-
Do you have credits to spend? Why not pick up some VOD rentals? Find out how!
Raise the debt ceiling, Yes or No?
- Thread starter Jack Davenport
- Start date
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
He says some good things. You should listen.
Master Roshi
All hail the FO Cult Mother!
actually the national debt will be about 20 trillion by the time Obama leaves office but as I have stated already deficits don't matter as much nowadays just so long as the centrals banks don't run out of zeros
Master Roshi
All hail the FO Cult Mother!
and the next puppet president will inherit this debt and probably raise it even further to 24 trillion, this fiat money system can be kept going for an extremely long time, just so long as the people have "confidence" in it, you see the confidence in this fiat money is what give it the majority of its value
Master Roshi
All hail the FO Cult Mother!
at what point do the people see a country as being "insolvent", is it at the 18 trillion debt mark, the 20, the 25, the 30 trillion mark maybe? or maybe at the 1 quatrillion mark, as long as the zeros don't run out, the game can continue
Master Roshi
All hail the FO Cult Mother!
for example, 50 years ago if you would have asked the average worker in the US if he would pay 500,000 dollars for a house, he would have labeled you a nutcase and went about his business, however in today's economic climate, this question is not seen as a crazy question....the US dollar will continue to expand its reach while devaluing those who hold the majority of shares in its stock but its a slow steady controlled devaluation as opposed to a hyper inflation scenario that the collapsitarions are always screaming about
Jack Davenport
I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
Learn the difference between bailouts and stimulus. And there were never 1 trillion dollar stimulus packages under Bush and those solvent banks were being bailed out before Bush left office.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
By the time the debt ceiling was raised in 2011, both Moody's and S&P had already placed the U.S. under review earlier in the year. Both credit ratings agencies were looking for not just an increase in the debt ceiling (which was necessary then too), but also a package of deficit reduction and revenue enhancement measures. S&P, in particular, was looking for politicians to agree to a sort of "grand bargain", which would include spending cuts and revenue enhancements. After much wrangling and threats by both sides (much like this time), the ceiling was raised, but no meaningful cuts were put in place (the sequester was a joke from Day 1), no meaningful revenue enhancements were put in place (those sacred cows again) and the two warring factions actually dug in that much deeper. Another stated reason for the downgrade was the inability of the Congressional Branch and the Executive Branch to find solutions to the U.S.'s long term fiscal issues. The debt-to-GDP ratio (similar to a debt-to-income ratio for a person - which is primarily what would make a credit score decline when a large sum of money is borrowed and the payments are enough to push the debt ratio above 35% of gross income) was and still is considered to be "long term unsustainable" by the ratings agencies. It's simple math: the two things that would affect that ratio would either be a decrease in debt (reduce the deficit by spending cuts and/or revenue enhancement), an increase in GDP, or (more realistically) a mixture of both... which is what both S&P and Moody's pointed out.
In other words, would you be as likely to loan money to a husband and wife, who whenever they walked into your office always seemed on the verge of divorce or violence? No. The demeanor of borrowers, whether it's a person or a country, does matter. Politicians don't seem to understand that fact though - whether they are U.S. based or based in Argentina.
P.S. While I agree that prioritized spending could prevent a (technical) default on the debt, it would be like asking Gomer Pyle to do a quantum physics problem to expect the very same goofs who got us into this mess to direct the Treasury as to which bills could be paid and which could not... on a week by week or day by day basis. Making sure that Chinese (and other) bond investors were getting paid first and foremost protects against technical default. But making social security recipients and veterans stand deeper in the line would be an invitation to civil unrest. It would be too complicated (and politicized) to be workable, IMO.
Jack Davenport
I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
Jesus Christ! Rey stop it with the revenue enhancement crap. It's called TAX INCREASES.
I know the Democrats position is untenable but it's the Republicans who are the ones holding out for cuts and a hell of a lot more cuts than happened the last time we went through this crap. During the review, S&P recommended 4 tril in reduction and Obama signed on for only 2 tril over 10 years. And the Dems aren't exactly open to cuts this time around either. What this boils down to is that the Democrats haue won the ACA and even the challenge in the SCOTUS but that does not give them the right to not entertain meaningful cuts in other areas. Most voters know what they are told and they are being told that Repubs are taking the country hostage. Holding a gun to their head andextortion. It goes on and on.
All Obama and the Dems want is for the debt ceilng to be raised, cuts be damned. Through all the lies it is the Repubs that are being the fiscally responsible party here. When I hear lies and simple answers being given to complex problems I want to pull my hair out. Bottom line, we will raise the ceiling the cuts won't be enough and we will meet back here sometime in 2016 and do it all over again. More than likely we will be AA after this. I want to see Fitch Moody and S@P running our business instead of what we have now.
I know the Democrats position is untenable but it's the Republicans who are the ones holding out for cuts and a hell of a lot more cuts than happened the last time we went through this crap. During the review, S&P recommended 4 tril in reduction and Obama signed on for only 2 tril over 10 years. And the Dems aren't exactly open to cuts this time around either. What this boils down to is that the Democrats haue won the ACA and even the challenge in the SCOTUS but that does not give them the right to not entertain meaningful cuts in other areas. Most voters know what they are told and they are being told that Repubs are taking the country hostage. Holding a gun to their head andextortion. It goes on and on.
All Obama and the Dems want is for the debt ceilng to be raised, cuts be damned. Through all the lies it is the Repubs that are being the fiscally responsible party here. When I hear lies and simple answers being given to complex problems I want to pull my hair out. Bottom line, we will raise the ceiling the cuts won't be enough and we will meet back here sometime in 2016 and do it all over again. More than likely we will be AA after this. I want to see Fitch Moody and S@P running our business instead of what we have now.
xfire
@ChrisFreemanX
Good video, I think Dylan Ratigan's show got cancelled, I'm not sure because I quit watching MSNBC after they fired Keith Olbermann. On a side note, Karen Finney is hot.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
If I was just talking about tax increases, then I would have said tax increases. But since I was not, I did not. In addition to tax receipts, there is a broad variety of income which flows into the government by way of rights, rents, royalties and fees. For instance, when one gets an FHA or VA mortgage, a mortgage insurance premium (MIP) or VA funding fee is paid by the borrower. When certain activities take place on Federal land, there are rents, royalties and/or fees paid. I used to receive publications and data from the Federal Reserve. I paid for that. So when Moody's, S&P or Rey C. mentions "revenue enhancement", the suggestion is not limited to raising taxes... although it may include that.
I don't disagree that the Democrat position has basically been to resist meaningful cuts when it comes to entitlements - just as I wouldn't disagree that it has been the Republican position to resist meaningful cuts to programs which are their sacred cows (defense, foreign aid, etc.). What S&P and Moody's plainly stated was a desire to see a "grand bargain", which would address all manner of runaway spending programs, as well as the revenue enhancements that I previously mentioned. And in order to get one side to agree to cuts to their pet programs, one would have to accept some cuts to their own pet programs. That's just how practical negotiations happen. But yes, entitlements are a major issue. With some sanity and slight reason (from both sides), I see no reason why, at the very least, waste, fraud and abuse couldn't be addressed and attacked in every single government program there is. From one piece I read, that alone could save at least $100 billion a year. And that could just be a starting point. It's not necessary to eat the whole meal with one bite.
If you believe that the Republicans are fiscally responsible, then you might not want to put S&P, Moody's or Fitch in charge of "our business"... that would likely result in a surprise and some hurt feelings for the GOP.
