TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- S&P downgrades U.S. credit rating from AAA
Pages (7): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN nobody has said its not a spending problem, learn to read ffs. the bailout funds have mostly been paid back too FYI. |
| quote: |
| you say its a spending problem? so what is a spending problem other than spending too much? and how does one define "too much" do you think? perhaps compared to revenue? do you think tax cuts might decrease revenue just a bit? ya thunk? sheesh. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by idoru That's what I'm saying. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by EddieZilker Not just out of here. Out of the US, entirely. |
The fucked up thing is, they know how to fix it. They just won't do it because the tough love required to do so will jeopardize their chances in the next election... and they'll do anything to have their lavish political lifestyles maintained first.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss This is horse shit. It was recently revealed that this was basically done by robbing Peter to pay Paul; the banks "repaid" the Treasury by borrowing from other programs run by the Treasury... not from actual earnings or new investment returns. More smoke and mirrors out of Washington. Check it out man---> http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/dani...-205658852.html |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss I would say immediately yes, but shortly thereafter, when the market is sparked, no. This is factual data, not me blowing smoke up your ass. Following the 2003 tax cut: Revenue to the Treasury 2003: 1.782 Trillion 2004: 1.88 Trillion 2005: 2.153 Trillion 2006: 2.406 Trillion 2007: 2.567 Trillion TOTAL revenue increase: 44% |
| quote: |
Myth 2: Even if the tax cuts reduced revenues initially, they boosted revenues and lowered deficits in 2005 to 2007. �Some in Washington say we had to choose between cutting taxes and cutting the deficit� Today�s numbers [the updated 2006 budget projections] show that that was a false choice. The economic growth fueled by tax relief has helped send our tax revenues soaring.� � President Bush, July 11, 2006 Reality: Robust revenue growth in 2005-2007 has not made up for extraordinarily weak revenue growth over the previous few years. When discussing revenue growth since the enactment of the tax cuts, Administration officials typically focus only on revenue growth since 2004. This provides a convenient starting point for their arguments, as it sets a very low bar. In 2001, 2002, and 2003, revenues fell in nominal terms (i.e. without adjusting for inflation) for three straight years, the first time this has occurred since before World War II. Measured as a share of the economy, revenues in 2004 were at their lowest level since 1959. Given this historically low starting point, it is not surprising that revenues have recovered since then. Supporters of the tax cuts selectively cite revenue growth over just the past three years to argue that the tax cuts fueled increases in revenues. Even taking into account the growth in revenues in fiscal years 2005-2007, total revenues have just barely increased over the 2001-2007 business cycle, after adjusting for inflation and population growth. (The business cycle began in March 2001, when the 1990s business cycle hit its peak and thereby came to an end.) In contrast, six and a half years after the peak of previous post-World War II business cycles, real per-capita revenues had increased by an average of 12 percent, and in the 1990s, real per-capita revenues were up 16 percent (see Table 1). Revenues in 2007 were still more than $250 billion short of where they would have been had they grown at the rates typical in other recoveries. Further, while the Administration has credited the tax cuts with the drop in the fiscal year 2007 deficit to �only� $162 billion, the 2007 budget would have been in surplus were it not for the tax cuts. Based on Joint Committee on Taxation estimates, the total 2007 cost of tax cuts enacted since January 2001 was $300 billion (taking into account the increased interest costs on the debt that have resulted from the deficit financing of the tax cuts). This means that even with the spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the federal budget would have been in surplus in 2007 if the tax cuts had not been enacted, or if their costs had been offset. While supporters of these tax cuts claim that their positive economic effects have lowered their cost, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service found in a September, 2006 report that �at the current time, as the stimulus effects have faded and the effect of added debt service has grown, the 2001-2004 tax cuts are probably costing more than their estimated revenue cost.� Looking out over the next several decades, when deficits are projected to be far larger (because of the impact on the budget of the continued rise in health care costs and the retirement of the baby boomers), the tax cuts, if extended, will still be a major contributor to the nation�s fiscal problems. (http://www.cbpp.org/1-29-07bud.htm) To put the long-run cost of the tax cuts in perspective, the 75-year Social Security shortfall, about which the President and Congressional leaders have expressed grave concern, is less than one-third the cost of the tax cuts over the same period. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss The fucked up thing is, they know how to fix it. They just won't do it because the tough love required to do so will jeopardize their chances in the next election... and they'll do anything to have their lavish political lifestyles maintained first. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN ill have to get back to you on that one. im sure you understand i dont take you at your word |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN im sorry mate. all i see is a bunch of miniscule amounts recorded in $M. im not seeing anywhere near the numbers to support your claim that the banks have paid back bailouts by borrowing from treasury. where are the hundreds of billions? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss you didn't read the whole article... I can tell. |
Uh oh. This just in:
| quote: |
| S&P warns of a second downgrade One day after lowering the nation�s platinum triple-A credit rating, Standard & Poor�s analysts warned Saturday that the U.S. government could face a second downgrade if the economy continues to struggle and the government fails to make the cuts outlined in the debt ceiling agreement... |
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...r_n_920152.html
| quote: |
| On the same night that Standard and Poor's downgraded the United States' top-level credit rating for the first time in history, Christina Romer, former chair of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, didn't mince words when asked of downgrade's potential consequences. (h/t NewsBusters) The U.S. is "pretty darn f**ked," Romer said during a segment on Real Time with Bill Maher called �How F**ked Are We?�, after Maher asked what the new could mean for the U.S. economy. "I�ve been hanging around [Treasury Secretary] Tim Geithner too long," Romer said, explaining her foul language. Geithner, she says, swears "like a seventh grade boy." |
That guy is right about bailout being paid back by borrowing. That's what GM did. A lot of companies borrowed to pay back gov bailouts because it limited CEO compensation because after all, isn't that the point of capitalism? It's interesting how all mainstream media has a spin that is pro pumping economy.
Also downgrades by a single agency does not matter. Even the Fed made a statement that basically said 'whatever bro'. Financial institutions often have a rules stating they cannot hold paper assets that are not AAA, as long as some credit rating agencies rate treasury bonds as AAA that's good enough.
Anyway, other sovereign banks already know how shitty the situation is in America. All of Western Europe is shitty and China is trying to keep the fiat game going a bit longer as it gets free technology and probably a quicker growth rate, and lower unemployment while this game keeps going.
I think I said buy gold back in 08 on these forums? Yeah still do that, except physical now because the futures exchange in America is rigged.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by mndeg That guy is right about bailout being paid back by borrowing. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by mndeg and China is trying to keep the fiat game going a bit longer as it gets free technology and probably a quicker growth rate, and lower unemployment while this game keeps going. |
FAO Kevin:
LINK
| quote: |
| Have you seen, anywhere, in any media, or even heard reported or repeated on NPR, the following sentence? �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.� It�s right there on Page 4 of the official Standard & Poors �Research Update� � the actual report on what they did and why � published on August 5th as the explanation for why they believe Congress � and even the Gang of Twelve � will be unable to actually deal with the US debt crisis. Perhaps it�s just lazy � the bullet points at the beginning of the report don�t mention the Republicans or taxes, but instead just say, for example (part of one of six quick bullet-points): �[T]he 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�� In order to figure out that one of the reasons why is that �Republicans in the Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues,� a hard-working reporter would have to read to page four of the eight-page report. It�s just too much effort for most reporters? Although they do also mention this in the very first sentence of the report: �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.� (Italics mine) Or could it be that many reporters � and virtually all of the television talking heads � are themselves relatively high income-earners who don�t relish the idea of higher taxes? Or could it be that reporters are afraid that if they report the actual language of the S&P Research Report, then Republicans will punish them by denying them �access� � i.e. refusing to show up on their programs � which is the career and show kiss-of-death for radio and TV programs that rely on big-name politicians to work? I don�t know the reason, but it�s fascinating to see all the huffing and puffing about the S&P downgrade of America�s debt that all seems to be working so hard to avoid mentioning that critical sentence. |
Gee, S&P must be a bunch of socialists in the pocket of Obama!
