AP: USA downgraded by S&P

[War Paint]

Dow down around 575. Yikes.

[Jumbo]

Anyone hear Trump's interview (On CNN I think) this morning? He did his usual self-promoting style, and of course blasted Obama, but he also blasted S & P and their decision. It was pretty good, though I had to hear it through an open office door and missed some.

---------- Post added August-8th-2011 at 11:33 AM ----------

I think some of the anger we have should be redirected from the politicians on both sides and remain constantly funneled towards Wall St., the "big corporations" and those who really pull the strings. They're the guys who usually and continuously are willing to **** this nation in the face as long as they get their next 100 mil.

[Duckus]

So the Dow is down around 280-310 before Obama talks. It's now down 430 after Obama's speech. It's time to man up O-Bots. The president you voted for is a complete disaster. I know many who voted for him are smart. You are just too prideful to admit you are wrong. It took me, a former Bush supporter, a while before I could admit I was wrong and that Bush was also bad.

Sad how much of a game this is to some folks. "Say Obama sucks!" What the **** does that gain? You are sitting there smiling while the Dow plummets so you can run here and post "O-bots" and take your digs. Hahaha. How funny! Yay 401k plummeting!

Glad its all a game.

[War Paint]

Sad how much of a game this is to some folks. "Say Obama sucks!" What the **** does that gain? You are sitting there smiling while the Dow plummets so you can run here and post "O-bots" and take your digs. Hahaha. How funny! Yay 401k plummeting!

Glad its all a game.

Did you see me insert lols and smiley faces in my post? It's okay Duckus. Shake that hope and change out. I promise you will feel better once you break free of the paradigm.

[The Evil Genius]

Sad how much of a game this is to some folks. "Say Obama sucks!" What the **** does that gain? You are sitting there smiling while the Dow plummets so you can run here and post "O-bots" and take your digs. Hahaha. How funny! Yay 401k plummeting!

Glad its all a game.

It is a game - to the TPers.

They are the only ones who wanted this to happen. Unfortunately for them, I think they are eventually going to get a lion-sized share of the blame. You can't pull the wool over people's eyes forever.

[War Paint]

Anyone hear Trump's interview (On CNN I think) this morning? He did his usual self-promoting style, and of course blasted Obama, but he also blasted S & P and their decision. It was pretty good, though I had to hear it through an open office door and missed some.

---------- Post added August-8th-2011 at 11:33 AM ----------

I think some of the anger we have should be redirected from the politicians on both sides and remain constantly funneled towards Wall St., the "big corporations" and those who really pull the strings. They're the guys who usually and continuously are willing to **** this nation in the face as long as they get their next 100 mil.

You are right. However, many of these politicians are bought and paid for by Wall Street. They need to be held accountable also, along with corporate banksters on Wall Street.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

So the Dow is down around 280-310 before Obama talks. It's now down 430 after Obama's speech. It's time to man up O-Bots. The president you voted for is a complete disaster. I know many who voted for him are smart. You are just too prideful to admit you are wrong. It took me, a former Bush supporter, a while before I could admit I was wrong and that Bush was also bad.

The immediate reaction of the dow is a good indicator of what kind of job Obama has done. True.

[Larry]

So, your "reasoning" is

• Right now, SS, by law, collects more money than it pays out.
  
• Right now, SS is required, by law, to loan tha money to General Revenue.
  
• SS has been loaning money to General Revenue for a long time.
  
• SS is projected, for the first time ever, to actually run a deficit 25 years from now.
  
• Therefore, we should pass a law saying that not only is SS required to loan money to General revenue, but it should be required to do so at 0% interest, and all of the money it's already loaned should be at 0% interest, too.

And you seriously want to try to claim that nobody's trying to get rid of SS?

I wonder where all those Kool Aid drinkers got that idea that SS was bankrupt last year, and that id had to be cut, right then, to prevent it from sending the nation further into debt? I wonder why every time the debt comes up, the Republicans all mention Social Security.

I wonder why Social Security, the only part of the federal budget which is not running a deficit, is even mentioned in a thread about the deficit, if as China's post claims "nobody is trying to balance the budget on the backs of seniors".

