US Debt downgraded by Standard & Poor

Guess they weren't that impressed by the recent band-aid. -RG


-----------------------------------



NEW YORK (Reuters) - The United States lost its top-notch AAA credit rating from Standard & Poor's on Friday, in a dramatic reversal of fortune for the world's largest economy.

S&P cut the long-term U.S. credit rating by one notch to AA-plus on concerns about growing budget deficits.

U.S. Treasuries, once undisputedly seen as the safest investment in the world, are now rated lower than bonds issued by countries such as the UK, Germany, France or Canada.

The outlook on the new U.S. credit rating is negative, S&P said in a statement, a sign that another downgrade is possible in the next 12 to 18 months.

(Reporting by Walter Brandimarte; Editing by Jan Paschal)

http://news.yahoo.com/p-reconsiderin...001207261.html

-----------------------------------------------
This is the first major ratings agency downgrade.

Some smaller ones have already pulled the trigger.

You can pretty much lay this squarely at the foot of the tea party Republicans in Congress.

They will rather cynically try to spin it otherwise, but anybody with any common sense knows why this happened.

Any guesses on how this will affect gold. Guessing good news.

Grand.

Well, it was a good 200+ year run.

Went from shit to shittier?

First time in US history. Hopenchange

Probably has nothing to do with the ridiculous spending.

I was one week off in my prediction.

We need a second stimulus to move us down another notch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

You can pretty much lay this squarely at the foot of the tea party Republicans in Congress.

They will rather cynically try to spin it otherwise, but anybody with any common sense knows why this happened.

---

Obviously we can blame this on Tea Party conservatives. It's not like "progressive" economic policies aren't an epic fail in other parts of the world. Talk about fucking denial.

if the usa defaults on its loans, wtf are those countries going to do about it?

trade sanctions wont hurt them, this will just force ppl to support to buy local made goods?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S&P

Rationale

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 relatedLuck_The_Fakers_ 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. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.

---

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/id...10806?irpc=932

Quote:

---

You can pretty much lay this squarely at the foot of the tea party Republicans in Congress.

---

They passed a bill that would have prevented the downgrade. Harry & Barry didn't like it.

Well all be standard and poor if we keep following the left's fiscal policies. But, at least we'll all be equal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

They passed a bill that would have prevented the downgrade.

---

LOL, ZERO EVIDENCE of that. :rollin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMX7

LOL, ZERO EVIDENCE of that. :rollin

---

But 100% evidence of downgrade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Well all be standard and poor if we keep following the left's fiscal policies. But, at least we'll all be equal.

---

"We got 98 percent of what we wanted” -John Boehner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMX7

LOL, ZERO EVIDENCE of that. :rollin

---

Quote:

---

In a statement late Friday, S&P said it made the move because the deficit-reduction plan passed by Congress on Tuesday did not go far enough to stabilize the country's debt situation.

---

The grand bargain would have been sufficient, but the pussy republicans walked away from any revenues being part of the deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

The grand bargain would have been sufficient, but the pussy republicans walked away from any revenues being part of the deal.

---

You guys are in serious denial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Obviously we can blame this on Tea Party conservatives. It's not like "progressive" economic policies aren't an epic fail in other parts of the world. Talk about fucking denial.

---

Funny, 3 out of 4 of the countries listed in the OP still issuing AAA bonds all run "progressive" economic policies, and all have a government-run healthcare system.

I'm sure "progressive" economic policies like unfunded tax cuts had nothing to do with this :rolleyes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

You guys are in serious denial.

---

Denial about what. All the ratings agencies said they were looking for a deal in the 4T dollar range. That was on the table, with entitlement reform, but boehner walked away because he couldn't sell the revenue to the tea party. It really is as simple as that.

All those extremely low dividends taxes are really trickling down... the country might be going to the shitter for you and me, but the top 1% sure ain't sweating it...

the bond buyers, esp the wealthy US capitalists, LOVE a couple more percent. In fact, they may have paid, in some way, S&P. Plus Wall St probably placed bets on S&P doing it. Nothing happens in the fucking country unless the wealthy get wealthier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

First time in US history. Hopenchange

Probably has nothing to do with the ridiculous spending.

---

Spoken like a good fucking minion.

It happens along with China's decision to downgrade days after the fiasco that is government and you conclude it was done at the behest of spending.

Its completely in response to the fuckup that is our political system, milquetoast.

