REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

U.S. AAA rating downgraded.

POSTED BY: OLDENGLANDDRY
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 16:20
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4642
PAGE 1 of 3

Friday, August 5, 2011 9:17 PM

OLDENGLANDDRY


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14428930

With interesting repercussions from China.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 1:02 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Quote:

The agency said the deficit reduction plan passed by the US Congress on Tuesday did not go far enough.



Gee, who was it that said we should cut more, spend less ?


Why, it was those nasty, hostage taking, gun holding terrorists, huh?

And yet the very folks who tried to do what is right for the country, are the ones being vilified by the Left.


Welcome to Obamaland.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 1:28 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

S&P noted in its report that the failure to act on raising revenue also was a consideration in its decision.
“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,” the company said.

S&P also changed its assumption that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush would expire by the end of 2012, “because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues.”




Huh. Seems a balanced approach would have been the better idea. Just exactly what the tea-baggers refused to compromise on.

Congrats, tea-baggers - you ruined America!

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 1:44 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


From the report:

"The political brinkmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed."

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 3:04 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



If you're going to spend more, you need more. That's not the issue. Obama and the Dems are recklessly spending more than is needed. They're doing so to manufacture the false premise that more $ is 'needed' to fund the govt, or else all wiil collapse.

It's like a wife who goes out and spends more and more on her credit card, and then tells the husband to go out and " make more money ".

No dear, we make enough money as it is. YOU need to stop squandering what we've made, and put to better use the resources we have already.


Obama also inherited a AAA rating. Look at what he's done w/ that, in less than 3 years.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 3:09 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


If it weren't for the fact that so many other entities take the S&P rating seriously, I would toss this is the shit-can where it belongs. We had a S&P AAA-rate investment go bankrupt, literally. (Fortunately, it hung on under court bankruptcy admin long enough to meet its obligations) Also, the S&P (among others) rated all of those CDOs and MBSs AAA.

Quote:

Credit rating agencies played a very important role at various stages in the subprime crisis. They have been highly criticized for understating the risk involved with new, complex securities that fueled the United States housing bubble, such as mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDO).

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported in January 2011 that: "The three credit rating agencies were key enablers of the financial meltdown. The mortgage-related securities at the heart of the crisis could not have been marketed and sold without their seal of approval. Investors relied on them, often blindly. In some cases, they were obligated to use them, or regulatory capital standards were hinged on them. This crisis could not have happened without the rating agencies. Their ratings helped the market soar and their downgrades through 2007 and 2008 wreaked havoc across markets and firms."



Do I think that credit-rating agencies have a friggin' CLUE as to what is safe and what isn't??? NOT ON YOUR LIFE!

This has a very WMD-ish feel about it... a kind of artificial ramped-up crisis which didn't exist even two months ago, whipped up to get somebody to do something. When that something (whatever it was) didn't happen the S&P had to make good it's threat. I suspect that if further information comes out, we'll find there was some rather unrelated reason why this was done.

NONETHELESS, it does behoove us to figure out how we got into so much debt and what to do about it in a way that grows the economy. And it would be useful if people like rappy could set ideology aside long enough to consider ALL of the data, not just the little sliver that corresponds with his toilet-paper (TP) view... 'cause I know that no matter where the discussion goes, rappy's gonna say that we need to cut taxes on the rich, and that it's all Obama's fault. Fortunately, we don't need him to have an intelligent discussion.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 3:10 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

If you're going to spend more, you need more. That's not the issue. Obama and the Dems are recklessly spending more than is needed. They're doing so to manufacture the false premise that more $ is 'needed' to fund the govt, or else all wiil collapse.

It's like a wife who goes out and spends more and more on her credit card, and then tells the husband to go out and " make more money ".

No dear, we make enough money as it is. YOU need to stop squandering what we've made, and put to better use the resources we have already.



Actually, it's like the wife (Bush and the GOP) went out and spent over 6.5 trillion dollars while not even making the minimum payments on the credit cards, and then told the man (Obama) that he couldn't spend a penny, and she refused to lift a finger or get even TRY to work to pay down what she'd squandered.

Sorry, dear, but when you spend all my money, you have to kick in a bit and figure out a way to contribute.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 3:30 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Actually, it's nothing remotely like what you described, Kwickie.

Obama's spending far more than Bush has, so there goes you nonsense, right out the window.

And nice edit job, removing the factual part that Obama inherited the AAA rating from W as well. No wonder you'd like to forget that one.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 3:44 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Ah, there goes rappy with erroneous facts again, his infamous "rapfacts". I wonder if he will ever put up actual numbers of who added what to the deficit, or if he will just keep on blathering, like he always does?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 3:57 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Actually, it's nothing remotely like what you described, Kwickie.

Obama's spending far more than Bush has, so there goes you nonsense, right out the window.



That's not even remotely true. You're making the mistake of putting 100% of PROJECTED spending on the back of Obama, pretending that Bush never had a penny of projected spending that would impact the future economy.

The only number that really counts is WHAT HAS BEEN SPENT. Bush spent more than $6.5 trillion dollars. Obama hasn't.

Quote:


And nice edit job, removing the factual part that Obama inherited the AAA rating from W as well. No wonder you'd like to forget that one.



It didn't really have anything to do with my point, so I left it out. It's not like I'm trying to pretend that the U.S. *didn't* have a AAA credit rating before the tea-baggers took the economy hostage.

Oh, and before you get sand in your pussy about me saying your dear and fluffy tea-bagging asshole friends took the economy hostage, go piss and moan to Mitch McConnell. He confirmed it, and hinted that he'll probably try to do it again.