If SS isn't being used to try to balance the budget, then how come every discussion of balancing the budget starts off with Medicare and Social Security?

If it's not even projected to have a deficit till 25 years from now, then how come people are associating it with legislation that has to be passed by Tuesday, or the nation will collapse?

[War Paint]

It is a game - to the TPers.

They are the only ones who wanted this to happen. Unfortunately for them, I think they are eventually going to get a lion-sized share of the blame. You can't pull the wool over people's eyes forever.

Oh good gawd. The Tea Party? Really? The Tea Party has very little power in the grand scheme of things. What does that say about Obama's leadership, if he's letting the Tea Party get their way? The republican party should be in a weakened state due to the division in their own party. The president is supposed to be the leader right? The buck stops with him right?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Larry, this is the first time I have heard someone say that SS takes in more money that it sends out. Are you sure that's true? Second, if that is true, what is the basis for saying it is going to run out in 25 years?

---------- Post added August-8th-2011 at 02:49 PM ----------

Oh good gawd. The Tea Party? Really? The Tea Party has very little power right in the grand scheme of things. What does that say about Obama's leadership, if he's letting the Tea Party get their way? The republican party should be in a weakened state due to the division in their own party. The president is supposed to be the leader right? The buck stops with him right?

The buck stops with Obama, but if you think the tea party has very little power, you haven't been watching. The reason they have power is not because Obama is weak though. Its because Boehner is weak. He sets the agenda in the House and he is not going to do anything that might put him at odds with the minority of the tea party.

If Boehner had told them to zip it, we would have been able to reach a much bigger deal. But, SOME of the tea party really didnt want any deal to be reached anyway, and he catered to them.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Ridiculous. Entitlement reform is a long term thing. Even Ryan's plans didn't touch them till 2020. If you add short term debt now, it will be off our books within three, four, five years, and we'd be borrowing at dirt cheap interest rates. Long term deficit reduction and short term stimulus are not contradictory. Even the head of S&P this morning said we have plenty of room to maneuver in the short term.

So because of this line of thought, we simply don't even discuss them? I mean, there are multiple plans out there and not a single one of them has even been considered. I'm sorry, this is not a reasonable approach.

This whole fight has been on Republican turf. The original plan looked to be 3:1 cuts to revenue ratio. And the tax reform that was shaping up was more the closing of loopholes rather than raising taxes on the rich.

3 to 1 looks as if that was about right and closing of loopholes would have been an excellent start.

Never was this deal going to include cuts within the next two years. The economy is way to fragile for that, and spending cuts hurts economic growth. I'm not sure what you mean we're incurring more debt now. Our long term projected debt was decreased by $2+ trillion. The problem obviously is that it failed to address entitlements and tax reform.

Which is why I say the discussion were never serious. The 2.4 was what the creditors and what the studies said we needed short term. The 4.7 or whatever the number was the longer term number we needed to have a plan to reach. You know, those reports that never got read?

Sorry, I don't agree at all. Obama wanted to do something big. Boehner couldn't get enough votes to do it. And remember, if Republicans had their way, we would be doing this all again 6 months from now and the cuts would have only been $900 billion or something similar.

Please show me how you come to this conclusion.

S&P specifically mentioned our political dysfunction, using the debt ceiling bargaining tool, and Republicans insistence on a lack of revenue as the biggest impediments. They told us to not tie a debt package to the debt ceiling. This is on Republicans because 1. They were the ones who used the debt ceiling as a hostage to get their demands and 2.) They were the ones who nixed on type of Grand Bargain deal and 3.) They were the ones who promised to take the debt ceiling hostage again.

Please show me how you come to this conclusion.

OK, people need to get this through their heads...we have a LONG term debt problem. Our short term debt problem would go away with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. My point here is that our short term debt is not all that big.

I suppose that we depend on what you call LONG term and SHORT term. The expiration of the Bush tax cuts only? How does simply increasing taxation solve this problem? Show me one time where simply putting more money into the Government Till has resolved the problem. All it does is increase the problem. We need controls over spending and not just raised taxes.

However, we have a short term economic growth and unemployment problem. Even the head of the S&P this morning said we have a good amount of room to maneuver in the short term. We are not bankrupt -- far from it.