They haven't given a damn about rising debts for 70 years, the government shows it ass, they downgrade and you conclude that now they finally care about spending. You literally just regurgitate GOP doublespeak.

They straight up say:

Quote:

---

the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling

---

and

Quote:

---

reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed

---

but you say the regurgitation of how literally the GOP is trying to cover its ass because while Obama is being painted as a pussy the GOP is being labeled as the bully which in essence lays the blame at their feet.

So now they are doing it over spending according to the RNC and apparently yourself. Lets just forget the part about them saying failure to raise taxes or the clusterfuck in the first place.

Its the same line of shit the RNC has been saying from the beginning of this entire fuckup. Obama cave's, China and S&P tell us that were fuckups and you continue the regurgitation with the exact same rhetoric.

Shoot yourself please. You are part of the problem and not the solution.

BTW, we got here because both blue and red are FOS... that said, I don't really give a shit about rating agencies, tbh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

the bond buyers, esp the wealthy US capitalists, LOVE a couple more percent. In fact, they may have paid, in some way, S&P. Plus Wall St probably placed bets on S&P doing it. Nothing happens in the fucking country unless the wealthy get wealthier.

---

Exactly who are thes 'capitalists' you keep talking about. What PACs, individuals, corporations or anything at all represents these 'capitalists.' Do you have any idea of specifics or is this just the boogeyman.

I am not arguing that there are not elites with access that are dominating the political landscape but i am a little old now for ghost stories.

oops!

$2 trillion error in S&P calculations: US Treasury

"A judgment flawed by a 2 trillion dollar error speaks for itself," a Treasury spokesman said,

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/0...e+Raw+Story%29

===

After being trashed by the Treasury, S&P changed their logic of their downgrading from financial to political.

After the ratings agencies complicity rated toxic shit sold by the financial sector as AAA, they have NO credibility, no independence from the sellers of shit they are rating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

First time in US history. Hopenchange

Probably has nothing to do with the ridiculous spending.

---

Would you like a cup of Tea Party with that shit sammich!?

Well, I’m not gonna jump to any conclusions before I watch Fox & Friends on Monday and they explain all this to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

We need a second stimulus to move us down another notch.

---

Tax increases will move us down also.

Bad credit/Obama

Nothing to see here

Actually like the piss poor money managing, over indulging pigs we are, we need bad credit to force us to curb our appetites for excess.

As far as ratings go: it's about like looking at Beckett's to see how much your new baseball cards are worth, or asking Enron to appraise their own value. S&P? LOL...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Tax increases will move us down also.

---

as evidenced by them saying in their statement:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Standard and Poor's

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.

---

Shoot yourself too please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

as evidenced by them saying in their statement:



Shoot yourself too please.

---

There are other ways of raising revenue without raising tax rates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

There are other ways of raising revenue without raising tax rates.

---

Please enlighten us.

No luck on wikipeida yet?

How about tariffs those are kinda like taxes but not quite.

Idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Please enlighten us.

---

find gold can't be THAT hard

It's like you people are trying to read in between the lines when there is nothing hidden. The whole fucking politcal show that the Republicans put on for us is the reason this is happening. It is beyond retarded, the SnP fucking says they wanted to see revenue increases in addition to cuts and somehow that means DON'T raise revenue? It defies all logic and sanity. This country is absolutey headed for disaster and it is plainly at the Republicans feet. It's clear they are willing to drive this country into the ground unless they get their way, which is going to drive this country into the ground. It's pathetic and quite frankly time to move.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vici

It's like you people are trying to read in between the lines when there is nothing hidden. The whole fucking politcal show that the Republicans put on for us is the reason this is happening. It is beyond retarded, the SnP fucking says they wanted to see revenue increases in addition to cuts and somehow that means DON'T raise revenue? It defies all logic and sanity. This country is absolutey headed for disaster and it is plainly at the Republicans feet. It's clear they are willing to drive this country into the ground unless they get their way, which is going to drive this country into the ground. It's pathetic and quite frankly time to move.

---

Blaming all republicans for the tea party. They are shooting themselves in the foot and too stubborn to realize it.

those govt bonds, even if they give you +%....point being the dollar aint worth shit if hyper inflation kicks in and prices increases for goods/services, your not actually gettin much for ur dollar

Maybe we can ask the French to rescue us...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

All those extremely low dividends taxes are really trickling down... the country might be going to the shitter for you and me, but the top 1% sure ain't sweating it...