Ironically, it may be the communists who rescue the capitalist pork in the USA and EU.
Im really not worried. With the tax cut created by the stimulus & the Bush tax cuts getting extended, the economy should start kicking ass anytime now.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by jonSun Im really not worried. With the tax cut created by the stimulus & the Bush tax cuts getting extended, the economy should start kicking ass anytime now. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss The truth hurts eh? You voted for the first administration ever to preside over a credit rating downgrade. No wonder every one of his original economic team (except Giethner) has quietly left and gone back to the friendly confines of their university teaching jobs... they knew what was coming and didn't want their fingerprints all over it.  |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by EgosXII FAO Kevin: This really deserves its own thread... |
| quote: |
| Have you seen, anywhere, in any media, or even heard reported or repeated on NPR, the following sentence? �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.� It�s right there on Page 4 of the official Standard & Poors �Research Update� � the actual report on what they did and why � published on August 5th as the explanation for why they believe Congress � and even the Gang of Twelve � will be unable to actually deal with the US debt crisis. |
| quote: |
| Standard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures the Congress and the Administration might conclude are appropriate. But for any plan to be credible, we believe that it would need to secure support from a cross-section of leaders in both political parties. |
| quote: |
| In order to figure out that one of the reasons why is that �Republicans in the Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues,� a hard-working reporter would have to read to page four of the eight-page report. It�s just too much effort for most reporters? |
| quote: |
| The decision by Standard & Poor�s to downgrade the U.S. credit rating to �AA+� at once laments the possibility that cuts to entitlement programs will not materialize and the decreasing likelihood of new tax revenues. But it appears to give more weight to the need for more spending cuts, as it warns that a further credit rating downgrade is in the cards if the U.S. does not trim spending. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss Here's the juicy part you left-tards keep pretending never happened. On July 19th the House passed the "Cap, Cut and Balance" act with bipartisan support. It was sent to the Senate where it was tabled. CCB was the ONLY legislation ever introduced in this process that the S&P said would definitely prevent a downgrade. Who killed it? Senate Democrats. This is an indisputable fucking fact that the Left keeps ignoring. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss Weak bro. A few comments from that dude's piece: Yes, unable to deal with the debt crisis because they ended up doing nothing significant to address the long term debt by ignoring serious cuts; S&P said they needed to see at least $4 trillion in cuts to prevent a downgrade, not that the downgrade happened specifically because taxes weren't raised. April 18th, from the S&P: Here's the juicy part you left-tards keep pretending never happened. On July 19th the House passed the "Cap, Cut and Balance" act with bipartisan support. It was sent to the Senate where it was tabled. CCB was the ONLY legislation ever introduced in this process that the S&P said would definitely prevent a downgrade. Who killed it? Senate Democrats. This is an indisputable fucking fact that the Left keeps ignoring. More from your article. This one is interesting... I love how this has already been thrown down the memory hole: Boehner and Cantor agreed on July 22nd to allow $800 billion in revenues to be raised by eliminating tax loopholes and making other tweaks in the tax code. Then at the last minute before the meeting was adjourned, Obama demanded that another $400 billion be raised on top of that and blew the deal up. CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller confirms this TWICE that day. Google his report if you don't believe me. And this one blasts another hole in your article's author's stupid argument. Today from S&P: |
"We will do anything to maintain the status quo and keep our "donators" in power along with the companies they own, in a facade to keep half of you employed while they rob from all of you. thank you, Don't panic!"
Now, let's return to your scheduled programming.... American idol!
| quote: |
| About 10 years ago, the American conservative magazine National Review ran an issue whose cover featured some Mounties with the word "WIMPS" printed across the page. The cover and the accompanying article by Jonah Goldberg, "Bomb Canada: The Case for War," was a semi-satirical attack piece, taking Canada to task for its perceived anti-Americanism and lack of contribution on the world stage. Making fun of Canada has long been a U.S. national pastime. Recall the contest held by Michael Kinsley, then editor of the New Republic, to find the world's most boring headline. The winner? "Worthwhile Canadian Initiative." As recently as 2006, Goldberg, writing again about Canada, called us "arguably the most deluded" industrialized nation in the world" because "elite Canadians" think "being different than the U.S. and sucking up to the United Nations will buy them grace on the cheap." Today, no one is laughing at the Great White North - especially Americans - and certainly no one would accuse the Harper government of kowtowing to the UN. As economic confidence south of the border plunges to a 15-year low and the debt-ceiling fiasco edges toward catastrophe, many U.S. experts are praising Canada as an attractive low-tax environment and a beacon for sound fiscal policy and good governance. The opportunities before us are immense - and the last to take note, as usual, are Canadians themselves. This week, for example, Canadian business titan Peter Munk said that Canada now has the same opportunity to do with the mining sector what Britain did with the financial sector at the turn of the last century - that is, to become its global centre. What's most surprising about all the plaudits is that much of them are coming from the heretofore most critical corners - particularly from U.S. conservatives. Fred Barnes, editor of the Weekly Standard, recently took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to argue that the government of Jean Chr�tien set the example on how to right an economically failing ship: cut government spending and do not raise taxes. As Barnes noted, between 1995 and 1998 Canada turned a $36.6-billion deficit into a $3-billion surplus. (The Wall Street Journal was a fitting avenue for the article; in 1995 that newspaper ran an editorial suggesting that Canada was close to bankruptcy. Many credit the attention the editorial received for jolting Chr�tien and then-finance minister Paul Martin into action.) Meanwhile, a surprising new article in Maclean's notes that Canada is emerging as the go-to destination for the world's wealthy. Tax specialists apparently now refer to Canada as the "Great White tax haven" and the "Switzerland of the North." The inflow of high-net-worth individuals to our country (last year, 12,000 people moved here under a special immigration program for the wealthy) is giving Canada a net economic boost of roughly $2-billion a year - and the trend is likely to continue. The U.S. conservative movement is also looking to the Harper Conservatives for ideas. A consensus has emerged in the U.S. that Canada handled the 2008-2010 economic crisis better than any other western country, and conservatives there have been particularly impressed with the Harper government's campaign strategies of microtargeting defined blocs of voters to broaden its support. At the moment, everything from our immigration laws to the GST is being praised by Americans as examples of good public policy. A quick pat on the back is more than deserved, and we should give credit to our successive national governments for the sound economic policies that have led us to this place. But we shouldn't get caught up in self-congratulation either. It wasn't that long ago that we were battling the brain drain (which has now effectively reversed direction) and paying $1.45 to buy a U.S. dollar. Canada seems to perform well when the global economy doesn't. Europe and the U.S. are in the gutter, but we are holding our own. When things are going well elsewhere, Canada is perceived as an overregulator, and to a great extent that perception is true. Canada-enviers ought to tread carefully. They should look to Canada as a model in terms of outcome, not of process. In the past we have too often drifted into over-regulation of the economy. With the continuing emergence of the dynamic and risk-prone economies of the group known as BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China), this is not the time to take the safe route by turning to increased red tape, particularly in the U.S. We obviously have many challenges ahead of us, but let this international admiration remind us that things in Canada are going extremely well - though we have to work hard to hold on to our status as an enviable economy. That status is, for lack of a better term, worth something. Adam Daifallah is a partner at Hatley Strategies, a montreal public-affairs firm,and a lecturer at McGill University's Department of North American Studies Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news...l#ixzz1UR9KP8gh |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.