Quote :

"It is hilarious how much the dope box has changed their tune! Now...someone convince me about the credibility of the credit rating agencies. I guess they run the world economy now? I guess they did not fail to foresee the housing bubble? I guess, I know, they are a part of the entire scheme.. Say what, S&P: Quote : "Standard & Poor's on Friday downgraded the U.S. government's credit rating for the first time in the nation's history, lowering it from the highest level because the firm said the spending cuts in the recent deal to raise the federal debt ceiling "falls short" of what's needed to stabilize the government's longer-term finances." http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/08/us-credit-rating-downgraded-by-standard-poors.html Statism, epic fail as usual."

I want to guess that this person^ is old based on that embarrassing pun and the random use of bold. However, the feminine writing style and use of "statism" indicate a freshman who is just becoming enamored with libertarian claptrap.





[Edited on August 10, 2011 at 8:43 AM. Reason : l]

8/10/2011 8:40:54 AM

S&P statement:

Quote :

"Overview · We have lowered our long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America to 'AA+' from 'AAA' and affirmed the 'A-1+' short-term rating. · We have also removed both the short- and long-term ratings from CreditWatch negative. · The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics. · More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011. · Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any time soon. · The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two years if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case."

Nothing about entitlement spending, or really spending at all. Not the main thrust of their argument.

Quote :

"The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently. Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, 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."

An entire paragraph focused on how shitty our legislative bodies are and lamenting lack of new revenues, with an "an addition" at the end mentioning entitlements spending. Again, spending wasn't the reason for the downgrade, straight from the horses mouth.

[Edited on August 10, 2011 at 11:22 AM. Reason : :]

8/10/2011 11:20:13 AM

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=615947

8/10/2011 11:44:58 AM

Quote :

""

Yeah, blame the nigger for being hanged by the KKK.

8/10/2011 11:46:27 AM

so pryderi- im guessing you like obama.

if so, i would like to know why exactly.

8/10/2011 12:12:02 PM

I don't like Obama that much. He's a 1990s republican.

8/10/2011 12:13:13 PM

well what are your hopes and dreams for 2012 then?

8/10/2011 12:18:27 PM

Anarchy is my guess

8/10/2011 12:22:28 PM

Quote :

"Read between the lines"

as in, "I'm making shit up". Got it.

Quote :

"their own fucking party leaders were calling them out for wanting to cause a default. "

Ahhh, so again, a faction that is hated by party leadership should be judged by the words of the party leadership. is that REALLY what you want to argue?

Quote :

"Read the S&Ps own statement you DUMB MOTHER FUCKER (this really is a lot of fun),"

That doesn't mean someone was actually saying "hey, let's cause a default." Reading is fundamental.

Quote :

"Tell me how am I supposed to interpret that"

It means people were concerned we might default, not that people wanted us to default.

Quote :

"Sure, that's one way to interpret it, if you are dumb racist redneck. "

Aaaaaaaaaand your credibility just fell further than the stock market. Funny how for a liberal it's all about calling people racists when they disagree.

Quote :

"These weren't imaginary wastes of time like "a balanced budget amendment" "

seriously, what's a waste of time about that? Why are democrats so afraid of living within our means?

Quote :

"but the Tea Party held the line on getting rid of tax breaks on corporate jets."

more talking points. Where did ANYONE explicitly defend that tax break? Again, put up or shut the fuck up with the talking points.

Quote :

"Nothing about entitlement spending, or really spending at all."

no, but they ARE talking about the unhealthy overall levels of spending, of which entitlements are most certainly a part. And yet, you ignore the following paragraph, WHICH YOU QUOTED, where it explicitly talks about Medicare and entitlements. Do I need to quote it for you?

8/10/2011 3:51:54 PM

Quote :

"That doesn't mean someone was actually saying "hey, let's cause a default." Reading is fundamental."

http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/28/news/economy/ron_paul_bankruptcy/index.htm

yawn

Indeed it is.

[Edited on August 10, 2011 at 5:05 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2011 5:02:04 PM

you missed the implied second part of that statement: "let's cause a default so we can get our way."