---

http://www.huliq.com/3257/nearly-50-...xes-all-report

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sisk

http://www.huliq.com/3257/nearly-50-...xes-all-report

---

Add this to that:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/...10-taxes_N.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Add this to that:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/...10-taxes_N.htm

---

I'm failing to see how these articles relate, unless you're just pointing out the federal govt. is bringing in less money. True, but do you think that having nearly half the population not pay any income tax is OK? I understand the notion of "tax the rich" but I believe everyone should pitch in at least something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sisk

I'm failing to see how these articles relate, unless you're just pointing out the federal govt. is bringing in less money. True, but do you think that having nearly half the population not pay any income tax is OK? I understand the notion of "tax the rich" but I believe everyone should pitch in at least something.

---

Did you just google 50% taxes and post the article cause your artcle also includes:

Quote:

---

In fact, some of the wealthy want to pay more. While Senator Orrin Hatch, (R-UT), Republican on the Senate Finance Committee believes that the rich should just voluntarily pay more, there is a group called United for a Fair Economy who believes the rich should be forced to pay more, via higher tax rates. And the members of that group are all rich themselves.

On such rich person, Eric Schoenberg, spoke to AP. He inherited money and has a healthy portfolio from when he was an investment banker. 2009 was a bad year for him; his investments "only" brought him $200K. Normally, he makes "north of half a million a year." In 2009, his bad year, his federal income tax bill was slightly more than $2,000. "I simply point out to people, 'Do you think this is reasonable, that somebody in my circumstances should only be paying 1 percent of their income in tax?'"

---

They do not apparently have issue with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Did you just google 50% taxes and post the article cause your artcle also includes:



They do not apparently have issue with it.

---

I guess you didn't read the part where I said I understood why the rich are taxed more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sisk

I guess you didn't read the part where I said I understood why the rich are taxed more.

---

So you think the people in the article were not aware of your figures?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

So you think the people in the article were not aware of your figures?

---

What are you talking about? I'm saying the people who aren't paying a dime in income tax should be taxed. Period.

I hope you are also aware that 47% makes less than $25k a year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona..._United_States

Its wiki but it is what it is.

So what do you think the appropriate tax rate for people under the poverty line, unemployed etc is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

I hope you are also aware that 47% makes less than $25k a year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona..._United_States

Its wiki but it is what it is.

So what do you think the appropriate tax rate for people under the poverty line, unemployed etc is?

---

Unemployment benefits is a completely different can of worms. As are welfare programs. Anything is an upgrade from 0%.

Are you in support of almost half the country not paying a dime of income tax?

The gap in the ability to pay is at historic levels. Simpleminded egalitarianism of sacrifice hits some much harder than others.

At the top of the scale you don't have wage earners for the most part anyway. It's apples and oranges.

If you doubled the amount of taxes for all those currently paying taxes, we'd still fall short. That leaves ?? as the problem.

standard and poor gets to give out credit ratings, so who credit ratings them? are these clowns independently regulated? or just a bunch of number clowns obsessed with giving out their povs which can fck up a company/country by just being negative...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TDMVPDPOY

standard and poor gets to give out credit ratings, so who credit ratings them? are these clowns independently regulated? or just a bunch of number clowns obsessed with giving out their povs which can fck up a company/country by just being negative...

---

They are regulated by congress.

Frum has a good piece on this. i'm glad to see there are still some reasonable conservatives left: http://www.frumforum.com/sp-makes-cl...ce#more-100486

Everyone, but the fucking moron republicans in congress seem to agree revenues are going to have to be part of the equation.

"if hyper inflation kicks in"

yep, there's a real risk of demand pull inflation:

Luxury Goods Begin Flying off the Shelves Again

http://www.care2.com/causes/luxury-g...ves-again.html

With real household income stagnating/decreasing, 1M+ homes near/in foreclosure, 25M mal/unemployed/non-participating, there'll be no demand-pull inflation for years.

Commodity price-push maybe but that's out of US control, from drought reducing human and animal food, oil prices up (esp if neo-cons bomb Iran, Iraq tears apart(a certitude)).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

They straight up say:

Quote:

---

the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling

---

and

Quote:

---

reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed

---

---

Well if we are going to edit sentences then they straight up said

Quote:

---

related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements...will remain a contentious and fitful process.