Quote:

MCCONNELL ADMITS TO TAKING DEBT CEILING ‘HOSTAGE’: IT’S ‘WORTH RANSOMING’ | In a stunning bit of candor, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) admitted in the Washington Post today that his party had taken the debt ceiling “hostage,” and that some of his colleagues were willing to “shoot” it:
“I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting,” he said. “Most of us didn’t think that. What we did learn is this — it’s a hostage that’s worth ransoming. And it focuses the Congress on something that must be done.”
The Post added that McConnell “said he could imagine doing this again.” Indeed, he has promised he will do so.



He certainly SOUNDS like a terrorist...

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 3:59 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Ah, there goes rappy with erroneous facts again, his infamous "rapfacts". I wonder if he will ever put up actual numbers of who added what to the deficit, or if he will just keep on blathering, like he always does?



I'm betting on the second one.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 4:04 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Ah, there goes rappy with erroneous facts again, his infamous "rapfacts". I wonder if he will ever put up actual numbers of who added what to the deficit, or if he will just keep on blathering, like he always does?



If the TEA party GOP can dismantle much of what Obama has installed, and plans on being spent, then I'll retract my statement. Money spent " as of now ", sure, but that's not what we're faced with. There's a train coming down the track, and we need to stop it.

Hopefully we can vote in more Republicans, and keep Bush as the biggest spender, and not Obama.




" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 4:48 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Well, I guess crazyrappy had to retract his "it's all Obama's fault" mantra once he tried to come up with supporting numbers and found data which universally contradicted him.

Maybe we can go on intelligently from here.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 5:18 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Amazing how fast Raptor can take over a discussion and have you focus on responding to him just by spouting idiocy. He really has you guys under his thumb, or didn't you notice?

The pertinent facts are
Quote:

reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed,” the company said.

S&P also changed its assumption that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush would expire by the end of 2012, “because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues.”

(Notice that's a direct quote.) In other words, the changes to entitlements that Obama put on the table a while ago AND the idea of revenue (even loopholes and subsidies) disappeared, and what was left is trash. They recognize that everything from here on will go through the same hostage-taking as this has, as the Bush tax cuts did, and almost everything else has. I agree.

Of course, it doesn't hurt that McConnell said straight out what the right has been screaming the left has been "accusing" them of. And obviously the rating agencies are correct in their assumption it will keep on happening: 'The Post added that McConnell “said he could imagine doing this again.” (Another direct quote.) Indeed, he has promised he will do so. That's the definition of terrorism; willingness to take hostages and "a hostage you might take a chance at shooting". (Yet another direct quote.) "Take hostage" "shoot hostage", yup Mike, sounds like a domestic terrorist to me!

Either way, they are absolutely right in that:
Quote:

America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed.
Bet that's true for an awful lot of us. Before this happened, would anyone have imagined the right would take it to the extreme they did? Oh, wait, we might have IMAGINED it, but did we really think they'd go that far? I don't mean last week, but did anyone actually think that several months ago? It's a new world. Not a good one.

Yeah, Sig, it's definitely "a kind of artificial ramped-up crisis which didn't exist even two months ago", whether created by the right or someone else. Whether the rating agencies are yelling "fire" in our theater or not, they have the power, and will continue to do so until someone takes that power away from them...anyone see THAT happening any time soon, either?

It's really very simple. Even IF this "super-committee" is able to agree on anything, all that the Republicans/Tea Partiers in House OR Senate have to do is say "no thanx" and they get massive cuts...just what they wanted all along, and if anyone thinks there's a snowball's chance in hell of ANY revenue being in there, they need their head examined.

Personally, I think the hostage HAS been shot, myself. It's too late to go back and fix it unless someone finds a way out of the stupid non-compromise compromise. They shot the hostage. They just got us in the gut, so it'll take longer to die. Thank you, GOP and Tea Party.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 5:19 AM

BYTEMITE


This was really kind of a catch-22. If we defaulted, the credit rating would get screwed up and the economy would take a hit. If we raised the debt ceiling, same thing would happen, like when you raise the credit allowance on a credit card. Defaulting would probably have been a really bad idea, not something we COULD do, but the other option wasn't all that great either.

Quote:


This has a very WMD-ish feel about it... a kind of artificial ramped-up crisis which didn't exist even two months ago, whipped up to get somebody to do something. When that something (whatever it was) didn't happen the S&P had to make good it's threat. I suspect that if further information comes out, we'll find there was some rather unrelated reason why this was done.



Don't disagree. Classic Problem-Crisis-Solution model. But I would hesitate before we conclude that this time we didn't take the solution they wanted us to. The way this often works, is that TPTB have contingency plans such that no matter what choice the public makes, they benefit and get what they want anyway.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 5:29 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I disagree, Byte. I think if they'd come to any kind of SEMI-reasonable compromise, including cuts to entitlements (that WAS on the table, remember) and some kind of revenue, with definite plans to work on more, things would be different. Gawd knows no tax hikes had a chance, but even just closing loopholes and getting rid of subsidies. No revenue AT ALL? That's insane.

The way they wanted to do the loopholes/subsidies thing was so blatant it was funny, however. Deal with both of those, but attached FIRMLY to doing so was changing the tax code so that there was NO IMPACT on those who would lose subsidies and loopholes! In other words, zero net revenue.

IF we'd seen anything like reasonable things happen, I think things would be different. But they never will while the House's makeup is what it is, which probably means entitlements will take SEVERE cuts when no solution comes from the "super-committee" and the trigger is pulled; the wars will go on being funded and the rich will keep on getting richer.

I wonder what would happen if we all just totally ignored Raptor, say for a day, and didn't spend so much time responding to his idiocy? Just crossed my mind...