Ron Paul is talking about bankruptcy in an entirely different way. he isn't saying "let's cause a default so we can get our way against Obama." He's saying "we already ARE bankrupt, so why keep pretending." There's a difference

8/10/2011 5:08:56 PM

We already are defaulting, and we have been defaulting for some time. Any time you have the central bank create money to buy bonds, that's a default. It's a devaluation of the currency. It's saying, "we're not going to pay our debts in full - we're going to create money out of thin air and give you some of that." It fucks over the bondholders, it fucks over the common people. It fucks over everyone except the politicians who want to stay in office and the groups/corporations that stand to benefit when those politicians stay in office.

8/10/2011 5:17:50 PM

Quote :

"Any time you have the central bank create money to buy bonds, that's a default."

By the definition of a default, it most certainly is not a default.

8/10/2011 5:33:11 PM

Why would anyone believe S&P ratings is beyond me. They took bribes to rate shit as AAA.

[quote]WASHINGTON (AP) — The S&P downgrade was more of a statement on the toxic political landscape in Washington than a comment on the nation’s ability to pay its bills. But S&P has its own checkered history. Just a few years ago, the company gave its top triple-A rating to some of the mortgage-backed securities that helped cause the Great Recession.

Could it be wrong again? [quote]
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/08/its_not_just_economics_sp_made.html


[Edited on August 10, 2011 at 5:48 PM. Reason : ...]

8/10/2011 5:45:36 PM

again, do you REALLY want to make that argument? The argument that they overrated organizations before is NOT a good one to take if you are trying to claim that the US should have a higher rating.

8/10/2011 5:52:53 PM

Quote :

"By the definition of a default, it most certainly is not a default."

Yes, it fucking is. From Wikipedia:

Quote :

"In finance, default occurs when a debtor has not met his or her legal obligations according to the debt contract, e.g. has not made a scheduled paymen"

If you create money out of thin air, you are not meeting your full debt obligation. You are shirking responsibility. Rather than cutting spending or raising revenue, you're just printing the difference and giving it to bondholders. As a result, the purchasing power of the currency you're paying in is reduced, which means you're actually shorting the bondholder and all currency holders.

Let's say you come to me and want to purchase 100 liters of pure orange juice. I say okay, we shake on it, sign a contract, whatever. Unfortunately, I only have 90 liters of orange juice in my possession, for whatever reason. As an honest person, I would come to you and say, "Sorry, my previous projections were incorrect. I don't have 100 liters of pure orange juice, but I do have 90 liters, so let's negotiate a fair price so that we both still get something out of the deal."

You know what you'd do? You wouldn't come to me and say you didn't have the 100 liters of orange juice. You'd mix the 90 liters of orange juice with 10 liters of water and sell it to me as 100 liters of pure orange juice. You'd say this morally acceptable because you make the orange juice, and you can make it however you want, even though we agreed that it would be pure orange juice.

[Edited on August 10, 2011 at 5:59 PM. Reason : ]

8/10/2011 5:59:04 PM

so, what is pure money

8/10/2011 6:08:57 PM

Quote :

"In finance, default occurs when a debtor has not met his or her legal obligations according to the debt contract"

But we do. The debt contract is that by buying a bond the government agrees to pay you back $XXX at XX% interest. The government meets that contract regularly and has never failed to meet it.

Quote :

"If you create money out of thin air, you are not meeting your full debt obligation."

That's not true. They pay the amount in full in US dollars, just like the contract stated. If the dollar goes up they don't get to pay back less, and if the dollar goes down they don't have to pay more. Bond contracts have no stipulations for inflation or deflation.

Quote :

"You wouldn't come to me and say you didn't have the 100 liters of orange juice. You'd mix the 90 liters of orange juice with 10 liters of water and sell it to me as 100 liters of pure orange juice."

I would have broken the contract then. The government doesn't break the contract, they pay back the agreed amount in the same form that they agreed to pay it in.

8/10/2011 6:17:00 PM

Quote :

"so, what is pure money"

Pretty good question. Pure money would be money that is actually backed by a specified, known amount of hard assets. Not necessarily gold, but something. Our money has been deliberately devalued over the past century.

Quote :

"That's not true. They pay the amount in full in US dollars, just like the contract stated. If the dollar goes up they don't get to pay back less, and if the dollar goes down they don't have to pay more. Bond contracts have no stipulations for inflation or deflation."

Quote :

"I would have broken the contract then. The government doesn't break the contract, they pay back the agreed amount in the same form that they agreed to pay it in."

Then we shouldn't even be talking about cutting or raising taxes. Taxes should be zero percent. Spending should be whatever the government determines it to be. We can print 100% of our debt obligations.