Again, what is short term? We've had it now for almost 3 years. We are not bankrupt but the financial consequences of not addressing this issue in real time could result in further downgrade. Clearly, what you think or the President thinks or what Buffett thinks about what our rating should be doesn't really matter. The S&Ps of the world are calling the shots there and they want to see more then just Bush Tax Cuts.

What are the negative consequences of spending? It's not a recession. It's high inflation and higher interest rates. And since the time S&P downgraded, investors have continued to flock to U.S. treasuries and the interest rate has lowered further. Investors have essentially ignored S&P's downgrade

.

I don't think you can say this on Monday after the downgrade. We arre not going to know what the real consequences are for a few days.

What's going on in the stock market right now has much more to do with world wide economic concerns with Europe and the slowing down of our economy. It's not our debt and deficit.

What is happening today in the Market is absolutely about our S&P rating issue.

The bottom line is you can do long term entitlement and tax reform, while at the same time invest in our future right now. The two are not contradictory.

I don't believe this. It was tried and it failed.

---------- Post added August-8th-2011 at 12:53 PM ----------

Anyone hear Trump's interview (On CNN I think) this morning? He did his usual self-promoting style, and of course blasted Obama, but he also blasted S & P and their decision. It was pretty good, though I had to hear it through an open office door and missed some.

---------- Post added August-8th-2011 at 11:33 AM ----------

I think some of the anger we have should be redirected from the politicians on both sides and remain constantly funneled towards Wall St., the "big corporations" and those who really pull the strings. They're the guys who usually and continuously are willing to **** this nation in the face as long as they get their next 100 mil.

Hey Jumbo,

Yes, I watched it live this AM. He basically said that we didn't need to be in this position, said that there were those who could do better and then said that S&P had no business downgrading us. I agree with that position but I also agree that we have set ourselves up for this by relying on what these various creditors say. Now they have managed to get us at a weak point and use leverage. It's a bunch of crap but it is what it is.

[Jumbo]

You are right. However, many of these politicians are bought and paid for by Wall Street. They need to be held accountable also, along with corporate banksters on Wall Street.

War, amigo, whatever we disagree on, and whenever we do, it will never be that many (perhaps most) politicians generally embody the worst form of whoring and should never be spared our wrath.

---------- Post added August-8th-2011 at 11:58 AM ----------

I agree ABQ that many elements have conspired to allow this load of crap to accumulate to it's current toxicity. We have here, at this pint in time, a truly epic cluster-****. And I have never been one to let the more partisan elements (especially the fringes being welcome to drive the rest) of the electorate escape my castigation for what I view as a key role (right and left) for making this mess.

[The Tris]

I think some of the anger we have should be redirected from the politicians on both sides and remain constantly funneled towards Wall St., the "big corporations" and those who really pull the strings. They're the guys who usually and continuously are willing to **** this nation in the face as long as they get their next 100 mil.

Wall Street plays the role of scapegoat rather well.

http://www.tnr.com/article/economy/91904/stop-blaming-wall-street

Wall Street is a single part of the massive problem we are facing. Finger pointing at the "bankers" is as productive as those who finger point at Obama.

---------- Post added August-8th-2011 at 03:00 PM ----------

Oh good gawd. The Tea Party? Really? The Tea Party has very little power in the grand scheme of things. What does that say about Obama's leadership, if he's letting the Tea Party get their way? The republican party should be in a weakened state due to the division in their own party. The president is supposed to be the leader right? The buck stops with him right?

What does it say about the GOP that a group with very little power in the grand scheme of things has completely hamstrung them with fear of losing their jobs?

[GibbsFactor]

Pretty much. Everyone look in the mirror and say **** YOU!

That's really the only medicine that will fix this.

[Jumbo]

Glad its all a game.

Yup. It's a bunch of monkeys circling the clearing and taking turns darting out into the center and screeching at the "other side" then scampering back to crouch next to their kind.