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 5:32 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I have gone over the USA deficit and debt figures as a percentage of GDP, and they are not alarming. Worrisome- something that must be addressed responsibly during the next year or so- but not cause for panic. I think this is international capital smacking the hand of the Tea Party by punching us all in the face.
Quote:

I wonder what would happen if we all just totally ignored Raptor, say for a day, and didn't spend so much time responding to his idiocy? Just crossed my mind...
I agree. But, while indirectly poking at rappy by referencing his idiocy, I've been doing some research about how WE got here, and how to get out of it.

First of all, I know that the Tea Party will say that's it's excess government spending. That is their mantra. But we are where we are partly as a result of the financial collapse of 2008, so I have to ask: How did that happen?

Since it was an international phenomenon, clearly more was involved than "Fannie and Freddie" (DOH!). When I looked into the USA, Ireland, Iceland, Britain, Greece, Spain and Portugal, the overwhelming majority of the problem came from bad- in many cases fraudulent- loans by commercial banks. In the USA, Ireland, Spain, and England, there was a real estate bubble. Iceland's problem was 100% caused by fraudulent bank loans to its shareholder- officers (self-dealing).

As far as I can tell, this was all promoted by low-low-low interest rates by both American and European banks (the ECB and the Fed), low required rates of solid bank assets to back those loans (Basel II requirements and - in the USA, FDIC requirements) and lax to negligent regulatory oversight. Once important commercial banks collapsed, each nation had make deposit guarantees good, causing ballooning national deficits. In addition, once all banks realized that all other banks had coffers full of the same crappy loans, they stopped even loaning to each other. And once money stopped flowing, economies dried up.

You have to realize that this was not a universal problem. MANY nations avoided the financial collapse altogether: Sweden, Germany, Norway etc kept tighter rein on their banks and never entered into a milieu of phantom money created by idiot loans.

There is only ONE country that literally spent its way into oblivion, and that is Greece. Greece, BTW, borrowed money from Goldman Sachs to hide it's debt load from the EU before it was allowed in, pretty much like a borrower hiding a huge loan from a loan shark while trying to arrange for a mortgage.

So the FIRST thing the USA should do is to be able to control underlying interest rates and money creation, and take over the Fed. That of course will never happen. Failing that, the USA should operate it's own government bank, and stop insuring commercial bank deposits because that puts the USA on the hook for things it refuses to/ isn't allowed to control. I can imagine the butt-puckering that would happen as a result. Did you know, BTW, that BoA is in shaky ground??

Anyway, this points up the extent to which modern economies sometimes run on credit. Those nations which avoided ballooning their money supplies via commercial bank credit did much better than those who jumped in trying to make easy money. (One of those cases where the market did NOT "self-regulate")

Okay, that was monetary policy (the creation of credit and management of the money supply.)

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

The next issue to tackle is FISCAL policy: How much does the government spend? Fiscal policy and monetary policy are inextricably linked. If the government overspends its budget, it has to borrow. In most nations, they borrow from a national bank. In the USA, we borrow from a quasi-commercial bank, the Fed, which issues Treasuries to other lenders such as the Chinese to finance our debt. Our fiscal policy- how much we spend- is therefore beholden to a complex interplay of interest rates and demand for US Treasuries.

It has become apparent that one CAN expand the economy by expanding the money supply... and many nations did that 2000-2008.

The question is: Can we reduce our government deficit without torpedoing the economy (any more than it has already been torpedoed by the financial crisis?)

The financial crisis sucked a LOT of money out of the economy. People whose major asset was a home, and maybe a retirement account in stocks, suddenly found they had a lot less money in their pocket. Sure, it was funny-money, but until the music stopped it was theirs to spend. So the money supply dried up, disproportionately for the poor.

Erk.. duty calls.

Later.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 5:38 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

I disagree, Byte


Not to defend either side, but I'm dubious that S&P really based their decision on "feelings" about congress being unpredictable, whatever press statements they might publicly release. These guys work with the economy, which is run on nonsensoleum and itself entirely unpredictable. If they don't have ice in their veins, they're in the wrong business.

They were probably going to downgrade us no matter what choice we made. Let's hope raising the debt ceiling made it the less painful hit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 7:31 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
This was really kind of a catch-22. If we defaulted, the credit rating would get screwed up and the economy would take a hit. If we raised the debt ceiling, same thing would happen, like when you raise the credit allowance on a credit card. Defaulting would probably have been a really bad idea, not something we COULD do, but the other option wasn't all that great either.




I disagree, because I think you've got a fundamental flaw in your analogy. When you get a credit increase on a credit card, your credit rating pretty definitely DOES NOT go down. And your interest rate doesn't generally go up. I know this from experience. Every time I've gotten a credit line increase, it's been because my credit rating WENT UP, not down.

Your credit limit can often go down if you carry TOO LITTLE debt, odd as that may sound, and it can go down if you aren't carrying enough open accounts, too.

This was a manufactured crisis, though; you're right about that. It was 100% manufactured by the right wing of the tea-fascist movement.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 7:37 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, I guess crazyrappy had to retract his "it's all Obama's fault" mantra once he tried to come up with supporting numbers and found data which universally contradicted him.

Maybe we can go on intelligently from here.



Not so universally as you'd like to believe...




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 7:55 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


It should be pointed out that much of that increase during Obama's term is because of the recession and the reduction of revenue. Also the chart is only for the House of Representatives not the Senate or the Executive. Plus if we add 2011 to the chart I believe it would be the highest bar and it would be red.

This page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

Has a chart which shows debt changes with each President and Congress.

The single biggest increase (as % of GDP) we see is during Bush's second term half of which he had a Republican controlled House and Senate.