[Edited on August 10, 2011 at 6:19 PM. Reason : ]

8/10/2011 6:19:07 PM

Quote :

"The government doesn't break the contract, they pay back the agreed amount in the same form that they agreed to pay it in."

and destroyer would disagree, because it is his stance that a dilluted dollar is not a dollar of the same form. Unfortunately, the contract doesn't say the value of the dollar that is used, so he doesn't really have a leg to stand on.

8/10/2011 6:24:58 PM

Quote :

"Pretty good question. Pure money would be money that is actually backed by a specified, known amount of hard assets. Not necessarily gold, but something."

There is nothing that has a fixed value. If I was the sole owner of any good I could do the exact same thing that the government is doing. Imagine I was the only owner of gold. You loan me some amount of something in exchange for a larger than current market value of gold later, I could then go and start selling some of the other gold I have reducing my inflation-adjusted obligation to you. I would not be breaking contract or defaulting, you would have no one to blame but yourself for originally entering that contract.

Quote :

"Then we shouldn't even be talking about cutting or raising taxes. Taxes should be zero percent. Spending should be whatever the government determines it to be. We can print 100% of our debt obligations."

People would stop wanting the money.

8/10/2011 6:26:39 PM

Quote :

"Unfortunately, the contract doesn't say the value of the dollar that is used, so he doesn't really have a leg to stand on."

Of course it doesn't say that, but the bondholders still recognize that we're ripping them off. That's why they're scared; that's why we got downgraded. No one wants to take a haircut, but that's exactly what we're asking bondholders to do. Don't be surprised when they refuse to buy bonds going forward, and don't be surprised with the Fed steps in to buy them instead.

Quote :

"People would stop wanting the money."

And that's why we're fucked.

Quote :

"There is nothing that has a fixed value. If I was the sole owner of any good I could do the exact same thing that the government is doing. Imagine I was the only owner of gold. You loan me some amount of something in exchange for a larger than current market value of gold later, I could then go and start selling some of the other gold I have reducing my inflation-adjusted obligation to you. I would not be breaking contract or defaulting, you would have no one to blame but yourself for originally entering that contract."

"Hey Kris. I've got 5 eggs here, would you be willing to trade me those 5 eggs for 5 pieces of meat? Cool! Sorry, I said 5 pieces of meat - I only see 4 pieces of meat here. Did you have the other piece, or...? Ah, okay...no deal, then."

[Edited on August 10, 2011 at 6:31 PM. Reason : ]

8/10/2011 6:27:43 PM

Quote :

"There is nothing that has a fixed value."

value, probably not. amount, certainly. 5 grams of gold is 5 grams of gold is 5 grams of gold. And, gold has historically stayed at about the same value relative to other goods. The same simply cannot be said for fiat money. 5 dollars may be 5 dollars may be 5 dollars, but it's hard to argue that 5 dollars today is the same as 5 dollars 50 years ago, while 5 grams of gold today is essentially the same today as 5 grams of gold 50 years ago.

Quote :

"If I was the sole owner of any good I could do the exact same thing that the government is doing."

only if you could make gold out of thin air.

Quote :

"Imagine I was the only owner of gold. You loan me some amount of something in exchange for a larger than current market value of gold later, I could then go and start selling some of the other gold I have reducing my inflation-adjusted obligation to you."

which would be different, as you are trading based on something other than the gold. Trade directly in gold, and then his point makes some sense.

8/10/2011 6:31:39 PM

I'm hoarding tulip bulbs for my retirement.

8/10/2011 6:35:43 PM

bullshit. you are hoarding anal beads, and you know it

8/10/2011 6:39:08 PM

WOO!

http://www.megrobertson.com/post/8708219865/dylan-ratigan-mad-as-hell-his-epic-network-moment

8/10/2011 7:26:54 PM

WOO!

Cross Posting!

8/10/2011 7:33:43 PM

Dylan Ratigan is one of the few guys addressing the real problems on cable networks. The problem is much larger than the partisans want to admit. As I've said for a long time, there are structural issues at play, and it will take real, honest to god courage on the part of representatives to deal with those issues.