---

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TdZ7wKLgMw...evenue-600.jpg

Darrin's graph LIES, as it's intended to do, and as expected from Heritage VRWC stink tank.

The graph is absolute numbers, not federal spending as percentage of GDP. That %age is about the same as the late 70s. There is no "runaway spending". That's the main lie behind the Repugs bogus debt limit "crisis".

Tax revenues, at all levels, have clearly dropped due the VRWC/Banksters' Great Depression, AND also the VRWC's constant, successful push for 30+ years to cut tax rates on the wealthy and corps, aka "starve the beast", resulting in US wealth and salary inequalities being at record levels and matching some extemely poor corrupt countries.

Keep setting up your LIES, and I'll keep knocking them down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Darrin's graph LIES, as it's intended to do, and as expected from Heritage VRWC stink tank.

---

Source: White House Office of Management and Budget
:lmao

It comical to watch the clowns on both sides of this play the blame game.

It's pretty simple. America has had a problem living within its means (meaning having a balanced budget) since 2001. Quite frankly, America has ALWAYS had a problem living within its means - we've only had a surplus for 12 years since 1940. But with access to cheap capital, shortsighted policymaking and the promise of seemingly unlimited earning power (we've never had any real threat to our economic dominance until the rise of Asia), it was never a concern.

Bring on 2002-Present when we've continually outdone ourselves with more and more spending we can't afford, but not our seemingly unlimited earning power has proven an illusion. We have a spending problem. It is obvious.

We also have a mountain of debt that needs to be paid off. That's a revenue problem. What America needs is not just a balanced budget, but a surplus budget so that we can reduce out debt burden. It's going to take bigger spending cuts than this BS Debt Deal plan. It's also going to take increased revenue. It's time to pay off our debts, America. We rung up the tab, now it's time to pay - not leave the problem for future generations to figure out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TDMVPDPOY

standard and poor gets to give out credit ratings, so who credit ratings them? are these clowns independently regulated? or just a bunch of number clowns obsessed with giving out their povs which can fck up a company/country by just being negative...

---

I see you don't understand who they are. They are not a stock. the S&P index is just a group of stocks used as an indicator. I would say they are pretty qualified to rate individual investments and securities. No conflict of interest, if that's what you worry about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins (10:23 Pacific)

Please enlighten us.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins (10:29 Pacific)

No luck on wikipeida yet?

How about tariffs those are kinda like taxes but not quite.

Idiot.

---

LOL... You're the idiot, always assuming. After 6 minutes... Guess what... I was already on the road on my way to work!

How about we simply remove the loopholes the some of the rich enjoy to reduce their taxes. It's not fair that not all the rich get these loopholes now is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sisk

I'm failing to see how these articles relate, unless you're just pointing out the federal govt. is bringing in less money. True, but do you think that having nearly half the population not pay any income tax is OK? I understand the notion of "tax the rich" but I believe everyone should pitch in at least something.

---

I think we need both. Less exceptions and higher taxes. Obviously, that goes along with some spending cuts.

BTW, I'm not sure why you quoted my post to put that link up. It still doesn't address that the 15% dividend tax is among the cheaper out there, and trickle-down is a bunch of baloney.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

LOL... You're the idiot, always assuming. After 6 minutes... Guess what... I was already on the road on my way to work!

How about we simply remove the loopholes the some of the rich enjoy to reduce their taxes. It's not fair that not all the rich get these loopholes now is it?

---

You mean raise the amount of money that they are taxed?

So you said that if we raise taxes, S&P would downgrade us again. So now you are saying that when they say 'raise revenues' that they want us to close loopholes but if they raise the rates they would down grade us.

Thats not even semantic tapdancing. Thats just sheer stupidity once again on display from a parts bin in the Great Northwest.

Idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

Well if we are going to edit sentences then they straight up said

---

I didn't edit the structure of the sentence for a reason. Notice the lack of ellipses. IOW, i did not change the meaning of the sentence.

What they said clear as day is that we are a bunch of fuckups that they cannot count on to reduce spending and increase income to solve this problem like they had once thought we would.

I just pointed out the revenue portion that was used by the conjunction because to show cause. You are just rearranging sentences for fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sisk

Unemployment benefits is a completely different can of worms. As are welfare programs. Anything is an upgrade from 0%.

Are you in support of almost half the country not paying a dime of income tax?

