EPTS&P Downgrades US Credit - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
tok
United States691 Posts
| ||
|
Zergneedsfood
United States10671 Posts
On August 06 2011 10:22 Hawk wrote: Does anyone have a good, objective source for general info about the whole debt crisis and negotiations?? i've only vaguely followed it, but it's kind of hard with the games going on on both sides The New York Times has these topics where they just follow up on news about them. http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/national_debt_us/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=debt ceiling&st=cse Hope that helps. I know how NYT is called liberal, but in all honesty it's pretty objective when it comes to recording these topics. | ||
|
SoSexy
Italy3725 Posts
http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/sovereigns/ratings-list/en/eu/?subSectorCode=39&start=100&range=50 | ||
|
StrangrDangr
United States291 Posts
On August 06 2011 10:22 Hawk wrote: Does anyone have a good, objective source for general info about the whole debt crisis and negotiations?? i've only vaguely followed it, but it's kind of hard with the games going on on both sides Finding an objective source of information would be quite a feat. If you prefer an easy way out; it was the Demicrats fault, you can take my word for it. | ||
|
TofuFox
374 Posts
On August 06 2011 09:58 Probe1 wrote: To our elected officals I have a sincere message: For fucks sake just go. I don't even want to look at you gagglefucks anymore. Don't bother coming back for your stuff we'll have it sent to you. Thanks for all the shit sandwiches and graft. It's been a interesting ten years but we're just different people now. It's time for us to go in a new direction with someone that won't hurt us all the time. Just leave. Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but the freshmen in Congress were the ones most opposed to raising the debt ceiling at all. S&P wanted a larger (pdf, from S&P 7/14) debt deal than we got, and one of the reason a larger debt deal didn't go through was republican pressure for a smaller deal. Simple (if justified) anger directed at sitting members of Congress was a large part of what got us into this mess. The simple problem is that there is untouchable majority support for both not increasing taxes and protecting the entitlements (mainly Medicare and Medicaid) that are causing our long term budget problems. And politicians will run on this. Republicans ran on attacking Democrats for Medicare cuts at the same time as attacking them for "tax increases". This isn't exclusively a partisan mess - I'm bringing up the Republican side of the failure here because they got elected in large part due to the "kick the bums out" sentiment that you (and others in this thread) are bringing up. Although I do think the "never accept any tax increases, even in compromise" the Republicans have taken is contributing to the issue. | ||
|
Yttrasil
Sweden651 Posts
On August 06 2011 10:19 acker wrote: In practical terms, not much. The market's been moving for about two days already, S&P's announcement is quite late. It's largely a symbolic gesture. I'm just speculating but it actually affects quite alot. Think of a bank having a 100% safe asset which AAA was, now that factor is reduced and thus it allows for less lending to the public and also less capital to be kept in stocks which are not certain assets. All this spreading and making some assets less worth is very alarming, especially after this weeks turbulance everywhere. Gold gonna skyrocket even more probably and people flee the stock market not just for the reason with the banks etc but the fear this creates. Going to be VERY BAD! Edit: A brief bad explanation which might explain abit for those who don't know how it works although I admit it's bad and maybe not too easy to comprehend. Banks etc are required by certain rules to have at least lets say 8% safe assets at hand for whatever money they lend out. Now random speculation on my part maybe it's only 98% safe now being AA+ since much of their assets are in US bonds and a 2% loss of those 8% safe assets will correspond to something like 0.16% of all money in the US but with the lending will correspond to at least 2% of all lending becoming not allowed anymore, so people will have to sell off to repay their debts banks will have a 2% loss on all assets they have etc meaning bad news. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
If you prefer an easy way out; it was the Demicrats fault, you can take my word for it. I blame Teddy Roosevelt for starting the transformation of government into a rapacious busybody. | ||
|
Zergneedsfood
United States10671 Posts
On August 06 2011 10:24 StrangrDangr wrote: Finding an objective source of information would be quite a feat. If you prefer an easy way out; it was the Demicrats fault, you can take my word for it. I don't even know why anyone would even remotely think that. -___-x That's probably the most incorrect assessment of whose to blame that I've ever seen. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
Come out of your holes, naysayers. I know my thread on the US debt was filled to the brim with them. Is S&P part of the republican conspiracy too? | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On August 06 2011 10:21 DeepElemBlues wrote: The Democratic Party is certainly to blame because they took their Congressional majorities and refused to even introduce a budget bill to negotiate on for over 600 days. They forced their agenda (manufacture a crisis) by refusing to even bring the ball to the playground, all so they could blame any negative consequences from this brinksmanship on Tea Party intransigence. Well they got their crisis, too bad they misunderestimated what the results would be. In other countries they use other terms to mean the same thing. USA = only country with so many intellectual achievements that is generally viewed as stupid. Way to look at it in a vacuum. Not passing a budget bill when default isn't even in view and refusing to budge when the world is telling you you have a week before armageddon is a wildly different approach to politics. Doesn't even compare. | ||
|
Triscuit
United States722 Posts