8/10/2011 7:37:20 PM

Quote :

"We already are defaulting, and we have been defaulting for some time. Any time you have the central bank create money to buy bonds, that's a default. It's a devaluation of the currency. It's saying, "we're not going to pay our debts in full - we're going to create money out of thin air and give you some of that." It fucks over the bondholders, it fucks over the common people. It fucks over everyone except the politicians who want to stay in office and the groups/corporations that stand to benefit when those politicians stay in office."

Why would bondholders want to own a currency that corresponds to a shitty economy?

Quote :

"If you create money out of thin air, you are not meeting your full debt obligation. You are shirking responsibility. Rather than cutting spending or raising revenue, you're just printing the difference and giving it to bondholders. As a result, the purchasing power of the currency you're paying in is reduced, which means you're actually shorting the bondholder and all currency holders."

What makes you think this? All of our money is ultimately created "out of thin air". It's a fiat currency. Sometimes we need to expand our monetary supply; this implies inflation often, but if productivity rises as well then it's not a huge deal. Ultimately if expansion is needed to get the economy moving, then it's in everybody's interest to do that. Remember that the whole point of having a dollar is to do business in the US economy. Obviously disasterous inflation would be a problem, but inflation doesn't seem like it's a problem at the moment. I don't think there's any lurking hyperinflation or anything, at any rate (the evidence I've seen does not suggest this). So what's the problem with taking on some inflation to recover employment and increase consumer buying power?

Remember that taxation initially creates demand for the currency, and that the government must hand that currency out to begin with, being the sole creator of that currency. How do you suggest we pay back our debt? By running a government surplus? Do you realize that'll effectively drain money from the private sector (savings)? What makes you think bondholders want our economy to contract and fail?

Quote :

"Then we shouldn't even be talking about cutting or raising taxes. Taxes should be zero percent. Spending should be whatever the government determines it to be. We can print 100% of our debt obligations"

Government ability to tax the currency is essential to demand for the currency. It's clear you don't understand fiat money.

8/10/2011 7:37:36 PM

Quote :

"Why would bondholders want to own a currency that corresponds to a shitty economy?"

In a transitional period like we're in right now? Because they don't see any better options. In the long-term? They won't, and that's the problem we face.

Quote :

"What makes you think this? All of our money is ultimately created "out of thin air". It's a fiat currency. Sometimes we need to expand our monetary supply; this implies inflation often, but if productivity rises as well then it's not a huge deal. Ultimately if expansion is needed to get the economy moving, then it's in everybody's interest to do that. Remember that the whole point of having a dollar is to do business in the US economy. Obviously disasterous inflation would be a problem, but inflation doesn't seem like it's a problem at the moment. I don't think there's any lurking hyperinflation or anything, at any rate (the evidence I've seen does not suggest this). So what's the problem with taking on some inflation to recover employment and increase consumer buying power?"

At one point, money was just a paper "proof" of physical material that was seen as having actual value.

I don't agree that inflation isn't a problem. It discourages savings, which is certainly bad in the long-term. It also destroys current savings. What do you have to say to seniors who live on a fixed income and can't buy as much with their social security check as they once could?

And on a more obvious point: don't you see a problem with a central bank that quite literally hands out money to whoever it wants? Don't think there might be a little bit of corruption going on, there?

Quote :

"Government ability to tax the currency is essential to demand for the currency. It's clear you don't understand fiat money."

I understand it too well. History shows that empires collapse when they overextend themselves and start devaluing the currency as a way to pay debts.

8/10/2011 7:46:13 PM

Quote :

"So what's the problem with taking on some inflation to recover employment and increase consumer buying power?"

are you seriously arguing that inflation increases consumer buying power? you are honestly saying that making a dollar worth less means consumers can buy more? really?

8/10/2011 7:52:01 PM

Quote :

"are you seriously arguing that inflation increases consumer buying power? you are honestly saying that making a dollar worth less means consumers can buy more? really?"

I'm not saying we should simply increase inflation. Putting people back to work right now would cause inflation; how do you imagine a bunch of money that's not in circulation would suddenly enter circulation and not decrease the value of the dollar? There are more and less effective ways at increasing the buying power of the consumer market (normal people). If you spend on things that we clearly need (infrastructure projects), it'll improve the health of the private sector in the future. Look at our high-way system which moves goods everywhere; it was a public expenditure that business uses to create a nation-wide market (with relatively cheap transportation).