I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 8:30 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

I disagree, because I think you've got a fundamental flaw in your analogy. When you get a credit increase on a credit card, your credit rating pretty definitely DOES NOT go down. And your interest rate doesn't generally go up. I know this from experience. Every time I've gotten a credit line increase, it's been because my credit rating WENT UP, not down.


This is kinda like what you said about a mortgage being "good debt."

Might be that's how the system is set up, but it makes it inherently unstable. You don't improve your likelyhood of paying something back if you're being encouraged to spend more. it's a flaw in the logic behind these credit policies, not a flaw in the analogy.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 8:59 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


BINGO, the system is unstable. A increase in rating may get you an increase credit limits. However that increase in credit limit can make so that you could possible get yourself into trouble, which could decrease you credit rating. Paying back loads will increase your rating, paying them back to fast or paying them off can decrease your rating.

Personally I think we should outlaw the whole credit rating system and make lenders do there own homework and decisions.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 9:14 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

much of that increase during Obama's term is because of the recession and the reduction of revenue. Also the chart is only for the House of Representatives not the Senate or the Executive.
That pretty much destroys THAT argument. Thank you Nick.




Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 10:38 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Personally I think we should outlaw the whole credit rating system and make lenders do there own homework and decisions.


It's not a bad idea, let me think about it a little. I have to weigh it against my chaotic nature and the principle of whether customers are right or chumps.

But, my initial impression is there's a difference between something that's a viable service and something that's predatory. Credit originally arose as an in case of emergency helper fund, and I can see how some people might find it useful to buy into for that purpose.

The problem comes in when the people designing something like a credit business decide that people should always carry around just a little bit of debt to keep their credit high, versus people who pay back their debts immediately having low credit. If you think about it, it doesn't make any sense unless they're deliberately out to take advantage of people. They're actually limiting their immediate pool of money that they can get from people who would pay their debts quickly.

Rather, the reason they want people to hold onto debt is because they want people paying indefinitely. Because of interest, they can get MORE money that way.

It's like a store that lends to buy various electronics. By the time you've rented long enough to give you the option to buy the item, you've already paid more than it's market value. That's the point here. That's predatory.

Bank lending is a similar problem, and that carries problems of it's own, too, regarding the issuance of money. Insurance is another thing than can often be predatory. So that's the question. CAN we keep getting a useful service out of them while limiting the bad? Or is the only way to stop abuses and and predatory business to not support it at all, even outlaw it?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 11:48 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:

I disagree, because I think you've got a fundamental flaw in your analogy. When you get a credit increase on a credit card, your credit rating pretty definitely DOES NOT go down. And your interest rate doesn't generally go up. I know this from experience. Every time I've gotten a credit line increase, it's been because my credit rating WENT UP, not down.


This is kinda like what you said about a mortgage being "good debt."

Might be that's how the system is set up, but it makes it inherently unstable. You don't improve your likelyhood of paying something back if you're being encouraged to spend more. it's a flaw in the logic behind these credit policies, not a flaw in the analogy.



Not saying I agree with the system or how it's set up and how it works, just pointing out that it IS set up and working that way.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 11:49 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:

Personally I think we should outlaw the whole credit rating system and make lenders do there own homework and decisions.


It's not a bad idea, let me think about it a little. I have to weigh it against my chaotic nature and the principle of whether customers are right or chumps.



Can't they be both? :D

Quote:


But, my initial impression is there's a difference between something that's a viable service and something that's predatory. Credit originally arose as an in case of emergency helper fund, and I can see how some people might find it useful to buy into for that purpose.

The problem comes in when the people designing something like a credit business decide that people should always carry around just a little bit of debt to keep their credit high, versus people who pay back their debts immediately having low credit. If you think about it, it doesn't make any sense unless they're deliberately out to take advantage of people. They're actually limiting their immediate pool of money that they can get from people who would pay their debts quickly.

Rather, the reason they want people to hold onto debt is because they want people paying indefinitely. Because of interest, they can get MORE money that way.

It's like a store that lends to buy various electronics. By the time you've rented long enough to give you the option to buy the item, you've already paid more than it's market value. That's the point here. That's predatory.




No disagreement here.


Quote:


Bank lending is a similar problem, and that carries problems of it's own, too, regarding the issuance of money. Insurance is another thing than can often be predatory. So that's the question. CAN we keep getting a useful service out of them while limiting the bad? Or is the only way to stop abuses and and predatory business to not support it at all, even outlaw it?




Good question, and one that probably deserves a closer look.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 1:18 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


As far as I know in Europe individuals do not get a credit rating. So I would say that it is possible.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 5:20 PM

BYTEMITE


Nice.

I kind of think it's just one more means of tracking and controlling. I'd rather not have a credit card at all, but the family signed me up for one when I was a kid, so now I'm in the damn records.

They also took me for fingerprinting, to "protect" me from "child abductions." I can't fathom being so gullible and careless with a child's future. I'm really not sure where I come from, I speak the age old reaction of baffled young adults and teens everywhere: Maybe I was adopted.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 5:24 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Wait, what is wrong with fingerprinting? Well, unless you plan on going murdering.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 5:31 PM

BYTEMITE


Well, just reread what you wrote. Law enforcement seems to think I could be, whether or not it's justified. So it's kind of the principle of the thing, because normally we have this innocent before proven guilty thing that our society has decided to stomp all over then take out back and shoot. Then urinate into the wounds.

A society with consideration for human decency and respect for speech, self-expression, and free will can not also be a paranoid and afraid society.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 5:32 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!




The end of Amerika is near.

There's no such thing as the FDIC "trust fund" for bank accounts, just like there's no such thing as "trust fund" for Social Security.