More and more I subscribe to the concepts that the "political views" of the vast majority of more partisan, or "one belief system/party" folks are far more a product of their limbic system and amygdala (knowledge gained in last decade now hard to debate and quite measurable) and then developmentally reinforced, and far less a product of post-25 year old adult more-fully-formed brain using the of areas of the prefrontal cortex that allow accurate processing of complex and even conflicting data, abstract and objective thought formulation, and rational/logical reasoning. You can dress up a pig with communication skills and content of verbiage that suggests reasoned thinking to similar folk, but the reality remains that 9 times out of 10 it's just a primitive primate doing it's circus act to suit it's primitive needs.

Uh-oh...I mixed my mammal metaphors. :pfft:

[ABQCOWBOY]

What does it say about the GOP that a group with very little power in the grand scheme of things has completely hamstrung them with fear of losing their jobs?

I think it says that they are being forced to recognize the problems and not just continue to be comfortable in just kicking cans. I will admit that they have a very, very long way to go even still, but, it is a start, I hope.

[Kilmer17]

Yes, if it wasnt for those terrible tea partiers, we would have just extended the debt ceiling and everything would be fine.

[The Tris]

I think it says that they are being forced to recognize the problems and not just continue to be comfortable in just kicking cans. I will admit that they have a very, very long way to go even still, but, it is a start, I hope.

I'm not sure pandering to the lowest common denominator in an act of self-preservation (at the cost of the greater good?) is the start of something I'm interested in.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I'm not sure pandering to the lowest common denominator in an act of self-preservation (at the cost of the greater good?) is the start of something I'm interested in.

Perhaps. On the other hand, I'm not sure that you have anything better to offer. If you do, I'm happy to read it. Let's see what you have.

[PeterMP]

I don't believe this. It was tried and it failed.

Are you saying it can't be done period, or are you saying that the current group of politicians can't do it?

[GibbsFactor]

There needs to be huge punishments from the citizens due to this. HUGE.

There better be a new leader of the House, Senate and a new body in the White House.

This is simply inexcusable.

[PeterMP]

Yes, if it wasnt for those terrible tea partiers, we would have just extended the debt ceiling and everything would be fine.

No, if it wasn't for the complete inflexibility of those horrible tea partiers, we would have had changes in the tax code that brought in about another $1 trillion in income, and budget cuts of about $3 trillion, and probably some significant changes to entittlement programs, and the S&P would not have down graded us.

[The Tris]

Perhaps. On the other hand, I'm not sure that you have anything better to offer. If you do, I'm happy to read it. Let's see what you have.

I don't. As a conservative, I'm as dissapointed with my party as I am with the other. There have been several opportunities to seize the moment, particularly for Republicans, that have been scuttled by party machinations.

Nobody is going to have their cake and eat it too - its high time that is realized. And those elements who refuse to admit that need to be cast aside, not elevated to the position of power.

[Kilmer17]

No, if it wasn't for the complete inflexibility of those horrible tea partiers, we would have had changes in the tax code that brought in about another $1 trillion in income, and budget cuts of about $3 trillion, and probably some significant changes to entittlement programs, and the S&P would not have down graded us.

Sure. Because this "problem" just started this past January.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Are you saying it can't be done period, or are you saying that the current group of politicians can't do it?

I'm saying that Tax Reform, and long term entitlements are not the goals we should be striving for unless Tax Reform means broadening the Income Tax pool and reducing entitlements in conjunction with other budget cuts.

A plan that simply increases or extends current entitlement programs and relies on the Bush Tax Cuts to expire as the get well plan is a failed strategy IMO. That will not fix the problem because the problem is not a shortage of money. The problem is to few producing the tax base and too many relying on entitlement programs. That has to change or we will never be out of this fix and eventually, it will destroy us.

---------- Post added August-8th-2011 at 01:25 PM ----------

I don't. As a conservative, I'm as dissapointed with my party as I am with the other. There have been several opportunities to seize the moment, particularly for Republicans, that have been scuttled by party machinations.

Nobody is going to have their cake and eat it too - its high time that is realized. And those elements who refuse to admit that need to be cast aside, not elevated to the position of power.

I share this view. However, throwing up your hands and just saying "Screw it" is not the answer. Not saying this is what you are saying. Just trying to say that what is needed is a balanced approach. It's time for all of us to get our hands dirty.