---

What do you think is an appropriate tax rate for those well below the poverty level?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Source: White House Office of Management and Budget
:lmao

---

Other than mindless and obviously partisan ad hominem do you have an empirical basis for deriding their accounting methods. I really do not know.

Oh, and something NOT from a PAC please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

What do you think is an appropriate tax rate for those well below the poverty level?

---

5%

It would cut into their beer budget but they would survive.

[IMG]China demands U.S. 'live within its means'[/IMG]

"China, the largest creditor of the world's sole superpower, has every right now to demand the United States to address its structural debt problems and ensure the safety of China's dollar assets,"

In addition to holding about $1.2 trillion in treasuries, an estimated two-thirds of China's $3.2 trillion in foreign exchange reserves is estimated to be in dollars.
China's central bank must jettison trillions of incoming foreign exchange to ensure the yuan remains low. For the most part, U.S. treasuries represent the only destination large enough to accommodate China's holdings. Officials have periodically pledged to diversify China's reserves, but few alternatives exist.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,3901161.story

=======

nobody forced China to invest in dollars. And China is screwing the world by keeping its currency pegged to dollar an fixed rather than floating rate.

Fuzzy...

Please notice I specified not to increase "tax rates."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

5%

It would cut into their beer budget but they would survive.

---

What I fail to understand is how the poor can afford to smoke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Fuzzy...

Please notice I specified not to increase "tax rates."

---

The semantic tapdancing is weak in this one.

Well then by your little tapdance then removing discounts does not change the base rate either.

Look, dipshit. If they had wanted to be specific then they would have been specific. You have no basis whatsoever for your asinine interpretation.

Lets ask the everyone. Who here thinks that WC is right and that S&P by revenues meant all revenues but tax increases?

We all know what DC politicians are talking about when they say they want to raise taxes. They raise the tax rates, then add more loopholes that they and their friends can use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

5%

It would cut into their beer budget but they would survive.

---

Thats so cute you characterize poor people as drunks to make yourself feel better for these positions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

We all know what DC politicians are talking about when they say they want to raise taxes. They raise the tax rates, then add more loopholes that they and their friends can use.

---

I'm not a partisan and who are these 'friends' and the 'left.' You throw the latter out so much that it means very little. i just take it to mean registered democrats.

But 5% is so little. If they don't make much, how much would they feel it?

The point is that everyone needs skin in the game. Even if its small.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

[IMG]China demands U.S. 'live within its means'[/IMG]

"China, the largest creditor of the world's sole superpower, has every right now to demand the United States to address its structural debt problems and ensure the safety of China's dollar assets,"

In addition to holding about $1.2 trillion in treasuries, an estimated two-thirds of China's $3.2 trillion in foreign exchange reserves is estimated to be in dollars.
China's central bank must jettison trillions of incoming foreign exchange to ensure the yuan remains low. For the most part, U.S. treasuries represent the only destination large enough to accommodate China's holdings. Officials have periodically pledged to diversify China's reserves, but few alternatives exist.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,3901161.story

=======

nobody forced China to invest in dollars. And China is screwing the world by keeping its currency pegged to dollar an fixed rather than floating rate.

---

Now would us not paying our debts be justification for them going to war? i know that when creditors don't get paid they start seizing assets. Is not that kind of what that would be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Now would us not paying our debts be justification for them going to war? i know that when creditors don't get paid they start seizing assets. Is not that kind of what that would be?

---

Cannot seize unsecured debt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Cannot seize unsecured debt.

---

Legally in the United States sure. My point is that these are the types of things that countries go to war for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Legally in the United States sure. My point is that these are the types of things that countries go to war for.

---

You're joking, right?

They would go to war, and spend far more money than we owe them? Get real.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

We need a second stimulus to move us down another notch.

---

You mean a third...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

We need more tax cuts to move us down another notch.

---

Just as applicable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

You're joking, right?

They would go to war, and spend far more money than we owe them? Get real.

---

Clausewitz stated that war is just the ultimate form of politics. Its not about the cost as much as its about cost-benefit and your bush league personal finance interpretation of the accounting really does not bring much to the table.

it certainly would not be the first time countries went to war over debt.

govt could cut spending, how about the subsidies it hands out each year, humanitarian aid and shit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TDMVPDPOY

govt could cut spending, how about the subsidies it hands out each year, humanitarian aid and shit

---

This has been discussed extensively before. Foreign aid needs to go for the time being, IMO. All of it, including Israel. You can't be helping somebody else when you have problems of your own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

BTW, we got here because both blue and red are FOS... that said, I don't really give a shit about rating agencies, tbh

---

...and neither will lenders....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Clausewitz stated that war is just the ultimate form of politics. Its not about the cost as much as its about cost-benefit and your bush league personal finance interpretation of the accounting really does not bring much to the table.