Quote:

"The whole government is a Ponzi scheme."
-Jew Bernie Madoff, founder of the NASDAQ stock exchange who stole $150-Billion...more than all other criminals in USA combined (not counting the foreign "Federal" Reserve Bank)
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=13015875

"I need a big Jew Brain to figure these losses."
-Jew Gemma Teller a/k/a jew Katie Sagal (member of the jewish rock band KISS), screen wife of jew Ron Perlman, Sons of Anarchy, Seeds (written, created, directed, acted and produced by her jew husband)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katey_Sagal
http://www.jewcy.com/arts-and-culture/the-top-ten-jews-on-television

“Everywhere they (the Jews) come, they will be the princes of the lords.”
-Jewish Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 104a

“I (Jahveh) make you (the Jewry) the ancestor of the peoples, I make you the selected one amongst the peoples, I make you the king over the peoples, I make you the loved one amongst the peoples, I make you the best one amongst the peoples, I make you the trusted one amongst the peoples.”
-Jewish Babylonian Talmud, Schabbat 105a

“Jews always have to try to deceive Non-Jews.”
-Jewish Babylonian Talmud, Zohar I, 168a

“Every Jew is allowed to use lies and perjury to bring a Non-Jew to ruin.”
-Jewish Babylonian Talmud, Babha Kama 113a

“The possessions of the goyim are like an ownerless desert, and everybody (every Jew) who seizes it, has acquired it.”
-Jewish Babylonian Talmud, IV/3/54b

“When the Messiah comes, all will be slaves of the Jews.”
-Jewish Babylonian Talmud, Erubin 43b



All hail the banksters of the Jew World Odor!




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 5:40 PM

DREAMTROVE


Auraptor is essentially correct here. The cause of the downgrade was the extensive borrowing. The bonds don't csre how the budget gets balanced, but they were certainly hoping for more than what amounts to a 10% reduction is budget deficit which means a continuation of radical increase in the national debt.

Sig has half a point here: yes, S&P can be wrong, but that does not mean it always is, and in this case, they are not. I know you get that, but I'm not sure if you fet why. Ignore your political disagreements with folks on the far right, or middle-right like rap, and consider this as an academic subject of financial matters.

The short of it is "Why would standard and poors encourage people to invest in something which might someday default?" Just probably safe to assume they wouldn't, and the fact that default talk arose this time means that ever step of the next ten sessions under the new plan, the dollar will be less solvent than it was in the previous session, so future push to default will be stronger. This means that US treasuries are a possible future default.

Standard and Poors does guide their stuff based on actualities rather than supposition, and so conditions like "has not defaulted in the past, considered default, and will not be forced into default in the future" no longer applies to us treasuries.

Sure, dems and reps both deserve some blame here, but as my sister put it "that downgrade was twenty years overdue." I think that's true for the AA+. The earlier downgraded to A- is what we should be at right now, but political pressure from the whitehouse made them repeal it.

Also worth noting, the Chinese central rating agency downgraded us to "junk" two months ago.

So. The dollar is insolvent, or as one group put it "the dollar is not a currency. Hard currency can be readily exchanged for durable wealth such as precious metals, or other currencies which can in turn be converted to solid form."

The result of all this? Economic collapse, sure, but not based on nothing.


That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 6:17 PM

DREAMTROVE


Nick

Jist wanted to make sure you were aware that your signature image was treasonous, as gadsden is a flag of the united states. Perhaps there was treasonous intent, or you're not an american, but just in case it was an error. 


Re S&P:
I have found myself saying this all day: yes bad things will result from this, but he very short of it is this: "Don't shoot the messenger."

Standard and Poors didn't break the economy. It was already broken. They're just the messenger. They're telling others to give up on us, and they should, because nothing else seems to motivate us to behave ourselves.

I had to edit my post because I didn't realized how tangled up the macro and micro had become here.

While I agree thwt lending is predatory, i don't think rating is. I suspect that there is some dishonesty in personal rating agencies to favor those with bad lending practices, and that sure, in theory, what is true in micro could become true in macro, i just don't have any reason to assume that that is the case.

Certainly it is not going to get better if the concept of rating is banned on a macro scale like S&P. Credit is a concept I'd like to get rid of, but I'm afraid as an economic multiplier it is evolutionarily successful. 

Quote:


Rather, the reason they want people to hold onto debt is because they want people paying indefinitely. Because of interest, they can get MORE money that way. 



This is spot on.

A good reason not to carry debt. But surely a rating agency downgrading debt heavy currencies like the US dollar is a disincentive to engage in this sort of credit economy. I mean, at some level. TPTB are holding issuing power in the dollar, and that issuing power is worthless if dollars are worthless. Ergo, it makes sense for them to not kill the value of the dollar. Part of why they have been behaving the way they have is that there have been no consequences for so long. 

Quote:


It's like a store that lends to buy various electronics. By the time you've rented long enough to give you the option to buy the item, you've already paid more than it's market value. That's the point here. That's predatory.

Bank lending is a similar problem, and that carries problems of it's own, too, regarding the issuance of money. Insurance is another thing than can often be predatory.



That's a pretty sweet analysis.

Banning lending and rating are two different things. It's like taxing corporations. What happens if you have a tax of 7% on an industry, and you decide to raise that tax to 15%, while its Chinese competitor does not raise in taxes? The Chinese competitor defeats the American, which folds, and is now producing 0% in tax revenue instead of 7%. That's just a losing idea.

Credit is so powerful in the market that you run the risk of this sort of situation in banning it. Personally, I think it should be avoided, but I don't want to end up in a doomed position, in terms of economic evolutionary competition.

