunt, I would never compare someone to Fox unless they were vomiting actual bull shit out of there mouth 24/7. But this narrative that has people so worried about Ron Paul and Iran has been going on for years and Fox News manufactured it. Ron Paul terrifies them and they have worked so hard to make him look like a kook. Unfortunately, too many reasonable Republicans watch Fox News and the fear mongering eventually gets to them. They end up believing, as CNN did and reported, all that hype that Ron Paul is fringe and unelectable in a general election. In reality that's a complete lie. He resonates with people, conservatives, liberals, and independents, in large part because his foreign policy ideas make so much sense.
I will say it again. Ron Paul is the only conservative in the race. He is the only one that cares about the debt and sound money. He has to win the Republican nomination. Our country needs to have this fundamental debate. We have never been given the chance, and Fox News will do its best to make sure we never will.
On August 09 2011 04:44 Romantic wrote: It should be obvious but it seems people haven't figured it out... the US was downgraded by ONE ratings agency that shouldn't have credit to begin with. If you want to give it credit, it specifically blamed Republicans for being unwilling to raise revenue.
The second thing that should be obvious is the markets have already rejected S&P's rating. They downgraded Treasuries. Surprise! 10-year rates have fallen from 2.55% to below 2.4%. Obviously the markets don't share S&P's fear of US public debt.
Quote from Financial Times with regard to most recent Treasury auction.
The most extreme move is in yields on 30-year Treasuries, which are rising by the most since the early 1980s, a rise of more than 27 basis points to yields of 3.75 per cent. That followed an auction with the poorest demand in nearly three years, as investors balked at buying risky, long-term notes that yielded just a bit more than inflation, and dealers were left with inventory to sell.
Huh? 30-year treasuries have been above 4% nearly all year before now. It is no surprise that 30-year treasuries are more than shorter treasuries, especially when the markets are trying to predict when robust recovery happens.
That was not the point I was making. Of course longer debt pays more than shorter debt. The poster made a comment stating that the market doesn't share the worry about Treasury debt. Dealers being left with inventory means 1 thing, there is worry and the market wasn't getting a return high enough to justify buying the Treasury despite the worry.
Ron Paul's position on Iran basically has 4 points:
1) It's the US's fault that they hate us; 2) Iran isn't pursuing nuclear weapons; 3) Even if Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, it's their right to do so; 4) We shouldn't be doing anything to stop Iranfrom acquiring nuclear weapons.
Factually, Ron Paul is partially correct about number 1 and may be correct about number 2 (though I doubt this one). I even agree with him on number 3 from a philosophical point of view. However, he completely goes off the rails with number 4. There simply is no good outcome to a country like Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, and if we have a viable means to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, we absolutely should use it.
On August 16 2011 04:23 xDaunt wrote: Ron Paul's position on Iran basically has 4 points:
1) It's the US's fault that they hate us; 2) Iran isn't pursuing nuclear weapons; 3) Even if Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, it's their right to do so; 4) We shouldn't be doing anything to stop Iranfrom acquiring nuclear weapons.
Factually, Ron Paul is partially correct about number 1 and may be correct about number 2 (though I doubt this one). I even agree with him on number 3 from a philosophical point of view. However, he completely goes off the rails with number 4. There simply is no good outcome to a country like Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, and if we have a viable means to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, we absolutely should use it.
im sure even Ron Paul would compromise on that point ^^
On August 16 2011 04:23 xDaunt wrote:There simply is no good outcome to a country like Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, and if we have a viable means to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, we absolutely should use it.
Why must Iran be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons at all costs? You seem completely convinced, please explain your motivation more in detail.
On August 16 2011 04:23 xDaunt wrote:There simply is no good outcome to a country like Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, and if we have a viable means to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, we absolutely should use it.
Why must Iran be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons at all costs? You seem completely convinced, please explain your motivation more in detail.
1) Iran's regime is an enemy of the US. The last thing that we need is for our enemies to get stronger.
2) If Iran gets nuclear weapons, it will start an arms race in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia has already pledged to get nukes if Iran does.
3) Iran's batshit crazy regime can't be trusted to act rationally with nukes like other secular states do.
On August 16 2011 04:23 xDaunt wrote:There simply is no good outcome to a country like Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, and if we have a viable means to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, we absolutely should use it.
Why must Iran be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons at all costs? You seem completely convinced, please explain your motivation more in detail.
