Quote :

"I was told to show where they referenced something as a problem."

The only reason I'm doing this is because it's going on the top of a new page, but no, you weren't. You were asked to show where they referenced something as a reason for downgrading our debt. Since you couldn't, you simply pulled a single word, from a single paragraph, from a single page, from an 8 page release to reinforce a talking point. But hey, now that you might properly understand the question, I'll give you another chance. Here, once again, are the reasons the S&P listed to justify downgrading our debt.

Quote :

" · 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."

ctrl+f "spending" 0 - results ctrl+f "entitlements" 0 - results

8/12/2011 3:50:31 PM

Quote :

"It was in the first fucking sentence. no more need to read any further to prove my point, "

Why would they bother to write more if only the first sentence was necessary?

8/12/2011 4:00:12 PM

Quote :

"You were asked to show where they referenced something as a reason for downgrading our debt."

I know this is hard for you, but think for a second. They downgraded us because of political bickering over spending. What does that imply? It implies that they think spending is a problem. Otherwise, if they don't think there's a problem, then why in the FUCK would bickering about a non-existent problem trigger a downgrade. Do you get it now? Can you get that through your empty skull? Comprende? They are saying "we don't think they will be able to solve the spending problem". Let me say that in another way: "We have a spending problem, and Congress won't be able to stop being pricks long enough to fix it."

Quote :

"ctrl+f "spending" 0 - results ctrl+f "entitlements" 0 - results "

Yes. when you take out the sections were it actually is. That's fucking disingenuous, and you know it.

Quote :

"Why would they bother to write more if only the first sentence was necessary?"

Yeah, why ever read past an introduction when you want a summary. It's not a matter of the rest wasn't necessary. It's a matter of the claim I was making was substantiated in the first fucking sentence, and quite well at that. I could waste my time reading the rest of it which goes on to detail what was in the introduction, but why? The proof is in the first sentence.

8/12/2011 7:56:04 PM

Quote :

"I know this is hard for you, but think for a second. They downgraded us because of political bickering over spending. What does that imply? It implies that they think spending is a problem. Otherwise, if they don't think there's a problem, then why in the FUCK would bickering about a non-existent problem trigger a downgrade. Do you get it now? Can you get that through your empty skull? Comprende? They are saying "we don't think they will be able to solve the spending problem". Let me say that in another way: "We have a spending problem, and Congress won't be able to stop being pricks long enough to fix it.""

lol a priori reasoning about a document you still haven't read, of which people have posted all of the key parts for you. Shameful shit at this point. Why are you so against googling the report and spending tops 30 minutes reading it?

8/13/2011 8:07:54 AM

I've read the document. They absolutely talk about spending as a problem, and they also mention revenue, though the report specifically says that they have no position on what spending/revenue increasing measures should be taken.

Alarmingly, they say that any rise in interest rates would cause them downgrade further. It's no surprise that Bernanke came out and guaranteed two full years of 0% interest rates (they're gonna create a shit load of money and give it out to banks, because who wouldn't borrow at 0%).

8/13/2011 12:36:55 PM

Guys everyone take a step back and shut the fuck up.


You do realize default is a MUCH better option than hyperinflation, right?

If we default the people who made bad investments get screwed.

If we hyperinflate then 98% of the country gets screwed.

Jesus christ welcome back to reality. If anything you should be thanking the tea party for trying to stop the politicians from taking us off the cliff.

8/13/2011 12:47:20 PM

Quote :

"If we default the people who made bad investments get screwed. If we hyperinflate then 98% of the country gets screwed."

If we do either, 100% of the world gets screwed, but it doesn't really matter because neither is likely to happen.

8/13/2011 1:39:18 PM

Quote :

"lol a priori reasoning about a document you still haven't read, of which people have posted all of the key parts for you. "

i know, they said they downgraded us because they didn't think we could solve a problem, even though the problem isn't a problem. that's what you are arguing at this point, genius. I'll ask again, if they only cared about bickering, then why didn't they downgrade us during the dems bitching about the Iraq war? WHy didn't they downgrade us when Nixon went apeshit and broke into Watergate? Why didn't they downgrade us when Clinton got impeached for a BJ?

8/13/2011 2:51:31 PM

Quote :

"why didn't they downgrade us during the dems bitching about the Iraq war? WHy didn't they downgrade us when Nixon went apeshit and broke into Watergate? Why didn't they downgrade us when Clinton got impeached for a BJ?"

In fairness, those situations have little to do with the ability of the US to pay back it's bonds, while the one in question was DIRECTLY about just that.

8/13/2011 5:55:46 PM

Quote :

"They are saying "we don't think they will be able to solve the spending problem". Let me say that in another way: "We have a spending problem, and Congress won't be able to stop being pricks long enough to fix it.""

No actually, they aren't saying that. At all. But this is just entertainment to me at this point, so keep it up!