Now, from a lending perspective, there's a thin line between predatory lending, and investment. If I invest to remove my money from dollars, I do something like buy a biotech stock. i'm doing two things worth doing: 1) taking my money out of very unstable dollars, and 2) supporting an industry that I want to support. These both make sense as things to be able to do with your money.

Quote:


I kind of think it's just one more means of tracking and controlling. I'd rather not have a credit card at all, but the family signed me up for one when I was a kid, so now I'm in the damn records.



You can get out. Debt is slavery, essentially. That's how slavery was set up. Work contracts, initially based on a mortgage, hence forty acres and a mule. Think about what this says about our nation as a whole, besides of course that it defaulted on the forty acres and a mule, roughly one trillion dollars worth that it still owes.



That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 6:19 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Actually, S&P credited the downgrade as much on the GOP refusal to consider any kind of revenue increase as on anything else.

So it's not *JUST* about extensive borrowing. It's about refusing to look for ways to pay that borrowed money back, too.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 6:32 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:


Nick

Jist wanted to make sure you were aware that your signature image was treasonous, as gadsden is a flag of the united states. Perhaps there was treasonous intent, or you're not an american, but just in case it was an error.



That's not true at all.

The Gadsden Flag (it's a proper name, therefore it's disrespectful not to capitalize it, FYI) was a battle flag during part of the Revolutionary War, but was never recognized as an official United States Flag.

Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that flag burning and defacing is an acceptable form of free speech and protest.

Even furthermore, the SCOTUS has time and again reaffirmed that satire is a protected form of free speech.

Ironic that such a moronic attempt to quash free speech would come up just as we have an active thread dedicated to the quashing of free speech. You may not like what Nick and others have to say, but it would be beyond hypocritical to call them "treasonous" for exercising their free speech rights in such a way.

Neither Nick's version of the flag nor mine are ACTUAL Gadsden Flags; they're INSPIRED by it, and are satirical images poking fun at the idiocy of the tea parties and their ignorant followers, who know nothing of history, law, or the Constitution.

I would have hoped you weren't among their number.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 6:46 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Actually, S&P credited the downgrade as much on the GOP refusal to consider any kind of revenue increase as on anything else.

So it's not *JUST* about extensive borrowing. It's about refusing to look for ways to pay that borrowed money back, too.



Mike,

I concur. I don't think the rating agency cared how we curbed the runaway debt, I think they just wanted it curbed. Runaway debt is obviously insolvent, which would make it a rating of junk, which was allowed within the Chinese methodology, but the american methods require someone that has never defaulted in the past ot be an A rating, which means the lowest possible rating for the USA is A- aka "never defaulted in the past, but may default in the future," which is what they did to us, following Moody's IIRC, earlier this year.

Obviously, they were glas there was some sort of deal, since they knly downgraded us to AA+, but equally clearly they did not care for the GOP banter about default.

However, the Tea Party and GOP were correct in suggesting default as a viable option, and Standard and Poors would have agreed with them. i'm sure you could go to the rating agency and ask them for their opinion, and tax increases would not be on their list of favorite things.

On the other hand... Girls in white collars with blue satin neckties and approved accountkng spreadsheets double-checkings...

I think they would have liked to see spending fall below revenue without crusning the economy, as that would reduce further revenue, and they have to project that, but what they really wanted to see was a foreseeable end to borrowing. Instrad, the plan still has us borrowing one trillion dollars in 2021, which is after the next two presidents are elected, serve and leave office, and we still haven't returned to a level of fiscal responsibility any better than at least twice as bad as Bush. I can see why they don't love the solution.

The result is that we're fuck. The free market has downgraded America, and there's no honest way I can disagree with the decision. They have clients that they have tl be fair to, and a thirty year bond bought today is not going to be reliable in such an environment, and even a ten year bond bought today is going to be solidly locked into a Ponzi scheme as the only forseeable source of revenue is the borrowing of one trillion dollars in 2021.

The problem with taxes as a "revenue increase" is that assumes that in ten years, those higher taxes will have no negative impact on those industries.

Basically, for most industries, you can essentially guarantee that this is not the case: if you raise taxes on them, they will leave, and go to China, is what has been happening for decades. The only things you *can* safely raise taxes on are resource companies like the oil industry because they essentially *can't* leave. Though, in practice, right now, BP is getting away with murder.


I mean to mention this but


pirate news, thanks for stating the obvious, and I mean it, because not everyone is glomming on to the obvious. And so it occasionally needs restating.


That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 6:46 PM

BYTEMITE


I don't have debt, I wasn't so dumb as my IRL friends to run out on spending sprees. I didn't use the thing for years, and I pay anything that goes on it off instantly, because I consider the holding on to debt argument a bad idea.

But I do have a card, which means they have a record of me, just like they have my fingerprints on record.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 7:15 PM

DREAMTROVE


Mike

As is my free speech. I called Jane Fonda treasonous, and still do, bit what she did was not illegal. It's arguably treasonous to support the jihad, but that's more questionable. A number of US service people support the jihad, to some degree, and the US military supports it to some degree. If an American service person chanted "death to america" that would probably classify, but it would still be legal.

The left made a lot of noise after the giffords shooting about Sarah Palin and FOX news using crosshairs to designate politicians for targetting in elections. Many people felt this was greatly weakened by the fact that the democrats and daily kos had done the same. Both groups were missing another obvious interpretation: they were both essentially treasonous, though neither illegal.

Treasonous intent would just be saying that you oppose american. Supposing you support the islamic jihad, and you want to create an islamic jihad party in the united states to run for politican office and displace the current slew of candidates, and pass legislation based on the sharia system. That would not be anti-american. It would be very american. Not my vision of america or yours, but theirs. It's a perfectly acceptable position.