What I'm saying is that a solution that gets working people back on their feet probably will bring a bit of inflation, but this is not a big deal because without getting the working man back on his feet, there will be no economy "for the people" in the US. The economy can't thrive without a replenished source of labor that's capable of making things that other people want. If US labor has no role in that due to automation and foreign labor, what do you expect people to do?

Quote :

"I understand it too well. History shows that empires collapse when they overextend themselves and start devaluing the currency as a way to pay debts."

I'm not simply encouraging inflating out of the debt. I think that proper fiscal stimulus will bring with it a bit of inflation (hard to see how it wouldn't; prices would go up, but so would wages). We need to set employment targets.

[Edited on August 11, 2011 at 7:40 AM. Reason : .]

8/11/2011 7:38:40 AM

Quote :

"At one point, money was just a paper "proof" of physical material that was seen as having actual value."

All value is a social construct. There is no "actual value" that transcends societal consent to attribute worth to an object. That physical material was "seen" as having actual value because people were generally superstitious, stupid mooks back then who were drawn to shiny things, and the warlords and emperors who owned larged quantities of it decreed it to be valuable. People have used fucking large circular rocks as currency and done fine as well. It doesn't matter if it's gold, copper, or paper with people's faces printed on it. All the gold in the world is useless if the people around you aren't interested in it as well. In fact, if you owned all the gold in the world you'd have a very hard time buying anything at all.


[Edited on August 11, 2011 at 10:27 AM. Reason : .]

8/11/2011 10:22:13 AM

Quote :

"That doesn't mean someone was actually saying "hey, let's cause a default." Reading is fundamental."

Are you really arguing the line between "i'll do x if you don't do y" and "i want to do x"? Read the statement again:

Quote :

"The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. "

What does a threat mean? What does bargaining chip mean? The S&P isn't being cryptic or unclear here. They are plainly saying that they believed members of our legislative bodies were threatening to cause a default if they didn't get their way, which also means they believed some of them were crazy enough to want it to happen. You might disagree with them (but they are so credible right?), but that is the reason they are giving for downgrading our debt, not:

Quote :

"no, but they ARE talking about the unhealthy overall levels of spending, of which entitlements are most certainly a part. And yet, you ignore the following paragraph, WHICH YOU QUOTED, where it explicitly talks about Medicare and entitlements. Do I need to quote it for you?"

which is completely false.

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

Please show me where they say they downgraded us because of spending, or because of entitlements. You won't. They talk about how our rising debt burden is threatening the health of our economy, and that spending on entitlements is a part of that burden (duh, even hardcore progressives admit that), but they are never cited it as a reason for downgrading our debt. No more so than they cited the need for increased revenues at least.

On the other hand, they explicitly point the finger at our governments inability to reach a consensus on how to solve the problem as the main driver for their decision (which goes back to the threat of default). They don't make any specific recommendations on how to fix the problem, and certainly never say "cut entitlement spending or else". In fact, they do say:

Quote :

"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"

actually sorry, they do make one specific recommendation when talking about how to prevent subsequent downgrades:

Quote :

"On the other hand, as our upside scenario highlights, if the recommendations of the Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction--independently or coupled with other initiatives, such as the lapsing of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners--lead to fiscal consolidation measures beyond the minimum mandated, and we believe they are likely to slow the deterioration of the government's debt dynamics, the long-term rating could stabilize at 'AA+'."

8/11/2011 1:03:05 PM

Quote :

"All value is a social construct. There is no "actual value" that transcends societal consent to attribute worth to an object. That physical material was "seen" as having actual value because people were generally superstitious, stupid mooks back then who were drawn to shiny things, and the warlords and emperors who owned larged quantities of it decreed it to be valuable. People have used fucking large circular rocks as currency and done fine as well. It doesn't matter if it's gold, copper, or paper with people's faces printed on it. All the gold in the world is useless if the people around you aren't interested in it as well. In fact, if you owned all the gold in the world you'd have a very hard time buying anything at all. "

It isn't useful to say that it's a social construct. We live in society, therefore the concept of subjective value is integral to our experience here.

It does matter what constitutes money. If it's backed by raw material or produced goods, then you can't fake that. You can't just "print" goods and material. Whenever the state is given the power to create and control money, then there is a potential for abuse. In the United States, the Fed is out of control and there's no way to reign them in.

It's slightly funny, but also disappointing, that the same people who rail against corporations night and day seem to turn a blind eye to the global banking cartel.