1) Iran's regime is an enemy of the US. The last thing that we need is for our enemies to get stronger.
2) If Iran gets nuclear weapons, it will start an arms race in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia has already pledged to get nukes if Iran does.
3) Iran's batshit crazy regime can't be trusted to act rationally with nukes like other secular states do.
Better go invade iran then, take saudi to while your already there and the rest of the middle east to :D
Since u obviously are running out of cash and troops, better nuke them.
On August 16 2011 04:23 xDaunt wrote: Ron Paul's position on Iran basically has 4 points:
1) It's the US's fault that they hate us; 2) Iran isn't pursuing nuclear weapons; 3) Even if Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, it's their right to do so; 4) We shouldn't be doing anything to stop Iranfrom acquiring nuclear weapons.
Factually, Ron Paul is partially correct about number 1 and may be correct about number 2 (though I doubt this one). I even agree with him on number 3 from a philosophical point of view. However, he completely goes off the rails with number 4. There simply is no good outcome to a country like Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, and if we have a viable means to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, we absolutely should use it.
North Korea has had nukes as well as other countries that are a FAR, FAR greater threat like China(Read: China military engineers photographing stealth US helicopter downed in Pakistan and allowed to take samples by the ISI). Iran isn't gonna mean shit, Israel has nukes, North Korea has them, Russia, etc. the list goes on
To pretend that Iran is going to become the greatest threat ever known is absurd. Ron Paul via his economic policy tells me he knows when its time to fight, when there is a real issue. At the same time I think he understands war. War should be hell, but it should be swift. It should not be some decade or two long peace loving, democracy promoting, bullshit campaign. If they fuck with us, obliterate them, otherwise live peaceably.
I like the youtube link where they show a politico article...most obnoxious article title ever...Bachmann wins the straw poll, Pawlenty comes third..WHAT.
On August 13 2011 03:32 Senorcuidado wrote: Did anyone watch the debate yesterday? Ron was completely and blatantly ignored the whole time. I'm curious if anyone tracked this kind of thing, but it seemed to me that Bachmann and Pawlenty got about ten times the attention Ron got. I expect more integrity out of any "news" network, even Fox. The stream was full of people clamoring for Ron Paul to get asked a question about...anything and everything.
Yes. Here's a basic summary:
Romney: Came out ahead and even stronger than before. I can't believe how few shots were taken at him by the other candidates.
Pawlenty: Went down in flames. He was incredibly unprepared. He came off as being smug and petty. His campaign is over.
Bachmann: Weathered attacks fairly well and should be well-positioned going forward.
Gingrich: Surprisingly had the best showing at the debate. He's definitely the smartest guy in the room, but I don't think that he's going to be able to translate it into any kind of political success.
Cain: Was himself again. Good showing, some solid answers, but I doubt he's going anywhere.
Santorum: Doctors who give abortions in accordance with the law should be imprisoned? Really?
Paul: I want to like the guy, but what he said about Iran was sheer lunacy. Paul's biggest problem is that he suffers from diarrhea of the mouth. His answers are always rambling and tended to drift to a couple off-topic points.
Huntsman: "I have no economic plan." lol
As for my opinion, all of the candidates are flawed in one way or another. Realistically, only Romney and Perry have a shot at winning, with Bachmann having an outside chance at winning. I'd vote for any of the candidates over Obama in a heartbeat.
how is what RP said about iran lunacy?
It absolutely wasn't. The real lunacy is all these "conservatives" that insist on an unsustainable foreign policy of imperialism. The liberals have bought into it too, despite their rumblings about PNAC not so long ago. Nothing will change under any of these other candidates. Just as Obama ended up becoming Bush 2.0, whoever takes his place will be the 3.0. They bicker about minutia while ignoring fundamental problems.
This Iran garbage is the fault of Fox News. No offense to xdaunt, I would never compare someone to Fox unless they were vomiting actual bull shit out of there mouth 24/7. But this narrative that has people so worried about Ron Paul and Iran has been going on for years and Fox News manufactured it. Ron Paul terrifies them and they have worked so hard to make him look like a kook. Unfortunately, too many reasonable Republicans watch Fox News and the fear mongering eventually gets to them. They end up believing, as CNN did and reported, all that hype that Ron Paul is fringe and unelectable in a general election. In reality that's a complete lie. He resonates with people, conservatives, liberals, and independents, in large part because his foreign policy ideas make so much sense.