Quote :

"i know, they said they downgraded us because they didn't think we could solve a problem, even though the problem isn't a problem. that's what you are arguing at this point, genius. I'll ask again, if they only cared about bickering, then why didn't they downgrade us during the dems bitching about the Iraq war? WHy didn't they downgrade us when Nixon went apeshit and broke into Watergate? Why didn't they downgrade us when Clinton got impeached for a BJ?"

If you'd read the article, they explained exactly why. They spent several paragraphs actually, detailing how they had figured increased revenues into their calculations for how our long term debt problem would be solved. They specifically said that the fight over the debt ceiling had shaken their confidence that the GOP would ever agree to increasing revenues, which changed their long term outlook on whether congress would ever be able to solve the debt problem. Again, this isn't vague or complex stuff, but you refuse to read the article and instead just continue to make an ass of yourself. It's honestly embarrassing.

8/15/2011 11:21:17 AM

Quote :

"No actually, they aren't saying that."

read it again. but wait, what did you say just a little later...

Quote :

"They specifically said that the fight over the debt ceiling had shaken their confidence that the GOP would ever agree to increasing revenues, which changed their long term outlook on whether congress would ever be able to solve the debt problem."

Which is it? Is there a problem or not? "Debt problem" doesn't mean "lack of revenues" only. It means the specific combination of lack of revenue and over spending. so, which is it? is there a problem or not, and S&P worried about it or not?

8/16/2011 4:54:29 PM

In case anyone missed it, S&P's own words:


[...]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.

8/18/2011 3:40:53 PM

Hilarious. Burro gets accused of cherry picking and not reading the full report, after stating that spending was the problem cited by S & P. I say that I have read the full report, and that they absolutely do mention spending as a problem. And, here you are, cherry picking from the report, conveniently leaving out everything that doesn't affirm your view.

8/18/2011 3:57:49 PM

How is posting, verbatim, the reasons the S&P listed for downgrading our credit "cherry picking". How does it even make sense to you that they downgraded our credit because of spending? We've been spending way more than we take in for decades now. Any spike in our debt to GDP ratio can be directly attributed to the mortgage securities industry going bust and taking the rest of our (and the worlds) economy along with it. Why didn't they downgrade us in 2008, when we spent trillions to bail out the banking industry and AIG? The only condition that exists today that has never existed in the past are people in our legislative bodies who are actively trying to bring our economy to it's knees so they can win the 2012 election (or just because, I can't even begin to logically explain their motives). As I said in the other thread, please don't try and rewrite history, it won't work on me.

8/18/2011 4:13:16 PM

You don't know shit about history or the economy, which is why you're spouting this nonsense. You have no idea how the bubble was created or what S&Ps role was in the fiasco. They were stamping AAA on MBS 4 years ago. They lost all credibility back then, which is why anyone with a clue was saying that this report is completely irrelevant.

The U.S. has not been running these kinds of deficits for decades. 1.5 trillion deficits are new. Bush was an idiot, Obama is an idiot, and Congress has been totally derelict in its duties. Spending is out of control, and if we allow spending to stay the same while raising taxes to eliminate the deficit, the burden would be unbearable.

And posting four sentences that all mention revenues while ignoring the rest of the article (that does mention spending) is cherry picking, there's no way around it. The article specifically says that it offers no recommendation on what the balance between spending/revenue should be.

By the way - S&P is about to do a broad downgrade of municipal bonds. TEA PARTY BASTARDS!

[Edited on August 18, 2011 at 4:33 PM. Reason : ]

8/18/2011 4:28:39 PM

Why are you so angry? We seem to agree that the S&P has no credibility and had no real basis for downgrading our credit (something I said in my very first post in this thread). We agree that they were partly to blame for our problems in the first place. We agree that the deficits we are running are unique, and mostly due to the previous administration (2 wars, Medicare prescription drug bill, tax cuts) and the mortgage crisis.

Yet you're mad at me because I'm blaming the people who directly influenced one of the largest single day % drops in the stock market for making things much worse today than they were just a few weeks ago? Or do you think I should blame Obama's health care bill, which was steered far right of what he originally wanted by an uncooperative GOP, and doesn't even begin to take effect for another year? Or should I blame his economic stimulus, which again was gutted by the GOP, and consists mostly of tax cuts and spending that hasn't happened yet?

You say I don't know history, but exactly what part of my summary of the mortgage crisis was wrong? Because I left out the part about interest rates being low? What's your version? That a bunch of stupid poor people bought houses they couldn't afford? Who allowed them to buy those houses and what were their motives for doing so? Who allowed the lenders and investment bankers to continue trading in toxic mortgages for 7 years before the whole thing finally collapsed in on itself? Who was in charge during all this? It wasn't Obama and the democrats.

8/18/2011 5:09:14 PM

Quote :

"Yet you're mad at me because I'm blaming the people who directly influenced one of the largest single day % drops in the stock market for making things much worse today than they were just a few weeks ago? Or do you think I should blame Obama's health care bill, which was steered far right of what he originally wanted by an uncooperative GOP, and doesn't even begin to take effect for another year? Or should I blame his economic stimulus, which again was gutted by the GOP, and consists mostly of tax cuts and spending that hasn't happened yet? "

You're pinning literally decades of terrible policies on one party while giving your side a free pass. That's what I find disingenuous.

We did end up raising the debt ceiling, and S&P didn't care. They recognized that the situation was very serious, and that kicking the can would not "restore confidence" in U.S. credit. The U.S. should have lost its AAA rating a long time ago.

Quote :

"You say I don't know history, but exactly what part of my summary of the mortgage crisis was wrong? Because I left out the part about interest rates being low? What's your version? That a bunch of stupid poor people bought houses they couldn't afford? Who allowed them to buy those houses and what were their motives for doing so? Who allowed the lenders and investment bankers to continue trading in toxic mortgages for 7 years before the whole thing finally collapsed in on itself? Who was in charge during all this? It wasn't Obama and the democrats."

When the tech bubble burst in 2001, we went into recession. Alan Greenspan, the Fed chairman at the time, said that we needed to spur growth by increasing home ownership - lowering interest rates was the way to do this. Bush encouraged this. Of course, the doctrine of making home loans more accessible was nothing anything new. Clinton and Bush both advocated these policies and worked towards implementing them.

So, private banks (with their fractional reserve banking) could borrow from the Fed dirt cheap. This allowed them to give out more home loans. Alan Greenspan actually said that adjustable rate mortgages were a good thing. The problem was that none of this was sustainable - people were thinking they could get rich and retire just because their house became so valuable. People were getting interest only loans, which eventually reset.

The Federal Reserve enabled all of this. They held down interest rates due to political pressure. What the Fed should have done was tighten when the recession came in 2001. That's what good central bankers do, and they're hated for it, but that's the whole god damn point of having a "private, independent" Fed. Instead, the Fed has become the unofficial 4th branch of government, and they buy as much debt from our government as they need to.

[Edited on August 18, 2011 at 5:18 PM. Reason : ]

8/18/2011 5:18:06 PM

http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/18/news/companies/sp_investigation_mortgages/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1

lol. dont know if this should go here or under obamas credibility watch.

8/18/2011 5:25:09 PM

I'm not sure why it's happening in 2011, rather than 2007.

8/18/2011 5:26:15 PM

Your version downplays the role of Wall Street and their $2 trillion shadow banking industry to a pretty laughable degree. Yeah, the Fed created conditions that made it possible for private banks to incur more risk than they previously would have, but not holding the banks accountable for their actions is extremely disingenuous. Actions that would have been impossible if not for the deregulation of the securities and credit default swap industries. Now, both Democrats and Republicans share the blame for the original deregulation legislation (Republicans invented it, Democrats signed off on it), but you can't just gloss over the fact that Republicans were in charge of the SEC (the body that is supposed to keep this sort of shit from happening) from 2001-2007.

8/18/2011 6:10:20 PM

The problem is much, much more complex than you're making it out to be. I rail on the banking cartel frequently, but these moral hazards have been created over the course of century.

Fed gets created under very suspect political conditions. The fractional reserve banking system arises out of that. Fed has loose policy in the 1920s, we get the great depression in the 30s. The FDIC is created to "save banks" by Glass-Steagall, part of which says that investment banking and deposit banking has to be separate. That part of Glass-Steagall gets repealed, Fed lowers interest rates in 2000s, now banks can borrow money from the Fed through the discount window and gamble with it.

They're still gambling with our money.

This corrupt system is crumbling, and I don't think it can be held together.

8/18/2011 6:30:30 PM

Quote :

"In case anyone missed it, S&P's own words and I'll leave out the parts that don't jive with what I am trying to show:"

FTFY.

Quote :

"How is posting, verbatim, the reasons the S&P listed for downgrading our credit "cherry picking""

because you didn't post, verbatim, everything they had to say. thus, the "cherry picking". When the claim is "they never mentioned spending," then all I need to do is show one instance where the did, AND I DID.

Quote :

"How does it even make sense to you that they downgraded our credit because of spending?"

How does it make sense to you that they didn't? They downgraded our credit because we couldn't solve a problem, but that problem wasn't a problem? WHAT. THE. FUCK. that is honestly what you have to be arguing!

Quote :

"Yet you're mad at me because I'm blaming the people who directly influenced one of the largest single day % drops in the stock market for making things much worse today than they were just a few weeks ago?"

That's funny, because NPR was saying something quite different. man, you love to spout bull shit.

8/19/2011 7:33:21 AM