Jack Davenport
I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
Yes just as VA and USDA loans include increased fees for veteran healthcare and agri programs. I just want it on record that right now the GOP are pushing for cuts and the Dems are not. One party doesn't want us here again and one party could care less. Glad to know that you don't mean tax increases exclusively when it comes to revenue. Although the only real revenue that Dems recognize are higher taxes
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
Kind of off topic, but I find credit scoring for individuals to be a fascinating subject (yes, this is why I am so much fun at parties). At least in the U.S., apparently there are something like 49 different FICO scores out there for each person. Here are the component weightings that FICO has released: 35% - Payment history, 30% - Credit utilization (how much of your available credit you are using at any particular time... the higher percentage you use, the lower your score will be), 15% - Length of credit history (the reason why it's not good to close old accounts, even if you don't use them), 10% - Types of credit used, 10% - Recent searches for credit. And then things like liens, judgements or information from public records get thrown in.
Once people (somewhat) understand the system and get the weightings figured out, realizing that it's a game that can be somewhat rigged, they figure out how to get their scores higher. My uncle is retired and doesn't really need a high credit score, but this is part of how he has fun: maxing out his credit score (see there, fun just runs all through my family... along with insanity). This is why some banks no longer rely on FICO scores and instead use more comprehensive systems that have proven more accurate at predicting the likelihood of nonpayment or default. When my father had his farm, a man's reputation was his credit score - there was no such thing as a FICO score. Even when I was in banking (up through the early/mid 90's), FICO scores were not yet in common use. The credit scoring system was different and we relied more on the data that tax returns, account verifications and employment verifications provided. Especially when one has a fair amount of income from non-traditional sources (and it's a variable flow of income), finding a local banker and getting to know him usually provides better service... or (secondarily) working with a private banker at a larger institution. But at any larger bank, you will never be much more than a number. They don't "know" you and they don't want to know you. Plus, if he's successful, the private banker will move up the ladder and be transferred away within 3-5 years.
Jack Davenport
I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
It doesn't hurt that I have a high credit in 7 figures and have satisfied those debts. Aside from a Boeing Dreamliner, there are not many things I couldn't get approved for. I am credit obssessed much like your uncle.
I am intrigued counselor, which party is the one who doesnt want us in the shutdown and which doesn't care??? Fox news has been calling it a "Slim down" all week.
One side put us in this situation, and the other refuses to negotiate with a terrorist act. of course this isnt equal to a school bombing, but taking a government hostage and putting people without a paycheck until your demands are met is not far from terrorist strategies. of course you will call me names and rant n rave, but tell me the act defies that definition?
One side put us in this situation, and the other refuses to negotiate with a terrorist act. of course this isnt equal to a school bombing, but taking a government hostage and putting people without a paycheck until your demands are met is not far from terrorist strategies. of course you will call me names and rant n rave, but tell me the act defies that definition?
wdoall
My hand is my best friend!
sadly people like BC will never read such an article. Too much factual stuff in there! And if they did read it they would say that it's a lie and the liberal media's agenda.
"In January 2001, the office projected that the federal government would run a total budget surplus of $3.5 trillion through 2008 if policy was unchanged and the economy continued according to forecast. In fact, there was a deficit of $5.5 trillion."
GREAT ARTICLE!
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
Roughly ten years ago, there was a (very) limited effort to employ people of my ilk in certain government agencies, or at least to use them to review certain programs, mainly with an eye toward waste, fraud and abuse. Especially at companies or organizations with entrenched cultures, people in my profession are usually hated. You get used to being called a member of the S.S., a Nazi, Herr Fuhrer and all manner of things. And that's because protecting sacred cows is the rule of the day at places like that. And people in my profession are typically pretty agnostic when it comes to things like that. If the village needs to eat, then you kill the sacred cow, if necessary. It all comes down to where the data leads you. A friend of mine was offered a position at a government contractor that dealt with the Defense Dept. But once he learned that he would be expected to turn a blind eye to the things that they didn't want touched, despite what the data might show, he turned down the job.
No offense intended, but people tend to believe whatever makes them most comfortable. At times I'm sure that I do that too. But when it comes to making real, meaningful and realistic spending cuts (sacred cows be damned), I've just not seen evidence that either party is capable of doing what needs to be done in order to get us (truly) on the right fiscal path, while still spending on the projects that do indeed make the nation better and stronger (education reforms, infrastructure and IT spending, etc.).
Similar threads