However, if someone is not an american, and they oppose america, then it is also not treasonous.

When Auraptor suggested that your flag conveyed this message you apologized and pulled it from your posts, so I hoped you understood the concept. I'm actually trying to hekp Nick out here, even though so far I find myself in pretty radical disagreement to most of what he has posted. I gather that for board democrats I'm on the right edge, but also understand that for elected democrats, I'm not. There are probably half a dozen to a dozen senators elected on the democratic ticket whom I consider to be fringe right wing loons.

If you think about this, it makes sense. If there's a political perspective from 0 to 100, (0 is left, 100 is rigth, traditionally) the most vocal posters on a political board are likely to be the 10s and 90s. Also, it's logical to assume that the most right wing dem is not a 40 or 50, but an 80, and the most left wing republican a 20. Remember joe lieberman and lincoln chafee? How about zell miller and chuck hagel? Now we have olympia snowe and ben nelson, less extreme, but clear overlaps. I suspect that in our less well known newbies crom the last couple elections we have more extreme overlaps not fully revealed.

So, if I'm a 50 (at least a 40-60) then some dems at 80 look like right wing loons to me, but some dem posters at 20 look like left wing loons to me. And yeah, I get I look like a right wing loon to them, but then again, everyone does, except other fringe political blog posters.

(sometimes people aren't paying any attention and they make comments suggeating that I'm too far to the right but Hillary would be a good presidednt. I take this sort of thing to just be ignorance ;) ) <- and sure, people will disagree with this, but it ain't going to affect me reading it as such every time I see it. i remember my former senator quite well. She made Bush look liberal. (wedge issue votes aside, but even on those. My god what a corporate war monger)


That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 7:55 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Ummm... DT?

I'll try to be gentle here, but you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

"Treason" is a crime, by definition. Therefore, if something is TREASONOUS, it's illegal, because it's A FUCKING CRIME!

To say that something is treasonous, but not illegal, is just a completely idiotic thing to say.

And this:

Quote:


When Auraptor suggested that your flag conveyed this message you apologized and pulled it from your posts, so I hoped you understood the concept.



Again, you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and you have your "facts" 180 degrees wrong. I didn't apologize, and I didn't "pull it" from my posts. I got tired of it and moved on to something else.

Look, here's the thread: http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=46046

You can say it's in bad taste, and not many would argue. But to say that it's "treasonous", and to claim that it's an official U.S. flag - those are just flat-out wrong, non-factual claims based on nothing but your feelings and biases.

If you want to be objective, and if you want to be seen as objective, you really need to do a better job of getting your facts lined up.



"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 7:56 PM

DMAANLILEILTT


I apologise in advance for this terrible joke: Standard & Poor has downgraded the US's AAA rating.....I bet they're feeling SUB-standard & poor!!!!!!

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2011 8:24 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

What happens if you have a tax of 7% on an industry, and you decide to raise that tax to 15%, while its Chinese competitor does not raise in taxes? The Chinese competitor defeats the American, which folds
Only if you believe in "free trade".

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 7, 2011 2:01 AM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

What happens if you have a tax of 7% on an industry, and you decide to raise that tax to 15%, while its Chinese competitor does not raise in taxes? The Chinese competitor defeats the American, which folds
Only if you believe in "free trade".



Sig,

Good point. The govt. Could raise tariffs on China, as the Chinese govt, did to us, but I don't see this happening without a more radical change.

This is where politics gets complicated and you get strange bedfellows. I support the free market, but I haven't ever supported free trade policies here, and there are a number of people within the tea party who would actually agree with us. Not only are tariffs constitutional, they are also economically sound in that they tax the excess of other nations trying to make a buck off america, rather than punish ourselves. Of course, the newer faces of the tea party say whatever their corporate overlords tell them to. (just like the loud voices of talk radio.)

I actually agree with a lot of what you said on this topic. I think we probably more or less agree on the problems, and if we could, would set up completely different solutions, but alas, we can't.


That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.


That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 7, 2011 2:44 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 7, 2011 2:50 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

What happens if you have a tax of 7% on an industry, and you decide to raise that tax to 15%, while its Chinese competitor does not raise in taxes? The Chinese competitor defeats the American, which folds
Only if you believe in "free trade".



Sig,

Good point. The govt. Could raise tariffs on China, as the Chinese govt, did to us, but I don't see this happening without a more radical change.

This is where politics gets complicated and you get strange bedfellows. I support the free market, but I haven't ever supported free trade policies here, and there are a number of people within the tea party who would actually agree with us. Not only are tariffs constitutional, they are also economically sound in that they tax the excess of other nations trying to make a buck off america, rather than punish ourselves. Of course, the newer faces of the tea party say whatever their corporate overlords tell them to. (just like the loud voices of talk radio.)

I actually agree with a lot of what you said on this topic. I think we probably more or less agree on the problems, and if we could, would set up completely different solutions, but alas, we can't.



And the way the GOP would fight any attempts to do this?

"If you impose tariffs, those costs will be passed along to the consumer in the way of higher prices!"

Which is true. EVERY cost is passed on to the consumer. But not every saving is... And should everything be as cheap as it is? Aren't we living with artificially low prices on many goods, because China intentionally devalues their own currency?

The problem with trying to implement higher tariffs on a country like China is this: they now own so much of our debt that they have an actual say in our negotiations with them. We put ourselves in this position, dating all the way back to Bush I, accelerating through the Clinton years, and really picking up steam with Bush II.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 7, 2011 4:28 AM

DREAMTROVE


Mike

Neither party will ever oppose globalism because the globalists are playing a game with us.The conservative candidate is just puppet who says conservative things and then does globalist things, and the liberal candidate is just puppet who says liberal things and then does globalist things.

