Reply With Quote
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.
Thats so cute you characterize poor people as drunks to make yourself feel better for these positions.
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.
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.
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.
You mean a third...
Just as applicable.
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
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.
...and neither will lenders....
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 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 ing 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.
ing Obama
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.
It's cheap for us... not necessarily affordable to them... that's the way that cycle works.
They're racists
Dig that whole deeper, idiot.
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"
Yahoo NewsBut 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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