---

It's a dumb topic but since you're stuck on it why don't you explain to us the benefit of China going to war with us. Aside from destroying their own economy and getting their ass kicked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

It's a dumb topic but since you're stuck on it why don't you explain to us the benefit of China going to war with us. Aside from destroying their own economy and getting their ass kicked.

---

Ahh, machismo in policymaking is just as good as oversimplification. What I am saying is that the system that was about to be dismantled makes it profitable to not mess with our interests over there.

If the hole things takes a shit then what is to prevent them from making moves on all of their territorial interests in the area. They have been playing cat and mouse games with the Indochina peninsula states for awhile now, have had a long history of wanting to move on Taiwan and an even longer history of fucking with the Japanese and Koreans.

Right now they are good they can buy natural resources from Australia, lend us money building up debt, steal our IPR. and employ their workforce by manufacturing the lions share of what we consume.

If we do not pay our debts then the entire system of exchange collapses. that impetus to make moves for territorial security and securing natural resources is there still.

Like I said counties have gone to war for less and geographically NATO is not in position to really control what they do in their own geographical region.

Fucking Obama

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

It's a dumb topic but since you're stuck on it why don't you explain to us the benefit of China going to war with us. Aside from destroying their own economy and getting their ass kicked.

---

seriously why would they go to war with people that buy all their cheaply made crap

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fuzzylumpkins

what do you think is an appropriate tax rate for those well below the poverty level?

---

4000%

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainwreck2100

seriously why would they go to war with people that buy all their cheaply made crap

---

Off topic but a friend of mine has been going to China regularly for business. He says it's pretty strange to go into stores there because you can't find any of that cheap chinese crap in China.

It takes some first class ignorance of the situation to take anything S&P says without a billion grains of salt. Especially when their own rationale and methods are utter crap not to mention contradictory. However, its not surprising idiots on both sides try to use this as a political arrow.

Look at the S&P reasons for the downgrade and take a look at the recent history of some of those variables and the ratings that S&P assigned. Its a joke as are all of the ratings by any of these agencies. Thats not to say the downgrades don't come with real consequences but no one ever said the financial sector was rational.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

Off topic but a friend of mine has been going to China regularly for business. He says it's pretty strange to go into stores there because you can't find any of that cheap chinese crap in China.

---

It's cheap for us... not necessarily affordable to them... that's the way that cycle works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

It takes some first class ignorance of the situation to take anything S&P says without a billion grains of salt. Especially when their own rationale and methods are utter crap not to mention contradictory. However, its not surprising idiots on both sides try to use this as a political arrow.

Look at the S&P reasons for the downgrade and take a look at the recent history of some of those variables and the ratings that S&P assigned. Its a joke as are all of the ratings by any of these agencies. Thats not to say the downgrades don't come with real consequences but no one ever said the financial sector was rational.

---

They're racists

Dig that whole deeper, idiot. :toast

Why would S&P care how the government pays the debt in its rating?

Yahoo News: "America's credit rating-intentionally sabotaged by Congressional Republicans"

Quote:

---

But that doesn't mean we should ignore S&P's Friday evening shot across the bow. In downgrading the U.S.'s credit rating, S&P points out what has long been obvious: Washington's inability to come to an agreement on how to close the large fiscal gaps that have emerged since the recession began is troubling. Recent events have sapped the agency's confidence that the government can and will do what is necessary to align revenues with spending commitments. And it's difficult to escape the conclusion that America's credit rating was intentionally sabotaged by Congressional Republicans.

..............

But Congressional Republicans deserve much more of the blame. For this calamity was entirely man-made -- even intentional. The contemporary Republican Party is fixated on taxes. It possesses an iron-clad belief that the existing tax rates should never go up, that loopholes shouldn't be closed unless they're offset by other tax reductions, that the fact that hedge fund managers pay lower tax rates than school teachers makes complete sense, that a reversion to the tax rates of the prosperous 1990's or 1980's would be unacceptable.

---

Yahoo News