That's why Bush was in no way conservative, and even when he passed sommeing like the faith based iniative (want, take, have) he never gave them any funding (no child left behind as well.)

And that's why with Obama it's the same damned thing: trillions of dollars in hand outs to globalist corporations, but no money for railroads, stem cell research, real green fuel, etc. Obama is in no way a liberal, he's a hardcore globalist who says liberal things.

When you go back and read the neocons writings from the 70s, they say it outright: we will support your conservative movement, and help you get elected, but we are not conservatives, we're globalists. There is no reason to thing that the neoliberals that they splintered off from are any different.

That doesn't mean that neocons and neolibs don't dislike each other genuinely at times, but I think it's more accurately seen if you ignore their stated political stances and view it like this:

The neocons/neolibs belong to one side because they oppose the *way* the current globalists in power are executing globalism, so they run on the other ticket, support the other movement, to get *themselves* elected, and so they have to say everything they have to say to make the liberals or conservatives vote for them.

So, in order to be credible, they have to support conservative or liberal reforms. If these reforms can be hijacked for gloablist agendas, executive power overreach and corporate greed, they will take an idea (healthcare, soc sec reform) and mutate it into a giant powergrab of one form or another. If they can't, they will still push it, but not very hard, and then shrug if it fails and tell their voters "hey, I tried."

On the off chance that an actual liberal or conservative agenda item gets passed by a neolib or neocon, their last line of apathy is simple not funding the resulting policy.

So, sure, Obama ran on a long list of things, public option healthcare, getting out of the wars, green energy, financial reform, reducing the deficit, public transportation, etc. Etc, etc. Yet when it comes to policies and spending we have three trillion to big banks, trillions more in major corporate handouts, mandated consumption of corporate insurance products, more war, more ecodestruction, mountaintop removal, fracking, and not a single railroad tie.

Even if you get good policy passed with these guys, regardless of your ideological position, they will never do a gorram thing about it.


That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 7, 2011 5:15 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Jist wanted to make sure you were aware that your signature image was treasonous, as gadsden is a flag of the united states. Perhaps there was treasonous intent, or you're not an american, but just in case it was an error. 



Not an error, and as other have explained not at all treasonous.

I find it far more disgusting that the TEA party and the right wing wrap themselves in the American Flag to further their political agenda.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 7, 2011 5:23 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Jist wanted to make sure you were aware that your signature image was treasonous, as gadsden is a flag of the united states. Perhaps there was treasonous intent, or you're not an american, but just in case it was an error. 



Not an error, and as other have explained not at all treasonous.

I find it far more disgusting that the TEA party and the right wing wrap themselves in the American Flag to further their political agenda.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.





Exactly. And to the tea-baggers: if you're going to wrap yourself that tightly in the flag, thereby sullying it, you should at least have the decency to then burn it (which IS the proper method for disposing of a soiled or sullied American flag).

And when you light it on fire, please remain wrapped in it. [/snark]

Kthxbai.


ETA: For Riona - "Kthxbai" is "webspeak" short-hand for "Okay? Thanks, bye!" Okay = K; Thanks = thx; Bye = bai.

Why? I don't make the rules. Ask teh interwebz. :)

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 7, 2011 6:28 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Not an error, and as other have explained not at all treasonous.

I find it far more disgusting that the TEA party and the right wing wrap themselves in the American Flag to further their political agenda.



Probably edging more towards treasonous, as it not only attempts to make a mockery of one of this country's revolutionary icons, but does so under the misplaced guise and phony claim of vilifying the current TEA party movement.

Why is it that the Left tries to promote this lie , that when ever they dislike something political, they feel it necessary to attack symbols of this country ?

Burn the flag of the USA ? " Oh, but we LOVE America! We're just showing our displeasure at some of those with whom we disagree. "

Graphic parodies of Gadsden's flag? " Why, they're nothing but TERRORISTS!

Are you such simpletons, that you can't think of ways to voice a counter view, with out defacing the very images of the country you claim to love ?

Talk about useful idiots.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 7, 2011 6:37 AM

KIRKULES


I actually feel some sympathy for the libs here, their belief that they could solve all of the World's problems if they could just get their hands on other people's money is going down in flames. They are correct that we could raise taxes and put off the inevitable for a few more years, but that does nothing to put us on a sustainable path for the long run. At least we still have the option to raise taxes. The European socialist utopias that they want us to emulate have come to the point were taxes are so high that raising rates actually reduces revenue and so they have no choice but severe austerity measures. We'll be right there with them in a few more years, but not until we've spent an few more trillion of other peoples money. Just glad I lived to see the socialist dream reach it's inevitable tragic conclusion. Now we can get back to what we know works, but there's going to be a lot of suffering in the short term, I hope you're all prepared for it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:56 - 44 posts
Thread of Trump Appointments / Other Changes of Scenery...
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:51 - 48 posts
Where Will The American Exodus Go?
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:25 - 1 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, November 27, 2024 23:34 - 4775 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:47 - 7510 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:06 - 21 posts
Ellen Page is a Dude Now
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:05 - 238 posts
Bald F*ck MAGICALLY "Fixes" Del Rio Migrant Invasion... By Releasing All Of Them Into The U.S.
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:03 - 41 posts
Why does THUGR shit up the board by bumping his pointless threads?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:43 - 32 posts
Joe Rogan: Bro, do I have to sue CNN?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:41 - 7 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:36 - 4845 posts
Biden will be replaced
Wed, November 27, 2024 15:06 - 13 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL