*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Saturday, August 6th, 2011 2:09am PDT - promote requested by original submitter Hybrid.

The world got teabagged by anti-tax ideologues.

"On Monday, we will issue separate releases concerning affected ratings in the funds, government-related entities, financial institutions, insurance, public finance, and structured finance sectors." S&P

That ought to be interesting. Though for the time being, funds and insurances won't start selling bonds en masse, simply for a lack of alternative AAA-rated assets.

Ah, well. The theatre continues ...

Let's just sit back and watch the conservatives blame the whole thing on Obama.

Well, its officially gone from 'boned' to 'megaboned,' I guess

The full S&P Report

Looks like democracy failed again.

>> ^braindonut:

The full S&P Report


I spot a $2 Trillion mistake.

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

They all should have listen to the Tea Party.

The Liberals and RHINOs got what they wanted now we are in a bigger mess.

You cant spend your way out of debt. Fools

Once you realize the the Kenyaneqsue Hawaiian and the rest of the lenninist vermin in power want America crippled, this makes perfect sense.

Since Day One of his regime, His Earness has been overclocking spending for a reason: to put America 'in its place'. Buying the loyalty of indolent, ignorant, class envying parasites is just lagniappe.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, ODUMBO!

>> ^quantumushroom:
Once you realize the the Kenyaneqsue Hawaiian and the rest of the lenninist vermin in power want America crippled, this makes perfect sense.
Since Day One of his regime, His Earness has been overclocking spending for a reason: to put America 'in its place'. Buying the loyalty of indolent, ignorant, class envying parasites is just lagniappe.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, ODUMBO!


Oh pullease! Do you really believe that? Seriously? Meh.

I still don't get how you can owe that much money and still be rated AAA. I think an adjustment was overdue...

>> ^Deano:
I still don't get how you can owe that much money and still be rated AAA. I think an adjustment was overdue...


It's not how much is owed, it's the ability to pay debts in a timely manner that counts.

>> ^longde:

>> ^Deano:
I still don't get how you can owe that much money and still be rated AAA. I think an adjustment was overdue...

It's not how much is owed, it's the ability to pay debts in a timely manner that counts.


That's as long as people lend you money so you can pay those bills. Maybe I'm confused but surely the core of the problem is running up vast unsustainable amounts of debt every year to the extent where you have to wonder will it ever get paid off? I suppose no one including debtors care, as long as they get their interest payments.

Let me get this straight... Events of the past week:

Republicans get their way with the debt ceiling negotiations
Immediately following this S&P downgrades the US's credit rating

You claim it's the "liberals'" fault?

Action-reaction, man. The economists at S&P see the result of the debt ceiling talks as a bad plan and thus they drop the credit rating. If the democrats' policies had been followed this wouldn't have happened.>> ^bobknight33:

They all should have listen to the Tea Party.
The Liberals and RHINOs got what they wanted now we are in a bigger mess.
You cant spend your way out of debt. Fools

>> ^mfsteele:

Let's just sit back and watch the conservatives blame the whole thing on Obama.

But he does own significant responsibility this time. Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire was entirely within his power to do (by vetoing the extension). I doubt Congress would have been able to pass it with two supermajorities but, even if they had, at least he would have done what he should have.

That's not to say the Republicans have no stake in the mess they're creating, but Obama is just as guilty for doing nothing to stop them.

>> ^Reefie:

>> ^quantumushroom:
BLAH BLAH BLAH! Liberals! Taxocrats! RINOs! Black Muslim President! BLAH BLAH BLAH!
Oh pullease! Do you really believe that? Seriously? Meh.

You must be new here.

>> ^gorillaman:

Looks like democracy failed again.


Standard & Poor's is a democracy?

Now I could be wrong, but as I understand it, FOUR trillion in cuts was required to keep the ratings degradation at bay--not to fix anything, just to keep it from happening right away.

Well, the Right failed.

TWO trillion in cuts later, the socialists, who are still the majority party, allowed this farce to proceed. So how is the Right "victorious" by failing to reach even a bare minimum in cuts? If anything, the Righties are idiots for allowing themselves to be lumped in with the Hawaiian Dunce & Friends, who spent 3 trillion in 3 years to no effect.

No, I really don't want to believe Odumbo is this sinister or ignorant, but what choice do I have? If he's dumb he should just say so and let smarter people decide what to do.