8/11/2011 1:18:45 PM

I don't really see how the money printing is out of control at all. Inflation has been pretty stable for decades now. In fact, inflation is more stable now than it was during the gold standard by a long shot. Because we have a fiat supply, we can actually make modifications to the monetary base to provoke expansion and contraction in the economy when necessary. The goldbug nutters cry every year that hyperinflation is around the corner, their predictions always turn out hilariously false, and yet they continue to be taken seriously by a small contingent of gullible dupes with a spotty knowledge of history.

[Edited on August 11, 2011 at 1:32 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2011 1:30:09 PM

We're not saying hyperinflation is around the corner, but that doesn't change the fact that money has been created and given to dealers. Those primary dealers are not loaning out the money to regular people either, for the most part...they're just gambling with it.

That's what I don't get. The system is clearly corrupt, and you're just kind of...ignoring it. Pretending like this isn't a corporate handout, when it obviously is.

8/11/2011 1:37:25 PM

Really though, why are ratings agencies still credible? Are we still in denial that they are corrupt?

8/11/2011 1:55:14 PM

Quote :

"Are you really arguing the line between "i'll do x if you don't do y" and "i want to do x"? Read the statement again:"

I'm still trying to find someone who said "if you don't do what we want, we'll intentionally cause a default". Still waiting for those sound bites to back up your talking points.

Quote :

"What does a threat mean? What does bargaining chip mean? "

And where's the evidence to support your talking point?

Quote :

"Please show me where they say they downgraded us because of spending, or because of entitlements."

first fucking sentence under "Rationale". Are you that fucking blind? REALLY?

Quote :

"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."

Now, shut the FUCK up.

but really, they don't think spending and entitlements are a problem. no, they are instead worried that we can't reach an agreement on them, even though they aren't a problem. wat?

Quote :

"I don't really see how the money printing is out of control at all."

I guess you didn't hear about QE1 and QE2 did you?

8/11/2011 2:26:50 PM

Quote :

"We're not saying hyperinflation is around the corner, but that doesn't change the fact that money has been created and given to dealers. Those primary dealers are not loaning out the money to regular people either, for the most part...they're just gambling with it."

Yeah which is exactly what MMT'ers and Keynesians have been howling about for a while. Why aren't you aware of that? They don't hide these opinions.

Quote :

"I guess you didn't hear about QE1 and QE2 did you?"

Now "out of control" is equal to "seems like a really big number to aaronburro"?

[Edited on August 11, 2011 at 3:14 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2011 3:13:53 PM

yes, dumping that much money into the market has zero effect. got it

8/11/2011 3:18:48 PM

Quote :

"And where's the evidence to support your talking point?"

And where's the evidence to support anything you've said? I've backed up everything I've posted, while you've done nothing but finger wag.

Quote :

"Now, shut the FUCK up. but really, they don't think spending and entitlements are a problem. no, they are instead worried that we can't reach an agreement on them, even though they aren't a problem. wat?"

What does this have to do with "why did the S&P downgrade our credit?" I'm glad you're finally reading, but I already mentioned in my post that the S&P acknowledged our debt problem, of which entitlement spending is a part of. But that's not why they downgraded our credit. In fact, they explain in length in their full release (since you can read now, i suggest you check it out) about how there is no real danger that the US will default anytime in the near future based on pure numbers. Their entire rational for the actual downgrade was a loss of faith in our government's ability to fix it's problems based on the pissing match the Tea Party sparked over the debt ceiling.

Quote :

"yes, dumping that much money into the market has zero effect. got it"

where's the evidence!!!!???? or am i supposed to take random internet troll's words over Alan Greenspan's at face value?

8/11/2011 4:12:36 PM

Quote :

"And where's the evidence to support anything you've said?"

the fuck? I asked you to show where anyone said they would cause a default if they didn't get their way. IT'S UP TO YOU TO SHOW THAT, SINCE YOU FUCKING CLAIMED IT, asswipe.

Quote :

"What does this have to do with "why did the S&P downgrade our credit?""

are you that dense? You asked me to show you where the S&P cited our spending, especially entitlements, as a reason for them to downgrade our credit. I posted i from the first fucking sentence of their rationale for the downgrade. Then I expounded on it. And you ask for the relevance? REALLY?

Quote :

"But that's not why they downgraded our credit."

right. Our spending isn't a problem. But not being able to find a solution to our spending problem is why they downgraded us. Think about that for a second.

Quote :

"Their entire rational (sic) for the actual downgrade was a loss of faith in our government's ability to fix it's problems based on the pissing match the Tea Party sparked over the debt ceiling."

Which would would be a stupid reason to downgrade.
"Hey, these guys get in pissing matches, let's lower their credit rating."
"Are they still paying their bills?" "Well, yeah..."
"Are there any signs they might have trouble?"
"Well, no. But we're gonna downgrade anyway."

You really wanna argue that's all it is? They saw bickering and said "oh, shit, country's gonna implode!!!" If that's the case, why didn't they downgrade us when we had Clinton being impeached for a BJ? Why didn't they downgrade us when we had Dubya being railed on for the wars? Hell, why didn't they downgrade us in 1996 with the gov't shutdown? The answer is simple: they are saying there are problems already, and the gov't won't be able to fix them. Ergo, there are problems. And what, my mentally challenged friend, did they cite? SPENDING. and, wait for it... ENTITLEMENTS. you are so quick to defend your liberal wet dreams that you can't even read

[Edited on August 11, 2011 at 7:06 PM. Reason : ]

8/11/2011 7:03:45 PM

Quote :

"the fuck? I asked you to show where anyone said they would cause a default if they didn't get their way. IT'S UP TO YOU TO SHOW THAT, SINCE YOU FUCKING CLAIMED IT, asswipe."

And what I gave you was evidence of a person who thought we *should* default, on your side of the aisle. Just because you want to ignore it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Do you want a second, third, fourth piece of evidence? You asked for one. I provided it. You discarded it because it wasn't the precise words you wanted.

Quote :

"are you that dense? You asked me to show you where the S&P cited our spending, especially entitlements, as a reason for them to downgrade our credit. I posted i from the first fucking sentence of their rationale for the downgrade. Then I expounded on it. And you ask for the relevance? REALLY?"

It's pathetic that you're cherrypicking like this from the S&P report. It's obvious you didn't read it. It's 8 pages long!! Do your fucking homework already. Don't assume just because you skim through and try to C&P sentences with the keywords you need that everybody does this. (It's obvious you're doing this because I see when students do the same thing.)

Quote :

"right. Our spending isn't a problem. But not being able to find a solution to our spending problem is why they downgraded us. Think about that for a second."

Yes and revenues were a big deal to them, something your party nearly broke its back trying to defend. They downgraded us pretty explicitly because of the political brinkmanship of the GOP/TP.

Quote :

"Which would would be a stupid reason to downgrade. "Hey, these guys get in pissing matches, let's lower their credit rating." "Are they still paying their bills?" "Well, yeah..." "Are there any signs they might have trouble?" "Well, no. But we're gonna downgrade anyway.""

I hate to insult you so often, but don't you even stop and consider how stupid you're demonstrated to be each and every time you post here? There's technically no reason to downgrade the US from AAA because we can always pay our debts. A credit rating agency has no business downgrading us (normally speaking). But now's when you want to look at what S&P actually said, and here's where it's clear to me that you never read it all the way through with a clear head. The bickering *IS* what caused the *S&P DOWNGRADE*. S&P did it. They decided why and told us. The fact that you either don't know what they said or are not taking it as they intended (something which the entire document was written to clarify) is evidence that you're taking this discussion as seriously as most: you want to talk and talk as if you know something, shooting from the hip and hoping nobody else reads either. Well, we do. Sorry.

Quote :

"They saw bickering and said "oh, shit, country's gonna implode!!!" If that's the case, why didn't they downgrade us when we had Clinton being impeached for a BJ? Why didn't they downgrade us when we had Dubya being railed on for the wars? Hell, why didn't they downgrade us in 1996 with the gov't shutdown? The answer is simple: they are saying there are problems already, and the gov't won't be able to fix them. Ergo, there are problems. And what, my mentally challenged friend, did they cite? SPENDING. and, wait for it... ENTITLEMENTS. you are so quick to defend your liberal wet dreams that you can't even read"

God you're fucking stupid. Why the fuck would an entity that can print the currency it denominates its debts in be less than AAA? Oh, that's right. If it's unwilling to pay. Thus, back to the debt ceiling as a political bargaining chip and the message coming from TP Republicans to default.

You don't get to revise history. First of all, you're not clever enough. Second enough, you clearly are not well-acquainted enough with the truth to fabricate a plausible alternate story. You should go lie on the GameFAQ boards or something, because TSB is too reading and fact friendly for you. A depressing indictment.