Basically... some politician needs to have the balls to raise taxes. Cuts alone are not enough without severely damaging government programs that are necessary for the progression of our country. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Come out of your holes, naysayers. I know my thread on the US debt was filled to the brim with them. Is S&P part of the republican conspiracy too? Everyone is part of the Tea Party conspiracy to destroy America. Remember, the most mindless patriots in the land have a secret burning desire to destroy it. That's the mental gymnastics "progressives" have to go through these days. Way to look at it in a vacuum. Not passing a budget bill when default isn't even in view and refusing to budge when the world is telling you you have a week before armageddon is a wildly different approach to politics. Doesn't even compare. I must agree actually, refusing to pass a budget in order to manufacture a political crisis is much, much worse than refusing to abandon your negotiating position simply because the other side has manufactured a crisis and demands you back down to avoid disaster. One is a malevolent dereliction of duty, the other is a courageous stand against extortion. I'm very proud that the GOP called the Democrats' bluff. | ||
|
Zergneedsfood
United States10671 Posts
On August 06 2011 10:26 jdseemoreglass wrote: I wanna hear now from all these people on TL who were repeating over and over that the "debt crisis" was overblown, that there was no chance of a downgrade, that it was all manufactured fear mongering by the republicans. Come out of your holes, naysayers. I know my thread on the US debt was filled to the brim with them. Is S&P part of the republican conspiracy too? I'm one of them. I still don't think it's an issue. What is an issue is how we tackle our debt. I had too much trust in the political process to solve our problems, I'll admit that. But I won't back down on our "debt" being an issue. It's our underfunded liabilities, our programs spinning out of control, and our inability to solve our tax problems that create these issues. Stop fearmongering everybody. >.> If you notice, had Republicans listened to Democrats and added some revenue that would've cut 4 trillion instead of the 2 trillion (COUGH WHAT S&P WAS LOOKING FOR COUGH), we might've avoided a downgrade. So stop it. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32051 Posts
On August 06 2011 10:24 Zergneedsfood wrote: The New York Times has these topics where they just follow up on news about them. http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/national_debt_us/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=debt ceiling&st=cse Hope that helps. I know how NYT is called liberal, but in all honesty it's pretty objective when it comes to recording these topics. ah, perfect. This is what I was looking for, a dump of anything relevant. Thanks! | ||
|
DeltaSigmaL
United States205 Posts
My take : Tax levels are at their lowest in years. GM pays exactly 0$ in tax. For some reason, people are suggesting that we reduce taxes on the rich. We need to both increase taxes and cut spending. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On August 06 2011 10:26 Yttrasil wrote: I'm just speculating but it actually affects quite alot. Think of a bank having a 100% safe asset which AAA was, now that factor is reduced and thus it allows for less lending to the public and also less capital to be kept in stocks which are not certain assets. All this spreading and making some assets less worth is very alarming, especially after this weeks turbulance everywhere. Gold gonna skyrocket even more probably and people flee the stock market not just for the reason with the banks etc but the fear this creates. Going to be VERY BAD! I have absolutely no doubt that things are going to be really bad, but I think things would have been equally bad even if S&P hadn't downgraded US debt. As I said, the markets were well ahead of S&P for the past 48 hours. On August 06 2011 10:27 Triscuit wrote: I have a feeling.... that this will have no impact on any upcoming election. Politicians have a way of waving their hands, passing the buck to someone else, and basically distracting the American people to the point that each and every person that has led to this failure of a situation will get re-elected, or the reason they aren't elected has nothing to do with this. Currently, polls show that Democrats in the House, Democrats in the Senate, and Republicans in the Senate have dropped quite a bit of support. House Republicans have absolutely torpedoed their support. Obama's dropped by about 2% to 47%. Public approval of Congress in general is literally at a record low. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
If you notice, had Republicans listened to Democrats and added some revenue that would've cut 4 trillion instead of the 2 trillion (COUGH WHAT S&P WAS LOOKING FOR COUGH), we might've avoided a downgrade. So stop it. If you notice, had Democrats listened to Republicans and stopped demanding more revenue as a last-second addition to the deal, we could have had about 3 trillion in cuts and 800 billion in revenues a week and a half ago. That was the deal Boehner had with Obama before Obama demanded 400 billion more in revenues or the deal was off out of the blue. Boehner stopped negotiating with him and went back to Pelosi and Reid and got a bill hammered out. We might've avoided a downgrade. We were actually well on our way to a good compromise before the President's horrible, awful, disgusting class warfare speech and media blitz that ensured there was absolutely no way the Republicans were going to sign onto a deal with his name on it. | ||
|
Zergneedsfood
United States10671 Posts
On August 06 2011 10:32 DeltaSigmaL wrote: The problem was not so much the republican/democrat divide as it was the divide between the republicans right now. Basically, ppl voted in tea partiers whose mantra was "we will not compromise" to serve in a government who only works because of compromise. Boehner had his back to the wall, because if he concieded one point to the dems (which he did) he would be burned at the stake by tea partiers (which he was). My take : Tax levels are at their lowest in years. GM pays exactly 0$ in tax. For some reason, people are suggesting that we reduce taxes on the rich. We need to both increase taxes and cut spending. Politifact says that the GM statistic was false I believe. Check it out. But ultimately, I agree on revenue. I don't know about increasing taxes, but closing tax loopholes is definitely an option. | ||
|
arbitrageur
Australia1202 Posts
| ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On August 06 2011 10:34 DeepElemBlues wrote: If you notice, had Democrats listened to Republicans and stopped demanding more revenue as a last-second addition to the deal, we could have had about 3 trillion in cuts and 800 billion in revenues a week and a half ago. That was the deal Boehner had with Obama before Obama demanded 400 billion more in revenues or the deal was off and Boehner stopped negotiating with him and went back to Pelosi and Reid and got a bill hammered out.. So 1.2 billion in revenues and 3 trillion in cuts? Err...Republicans control one branch of Congress. How is this not a good deal? ...No, strike that. How on earth is this not the best deal ever for the Republican Party since Reagan? Especially since S&P demanded 4.2 trillion in reduction over ten years, not 3.8... | ||
| ||