The markets will sh1t the bed on his watch tomorrow. At least he will have sealed his fate for 2012. Too bad the rest of us get to sink with him.












>> ^lampishthing:

Let me get this straight... Events of the past week:
Republicans get their way with the debt ceiling negotiations
Immediately following this S&P downgrades the US's credit rating
You claim it's the "liberals'" fault?
Action-reaction, man. The economists at S&P see the result of the debt ceiling talks as a bad plan and thus they drop the credit rating. If the democrats' policies had been followed this wouldn't have happened.>> ^bobknight33:
They all should have listen to the Tea Party.
The Liberals and RHINOs got what they wanted now we are in a bigger mess.
You cant spend your way out of debt. Fools

If you read the report, the debt situation was part of it. It should be addressed. But the major indisputable catalyst for the downgrade was the wholely irresponsible use of default as a political weapon. And having a powerful faction of the House actually want a default to happen. That is the sign of a banana republic.

I said above that ability to pay is a major factor in a credit rating. We had several teabag and republican house members and presidential candidates loudly yell that we shouldn't even be willing to pay our debt, even if we were able. Almost every proposal was rejected by the house faction, many of whom apparently pledged not to raise taxes or even raise the debt ceiling. WTF? Finally we have people who didn't want to raise the ceiling because the default would be a "loss" for Obama. I think every one of these reasons is irrational.

If I didn't think they were retarded, I would call their actions treasonous. They want to see the president fail so badly, they are willing to wreck my money (401k, buying power, etc) to do it. Well, mission accomplished, guys.

Obama is the president, but budgets and the (stupid but encoded) debt ceiling vote must come out of the House.

Bottom line: If the republicans really want to reduce the debt, they should pass an appropriate budget next time. Don't default (or even threaten to default) on our existing obligations!

>> ^quantumushroom:
Now I could be wrong, but as I understand it, FOUR trillion in cuts was required to keep the ratings degradation at bay--not to fix anything, just to keep it from happening right away.
Well, the Right failed.
TWO trillion in cuts later, the socialists, who are still the majority party, allowed this farce to proceed. So how is the Right "victorious" by failing to reach even a bare minimum in cuts? If anything, the Righties are idiots for allowing themselves to be lumped in with the Hawaiian Dunce & Friends, who spent 3 trillion in 3 years to no effect.
No, I really don't want to believe Odumbo is this sinister or ignorant, but what choice do I have? If he's dumb he should just say so and let smarter people decide what to do.
The markets will sh1t the bed on his watch tomorrow. At least he will have sealed his fate for 2012. Too bad the rest of us get to sink with him.
>> ^lampishthing:
Let me get this straight... Events of the past week:
Republicans get their way with the debt ceiling negotiations
Immediately following this S&P downgrades the US's credit rating
You claim it's the "liberals'" fault?
Action-reaction, man. The economists at S&P see the result of the debt ceiling talks as a bad plan and thus they drop the credit rating. If the democrats' policies had been followed this wouldn't have happened.>> ^bobknight33:
They all should have listen to the Tea Party.
The Liberals and RHINOs got what they wanted now we are in a bigger mess.
You cant spend your way out of debt. Fools

Nice attempt at a clever ploy to make the only way to solve the deficit is through cuts. First off, I need to make sure everyone understands the difference between the deficit and the debt. Deficits are the yearly amount that is spent above what is taken in in taxes. The debt is the amount the US owes total to creditors, and this obviously increases when the government runs deficits.

With that said, first, I call BS on there needing to be a reduction on deficits by $4 trillion. Where are you getting this from?

Secondly, there are two ways to cut deficits - cut spending, and increase tax revenues. There isn't a single reason why we couldn't have cut deficits by increasing tax revenues in addition to making spending cuts.

The bottom line is the Obama administration presented a plan of combined spending and tax revenue increases that would have cut the deficit more than the compromise that was forged. It did not pass because Republicans, along with the Tea Partiers, would not consider any plan that had any tax increases whatsoever in it, regardless if it would in fact reduce the deficit more than a compromise would, or even if it would cause a default.

Translation: keeping taxes low is more important to the GOP at large than default or lowering deficits or the national debt. Taking the Tea Party out of it, I wanted to see reasonable Republicans show that they understood that avoiding default wasn't as important as avoiding a tax raise, and they failed.

There's no other way to read these events.

As a moderate, I'm disgusted with the GOP at large at this point. They've allowed the extremists to railroad them into advocating bad policies that make no sense. I'm all for reasonable compromise, but this compromise bill achieved nothing other than avoid default temporarily. It failed to address any fundamental problems in the federal budget whatsoever.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Now I could be wrong, but as I understand it, FOUR trillion in cuts was required to keep the ratings degradation at bay--not to fix anything, just to keep it from happening right away.
Well, the Right failed.
TWO trillion in cuts later, the socialists, who are still the majority party, allowed this farce to proceed. So how is the Right "victorious" by failing to reach even a bare minimum in cuts? If anything, the Righties are idiots for allowing themselves to be lumped in with the Hawaiian Dunce & Friends, who spent 3 trillion in 3 years to no effect.
No, I really don't want to believe Odumbo is this sinister or ignorant, but what choice do I have? If he's dumb he should just say so and let smarter people decide what to do.
The markets will sh1t the bed on his watch tomorrow. At least he will have sealed his fate for 2012. Too bad the rest of us get to sink with him.

I'm still a bit confused as to exactly why S&P has the slightest credibility on anything. These are the guys that were rating those toxic mortgages as AAA investments, after all. And gave Enron the same rating right up to a few days before the collapse.

I think they've sufficiently proven just how incompetent they are.

Because there's nothing that has replaced them that's credible.

And the answer can't be nothing credible. That makes the entire market unstable.

>> ^Stormsinger:

I'm still a bit confused as to exactly why S&P has the slightest credibility on anything. These are the guys that were rating those toxic mortgages as AAA investments, after all. And gave Enron the same rating right up to a few days before the collapse.
I think they've sufficiently proven just how incompetent they are.

Yeah, and they rated Leahman Brothers as an A right up until the moment they collapsed. It's not like what they say matters.

>> ^Stormsinger:

I'm still a bit confused as to exactly why S&P has the slightest credibility on anything. These are the guys that were rating those toxic mortgages as AAA investments, after all. And gave Enron the same rating right up to a few days before the collapse.
I think they've sufficiently proven just how incompetent they are.

Thanks to longde and heropsycho for reasonable answers.

As witnessed by today's predicted 8-8-11 stock plunge, the market doesn't wait for 'understanding' of the situation.

The "4 trillion" figure is suggested from a "presidential debt commission"...it's what I'd heard was the limit where the S&P would consider postponing a downgrade, also it was one of the attempted goal-plans of the Righties.

Out-of-control spending is wrecking this country, and calling Tea Partiers "crazy" and espousing 'tax increases' will not stop this in any way, because the left always spends more than it takes in, more so than the right.

Obama & Friends are already spending printed trillions, to no effect.

I've never considered Obama to be competent or even cognizant how the economy works, so it's difficult for me to believe it's "The Right's" fault for "making him look bad". The guy did it all on his own.

>> ^quantumushroom:

BR>
Out-of-control spending is wrecking this country, and calling Tea Partiers "crazy" and espousing 'tax increases' will not stop this in any way, because the left always spends more than it takes in, more so than the right.
Obama & Friends are already spending printed trillions, to no effect.


The facts belie this point. Republicans love to spend. In fact, half the debt we have created since Reagan was done in eight years; care to guess which eight years? If you guessed Bush---ding, ding, ding! How he did it: Iraq War, Stupid unfunded Medicare extension, Insanely Stupid tax cuts---these 3 items make up nearly half the increase in the debt since Reagan. These were all republican initiatives.

Bush, Reagan, and Bush Sr. ran up gobs of debt, with the full support of the repubs. Clinton actually reduced the debt. Republicans fought him tooth and nail, but he handed bush jr a surplus. Obama spent money to head off a depression.

longde, as much as I'd love to stick it to QM over this, you're oversimplifying it.

Reagan ran up the deficit with a Democratic controlled Congress. Clinton balanced the budget with a Republican controlled Congress. Bush Sr. is getting a bit of a bad rap in your analysis. He was in wartime, so you're gonna run up the debt during war, and we absolutely should have gone into Iraq the first time.

Bush Jr. on the other hand did run up the debt with a Republican controlled Congress. Granted, with 9/11, etc. it was going to be difficult to not run a deficit, but Bush Sr. + the GOP Congress unnecessarily exacerbated the problem with the Bush Tax Cuts and Senior Prescription Benefit. And by 2004 or 2005, we should have been running a surplus.