[Edited on August 12, 2011 at 7:40 AM. Reason : .]

8/12/2011 7:38:47 AM

From S&P's release:

[...]The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.

[...]It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options.

[...]The act contains no measures to raise taxes or otherwise enhance revenues, though the committee could recommend them.

[...]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.

[Edited on August 12, 2011 at 10:46 AM. Reason : .]

8/12/2011 10:45:21 AM

Quote :

"the fuck? I asked you to show where anyone said they would cause a default if they didn't get their way. IT'S UP TO YOU TO SHOW THAT, SINCE YOU FUCKING CLAIMED IT, asswipe. "

I did, you chose to dismiss it because you're an idiotic ideologue.

Actually, that's pretty much all I have to say. All I'm doing at this point is posting quotes and you're reading them (or not), and interpreting them as the complete opposite of what the quote actually says, or just picking out some words totally out of context that relate to your talking points. Honestly, 2 year old's aren't as dense as you are. Any idiot can plainly read the entirety of the S&P statement and understand the reasons that they downgraded our credit had almost nothing to do with how much money we're spending. Even this one figured it out,

Quote :

""Hey, these guys get in pissing matches, let's lower their credit rating." "Are they still paying their bills?" "Well, yeah..." "Are there any signs they might have trouble?" "Well, no. But we're gonna downgrade anyway.""

He's literally the stupidest person I know and even he was able to correctly interpret the S&Ps statement.

8/12/2011 11:29:25 AM

Quote :

"And what I gave you was evidence of a person who thought we *should* default, on your side of the aisle. "

but not evidence, like I requested, of someone who said he wanted us to default if he didn't get his way. Reading is fundamental.

Quote :

"It's pathetic that you're cherrypicking like this from the S&P report."

Picking the fucking introduction is "cherry picking" now? really? And the fact that it says EXACTLY what he says it doesn't say is "cherry picking"?

Quote :

"Yes and revenues were a big deal to them, something your party nearly broke its back trying to defend. "

spin deflect spin deflect. lol, hilarious.

Quote :

"There's technically no reason to downgrade the US from AAA because we can always pay our debts."

repaying our debts through chicanery such as massive inflation is dubious and would be an almost textbook definition of a reason to downgrade.

Quote :

"Why the fuck would an entity that can print the currency it denominates its debts in be less than AAA?"

so if Zimbabwe issued debt in it's imagidollars, they should have a AAA rating? really? You honestly want to argue that effectively losing money in a debt deal should keep you at AAA? REALLY?

Quote :

"I did, you chose to dismiss it because you're an idiotic ideologue. "

No, you didn't. You have yet to show me where someone said "give me my way or i will cause a default."

Quote :

"Actually, that's pretty much all I have to say."

because you know you are beaten. you know that you are spouting talking points and you can't back it up with anything. just fucking say it and enjoy the catharsis that comes from it.

Quote :

"He's literally the stupidest person I know and even he was able to correctly interpret the S&Ps statement."

And if you think that was their logic, then you are the stupidest person you know, and you don't even know it.

8/12/2011 1:09:46 PM

Still haven't read the report have you burro?

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, that you're just dishonest rather than the biggest idiot I've had the displeasure of typing back and forth with.

[Edited on August 12, 2011 at 1:24 PM. Reason : .]

8/12/2011 1:23:45 PM

Quote :

"because you know you are beaten. you know that you are spouting talking points and you can't back it up with anything. just fucking say it and enjoy the catharsis that comes from it."

I've already taken plenty of enjoyment watching you flail defending a viewpoint that has absolutely no factual basis. Now it's just getting sad, and I see that you've moved on to the final step of your Troll's Guide to Internet Arguments, simply declaring yourself the winner in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I hope you feel good about yourself, you've won!

^nope, he still hasn't, and while he is plainly being dishonest, there is a point where someone lies to themselves so much, they start believing it. that's when they go from dishonest to idiotic, and aaronburro clearly has.

8/12/2011 1:30:38 PM

Quote :

"Still haven't read the report have you burro? "

I was told to show where they referenced something as a problem. It was in the first fucking sentence. no more need to read any further to prove my point, McDouche. GO back to telling us all how inflation increases buying power.

8/12/2011 1:50:25 PM