I will say it again. Ron Paul is the only conservative in the race. He is the only one that cares about the debt and sound money. He has to win the Republican nomination. Our country needs to have this fundamental debate. We have never been given the chance, and Fox News will do its best to make sure we never will.
Yep, and he's the only republican candidate that isn't a gigantic hypocrit. What, you want smaller government AND you want to control everyone's behaviour by enforcing abortion laws, laws against every drug imaginable and on and on the list of hypocrisy goes?
The man (Ron Paul) has an opinion on everything, just like everyone else, but he's the only Republican with the cajones to say, things like that should be left up to the STATES to decide, not the Federal government. The rest just pander to the Bible belt, and fear-monger their way through every discussion involving those subjects.
Since we are on about Iran, it doesn't matter if Iran has nukes. Not even North Korea is crazy enough, and even if Iran was crazy enough their country would turn into glass the moment the 24\7 satellite surveillance saw them load a warhead onto a missile.
Even US DoD reports admit Iran's nuke quest, if it even exists, is almost certainly defensive.
On August 16 2011 11:36 Fortis wrote: Can someone please briefly explain to me as if I am a child:
Who is the US indebted to for all this money, and why?
What is/(are?) the interest rates?
Why are debts of this level around while we still donate millions to other countries/causes?
Thank you in advance.
Most US Federal Government bonds are held by US citizens who loaned the US government money, our central bank (Federal Reserve System), and the government owing money to itself.
Page 158 of this PDF from the Government Accountability Office shows the US currently spends $250 billion dollars just for interest payments on existing debt. In 2012 this will rise to $333 billion.
Current rates for US bonds are very low due to the economy being very weak, making US debt a decent investment. This chart shows the year 2011's interest rates by day:
Foreign aid is a very small portion of the budget and is usually maintained (right or wrong) for strategic reasons. No need to lose all your friends (or, you know, bribed enemies and neutrals) over a trivial amount of money.
On August 16 2011 11:36 Fortis wrote: Can someone please briefly explain to me as if I am a child:
Who is the US indebted to for all this money, and why?
What is/(are?) the interest rates?
Why are debts of this level around while we still donate millions to other countries/causes?
Thank you in advance.
Most US Federal Government bonds are held by US citizens who loaned the US government money, our central bank (Federal Reserve System), and the government owing money to itself.
Page 158 of this PDF from the Government Accountability Office shows the US currently spends $250 billion dollars just for interest payments on existing debt. In 2012 this will rise to $333 billion.
Current rates for US bonds are very low due to the economy being very weak, making US debt a decent investment. This chart shows the year 2011's interest rates by day:
Foreign aid is a very small portion of the budget and is usually maintained (right or wrong) for strategic reasons. No need to lose all your friends (or, you know, bribed enemies and neutrals) over a trivial amount of money.
Thanks so much, very helpful and succinct ^^ I appreciate it.
On August 16 2011 11:36 Fortis wrote: Can someone please briefly explain to me as if I am a child:
Who is the US indebted to for all this money, and why?
What is/(are?) the interest rates?
Why are debts of this level around while we still donate millions to other countries/causes?
Thank you in advance.
Most US Federal Government bonds are held by US citizens who loaned the US government money, our central bank (Federal Reserve System), and the government owing money to itself.
Page 158 of this PDF from the Government Accountability Office shows the US currently spends $250 billion dollars just for interest payments on existing debt. In 2012 this will rise to $333 billion.
Current rates for US bonds are very low due to the economy being very weak, making US debt a decent investment. This chart shows the year 2011's interest rates by day:
Foreign aid is a very small portion of the budget and is usually maintained (right or wrong) for strategic reasons. No need to lose all your friends (or, you know, bribed enemies and neutrals) over a trivial amount of money.
Thanks so much, very helpful and succinct ^^ I appreciate it.
You are welcome. Good links for people to look at regarding the current US debt situation.
It's a good bit more on topic than the political thing that happened and given that a third of what the USA is trying to shave off the deficit is going to be covered by this, especially since it only affects those earning more than 1 million a year and closing a few loopholes benefits the middle class far more, especially with the fact that apparently the middle class actually pays MORE in taxes as a percentage of income than the upper brackets.
EPT