What I find absolutely appalling about QM's argument is there's no context in why the debt was run up by Obama. It's really simple - the economy was in free fall. That's exactly what the gov't must do in that situation. Everybody knew it. Bush Jr. knew it, too, which is why the stimulus and bailouts started under him, and continued by Obama. It's painfully obvious to anyone who is willing to have an honest conversation about this topic.

>> ^longde:
>> ^quantumushroom:
BR>
Out-of-control spending is wrecking this country, and calling Tea Partiers "crazy" and espousing 'tax increases' will not stop this in any way, because the left always spends more than it takes in, more so than the right.
Obama & Friends are already spending printed trillions, to no effect.

The facts belie this point. Republicans love to spend. In fact, half the debt we have created since Reagan was done in eight years; care to guess which eight years? If you guessed Bush---ding, ding, ding! How he did it: Iraq War, Stupid unfunded Medicare extension, Insanely Stupid tax cuts---these 3 items make up nearly half the increase in the debt since Reagan. These were all republican initiatives.
Bush, Reagan, and Bush Sr. ran up gobs of debt, with the full support of the repubs. Clinton actually reduced the debt. Republicans fought him tooth and nail, but he handed bush jr a surplus. Obama spent money to head off a depression.

The stock market is highly irrational. Why do you think the gov't has to prop the market with stimulus, etc.?

Are you seriously suggesting that when the market in 2008 lost half of its value in the span of a few months, only to gain most of it back over the next year, that's a rational market? Either the market was highly overvalued or undervalued at some point in time.

The Tea Partiers are crazy if they think that it's worth risking default instead of raising taxes. You're making it sound like Obama proposed tax increases, and the Tea Party proposed spending cuts. That's not true. Obama proposed both, and the Tea Party absolutely refused to even consider a meager tax raise on millionaires. That's ridiculous. The bottom line is it's impossible to argue that cutting spending and raising taxes would result in less deficit reduction than spending cuts alone would. A $4 trillion dollar deficit reduction plan was proposed by Obama, and the GOP shunted it in favor of a $2 trillion dollar one simply because the $2 trillion one didn't have any tax increases for the richest Americans.

Don't give me any of that BS about the Tea Party and the GOP wanting to lower the deficit, and that's what this whole thing is about. That's a bold faced lie.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Thanks to longde and heropsycho for reasonable answers.
As witnessed by today's predicted 8-8-11 stock plunge, the market doesn't wait for 'understanding' of the situation.
The "4 trillion" figure is suggested from a "presidential debt commission"...it's what I'd heard was the limit where the S&P would consider postponing a downgrade, also it was one of the attempted goal-plans of the Righties.
Out-of-control spending is wrecking this country, and calling Tea Partiers "crazy" and espousing 'tax increases' will not stop this in any way, because the left always spends more than it takes in, more so than the right.
Obama & Friends are already spending printed trillions, to no effect.
I've never considered Obama to be competent or even cognizant how the economy works, so it's difficult for me to believe it's "The Right's" fault for "making him look bad". The guy did it all on his own.

Bush 43 ran up the debt by 5 trillion in 8 years. He was criticized for it. Obama has run up 3 trillion in 3 years, with nothing to show for it. Bush 43 started ths scamulus nonsense and Obama expanded it.

As for Slick Willie, read about The Myth of the Clinton Surplus here.



>> ^longde:

>> ^quantumushroom:
BR>
Out-of-control spending is wrecking this country, and calling Tea Partiers "crazy" and espousing 'tax increases' will not stop this in any way, because the left always spends more than it takes in, more so than the right.
Obama & Friends are already spending printed trillions, to no effect.

The facts belie this point. Republicans love to spend. In fact, half the debt we have created since Reagan was done in eight years; care to guess which eight years? If you guessed Bush---ding, ding, ding! How he did it: Iraq War, Stupid unfunded Medicare extension, Insanely Stupid tax cuts---these 3 items make up nearly half the increase in the debt since Reagan. These were all republican initiatives.
Bush, Reagan, and Bush Sr. ran up gobs of debt, with the full support of the repubs. Clinton actually reduced the debt. Republicans fought him tooth and nail, but he handed bush jr a surplus. Obama spent money to head off a depression.

What I find absolutely appalling about QM's argument is there's no context in why the debt was run up by Obama. It's really simple - the economy was in free fall. That's exactly what the gov't must do in that situation. Everybody knew it. Bush Jr. knew it, too, which is why the stimulus and bailouts started under him, and continued by Obama. It's painfully obvious to anyone who is willing to have an honest conversation about this topic.

Bush Jr. was not a true conservative. Nobody spends their way out of a depression, it's Keynesian bullplop. Why we can't have an honest convo about this topic: leftsift refuses to acknowledge who pays the most in taxes in America, and that the only reason Obama needed to overclock spending was because he could.

>> ^DerHasisttot:

The world got teabagged by anti-tax ideologues.


What do you call inflation?

More like the world got defrauded by pro-tax ideologues.

If Obama or the democrats wanted to raise taxes, why didn't they do it when they had super-majorities in the house and senate. Congress ingores it's responsibility to pass a budget the last few years and instead decides to "stimulate" the economy with huge deficit spending. 1.5 Trillion x 2 years. They overspend by 3 Trillion!!! Do you know how much a trillion dollars is? Meanwhile the Fed is handing out free loans to mega-banks totaling 15 trillion so they can speculate on any and everything with fake bids using fake money. All the while colluding with S&P and other rating agencies until the housing bubble pops, but no problem: They made huge bets on that too. But now they need bailouts, otherwise the stock market will crash: Financial terrorism!

You can't fix this with taxes and cuts. A system based on debt can only be fixed by either 1. defaulting or 2. repudiating the debt.

To answer your first question a) republican filibuster, b) democrats are a coalition, not a lock-step party, so there are "blue dogs" who would not every support tax increases.

To your second point, what would you have done 3 years ago? I'm curious. Let the banks, car companies fail, and let our country sink into depression? Obama's problem is that he didn't spend enough, not that he spent too much.

I think your last paragraph shows a very limited perspective indeed. Hope you're not anyone's CPA.>> ^marbles:
If Obama or the democrats wanted to raise taxes, why didn't they do it when they had super-majorities in the house and senate. Congress ingores it's responsibility to pass a budget the last few years and instead decides to "stimulate" the economy with huge deficit spending. 1.5 Trillion x 2 years. They overspend by 3 Trillion!!! Do you know how much a trillion dollars is? Meanwhile the Fed is handing out free loans to mega-banks totaling 15 trillion so they can speculate on any and everything with fake bids using fake money. All the while colluding with S&P and other rating agencies until the housing bubble pops, but no problem: They made huge bets on that too. But now they need bailouts, otherwise the stock market will crash: Financial terrorism!
You can't fix this with taxes and cuts. A system based on debt can only be fixed by either 1. defaulting or 2. repudiating the debt.

>> ^longde:

To answer your first question a) republican filibuster, b) democrats are a coalition, not a lock-step party, so there are "blue dogs" who would not every support tax increases.
To your second point, what would you have done 3 years ago? I'm curious. Let the banks, car companies fail, and let our country sink into depression? Obama's problem is that he didn't spend enough, not that he spent too much.
I think your last paragraph shows a very limited perspective indeed. Hope you're not anyone's CPA.>> ^marbles:
If Obama or the democrats wanted to raise taxes, why didn't they do it when they had super-majorities in the house and senate. Congress ingores it's responsibility to pass a budget the last few years and instead decides to "stimulate" the economy with huge deficit spending. 1.5 Trillion x 2 years. They overspend by 3 Trillion!!! Do you know how much a trillion dollars is? Meanwhile the Fed is handing out free loans to mega-banks totaling 15 trillion so they can speculate on any and everything with fake bids using fake money. All the while colluding with S&P and other rating agencies until the housing bubble pops, but no problem: They made huge bets on that too. But now they need bailouts, otherwise the stock market will crash: Financial terrorism!
You can't fix this with taxes and cuts. A system based on debt can only be fixed by either 1. defaulting or 2. repudiating the debt.



No, it was never an issue. Don't buy that political bullshit. Government is a lock-step party. Back then they were still claiming they wouldn't need to raise taxes, meanwhile deficit spending by 1.5 trillion.

Second point, absolutely let the banks fail. We have bankruptcy laws for a reason. By the way, plenty did fail, just not the ones involved in the behind the scenes fraud and collusion--those were bailed out.

Last paragraph: Suppose I am the sole creator of money and I create $5 dollars. This is the only money I have ever created. I invented this money from nothing and loan/give it to you under the agreement that you would repay me $10 dollars the following week. Where do you get the other $5 dollars to repay me from?

We have to disagree on the politics; this last fiasco has shown me politics and ideology trump our economy for some of these rascals.

There is a huge difference between letting the 1st Bank of Palookaville fail, and letting the likes of CitiBank and BOA fail. You much be rich enough to think you can ride out the resulting depression, or an ascetic.

I think I get it. So, screw everything, let's just declare currency armageddon, and start from scratch? >> ^marbles:
>> ^longde:
To answer your first question a) republican filibuster, b) democrats are a coalition, not a lock-step party, so there are "blue dogs" who would not every support tax increases.
To your second point, what would you have done 3 years ago? I'm curious. Let the banks, car companies fail, and let our country sink into depression? Obama's problem is that he didn't spend enough, not that he spent too much.
I think your last paragraph shows a very limited perspective indeed. Hope you're not anyone's CPA.>> ^marbles:
If Obama or the democrats wanted to raise taxes, why didn't they do it when they had super-majorities in the house and senate. Congress ingores it's responsibility to pass a budget the last few years and instead decides to "stimulate" the economy with huge deficit spending. 1.5 Trillion x 2 years. They overspend by 3 Trillion!!! Do you know how much a trillion dollars is? Meanwhile the Fed is handing out free loans to mega-banks totaling 15 trillion so they can speculate on any and everything with fake bids using fake money. All the while colluding with S&P and other rating agencies until the housing bubble pops, but no problem: They made huge bets on that too. But now they need bailouts, otherwise the stock market will crash: Financial terrorism!
You can't fix this with taxes and cuts. A system based on debt can only be fixed by either 1. defaulting or 2. repudiating the debt.


No, it was never an issue. Don't buy that political bullshit. Government is a lock-step party. Back then they were still claiming they wouldn't need to raise taxes, meanwhile deficit spending by 1.5 trillion.
Second point, absolutely lets the banks fail. We have bankruptcy laws for a reason. By the way, plenty did fail, just not the ones involved in the behind the scenes fraud and collusion--most of those were saved.
Third paragraph: Suppose I am the sole creator of money and I create $5 dollars. This is the only money I have ever created. I invented this money from nothing and loan/give it to you under the agreement that you would repay me $10 dollars the following week. Where do you get the other $5 dollars to repay me from?

@longde
The resulting depression? Oh, so we missed that bullet?

Currency armageddon? No, just get rid of the central planning and allow alternative currencies.

>> ^heropsycho:

Because there's nothing that has replaced them that's credible.
And the answer can't be nothing credible. That makes the entire market unstable.
>> ^Stormsinger:
I'm still a bit confused as to exactly why S&P has the slightest credibility on anything. These are the guys that were rating those toxic mortgages as AAA investments, after all. And gave Enron the same rating right up to a few days before the collapse.
I think they've sufficiently proven just how incompetent they are.



Really? The argument is that there's nothing proven out there, so let's continue trusting the people who -have- proven to be untrustworthy?

Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather bet on pink unicorns or invisible teapots.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^DerHasisttot:
The world got teabagged by anti-tax ideologues.

What do you call inflation?
More like the world got defrauded by pro-tax ideologues.


LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Explain how the US got out of the Depression then. You most certainly can spend your way out of a depression. All those tanks, planes, bombs, guns, war material, all of it was paid for with money the US gov't didn't have on a record scale never before seen to that point.

You absolutely can't refute that. The US gov't did not have the money to pay for WWII, and they borrowed a butt ton to win the war, and it fueled the US ascension to becoming an economic superpower. That's how glued you are to your ideology that you can't see the obvious example in history where you're absolutely 100% dead wrong. It's like saying Jews have never been systemically persecuted with the obvious example of the Holocaust in history.

>> ^quantumushroom:

What I find absolutely appalling about QM's argument is there's no context in why the debt was run up by Obama. It's really simple - the economy was in free fall. That's exactly what the gov't must do in that situation. Everybody knew it. Bush Jr. knew it, too, which is why the stimulus and bailouts started under him, and continued by Obama. It's painfully obvious to anyone who is willing to have an honest conversation about this topic.
Bush Jr. was not a true conservative. Nobody spends their way out of a depression, it's Keynesian bullplop. Why we can't have an honest convo about this topic: leftsift refuses to acknowledge who pays the most in taxes in America, and that the only reason Obama needed to overclock spending was because he could.

I'm not defending S&P. I'm saying the market needs the service that S&P provides, no matter how crappy S&P is performing when providing that service.

>> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^heropsycho:
Because there's nothing that has replaced them that's credible.
And the answer can't be nothing credible. That makes the entire market unstable.
>> ^Stormsinger:
I'm still a bit confused as to exactly why S&P has the slightest credibility on anything. These are the guys that were rating those toxic mortgages as AAA investments, after all. And gave Enron the same rating right up to a few days before the collapse.
I think they've sufficiently proven just how incompetent they are.


Really? The argument is that there's nothing proven out there, so let's continue trusting the people who -have- proven to be untrustworthy?
Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather bet on pink unicorns or invisible teapots.

>> ^heropsycho:
Explain how the US got out of the Depression then. You most certainly can spend your way out of a depression. All those tanks, planes, bombs, guns, war material, all of it was paid for with money the US gov't didn't have on a record scale never before seen to that point.
You absolutely can't refute that. The US gov't did not have the money to pay for WWII, and they borrowed a butt ton to win the war, and it fueled the US ascension to becoming an economic superpower. That's how glued you are to your ideology that you can't see the obvious example in history where you're absolutely 100% dead wrong. It's like saying Jews have never been systemically persecuted with the obvious example of the Holocaust in history.
>> ^quantumushroom:
What I find absolutely appalling about QM's argument is there's no context in why the debt was run up by Obama. It's really simple - the economy was in free fall. That's exactly what the gov't must do in that situation. Everybody knew it. Bush Jr. knew it, too, which is why the stimulus and bailouts started under him, and continued by Obama. It's painfully obvious to anyone who is willing to have an honest conversation about this topic.
Bush Jr. was not a true conservative. Nobody spends their way out of a depression, it's Keynesian bullplop. Why we can't have an honest convo about this topic: leftsift refuses to acknowledge who pays the most in taxes in America, and that the only reason Obama needed to overclock spending was because he could.


It's this line of thinking that has brought us to where we're at now. Using your line of reasoning one should pay their mortgage bill with a credit card and then take out a home equity loan to pay the credit card bill. It's economic suicide.

The Broken Window Fallacy

Answer the following questions:

Did WWII end the Great Depression?
Did the US have the cash to pay for all the expenses related to the war?
Did the US borrow at the time a record amount of money?
Did the US as a result become an economic super power, with its people more well off than they had ever been in its history?
Was borrowing a butt ton of money then "economic suicide"?

Your oversimplification of the US economy down to personal finances doesn't work.

>> ^heropsycho:

Did WWII end the Great Depression?

No. Absolutely not.

War is death and destruction. Not prosperity.

Maybe you should figure out what actually caused the Great Depression before you go around parroting some talking head about what ended the Great Depression.

LOL! So explain how the US became an economic Super Power the world had never seen to that point IMMEDIATELY after WWII? This was after the Great Depression. WWII generated US deficits of 24% of GDP in 1945, which has NEVER been surpassed since, not even today, with the current deficits of 13% of GDP. It is absolutely the case that without those deficits, the US wouldn't have been able to pay for the war effort, and it is absolutely the case WWII ended the Great Depression. Those "talking heads" you refer to are called "historians". They use things called "facts" to help form their conclusions.

Just how did it end the Depression? By reducing unemployment to basically 0%, raising demand for labor which increased wages, all the while retooling existing closed factories and building new ones to crank out all of what we needed to win the war. As a result, consumers had significantly increased income, which was pumped into the economy when spent. When the war ended, the government did a tremendous job transitioning back into a peacetime economy compared to total war mobilization, while building a massive military industrial complex to compete in the Cold War. Also, the average male American citizen was granted wide access to the first time to a college education through the GI Bill, resulting in a never seen before highly educated general population. It was the dawn of the US as one of the two global economic and military superpowers.

So what did we do after WWII? We ran surpluses in the 1950s by raising marginal tax rates on the rich to over 90%, and that was during those super economically disastrous times known as the 1950s, when the US GNP rose by 66% in that decade. Both running a deficit to end the recession and raising taxes on the rich are both things you vehemently oppose, yet it was without a doubt proven to be effective in our history. It's historical fact you can try to ignore, but it's staring you point blank in the face.

Try to dodge this all you want. I'd rather accept reality and try to figure out honestly how to fix our current economy instead of clinging to a rigid ideology which has been clearly proven to be wrong in our national history.

@heropsycho

What caused the Great Depression?

Not taking the bait, dude.

The question is how to get out of a deep recession once you're already in one. We agree with each other a national debt matters.