S&P Downgrades US!

[iceaura]

So, what now?

One thing that happens now is Eric Cantor prepares to cash in on his bond short - after all that work engineering the damage, he stands to make some heavy coin on his success.

And who says the wealthy don't work hard for their money? He's been busting ass for months to pull this off.

Indeed. We are waking up. Let's just hope we can hold things together thru 2012 so that we can get someone competent in office. Someone with at least some semblance of leadership experience. Someone with a basic familiarity with the private sector. Someone willing to take responsibility for the job. Someone who will do more than offer up excuses and blame.

Your idea of "we" and mine vary considerably.

You guys already did that, remember? - you elected W&Co twice, for exactly that reason. Then you tried to elect McCain and Palin. That's your idea of competence.

Try this: everyone who voted for W&Cheney twice, or Palin once, agrees to sit the next election out, and shut up about politics (campaigns and all) for one full cycle Presidency. Then we'll have a chance at electing competence.

 

[Giambattista]

Standard and Poor are impoverished. I loved how they did that one thing, but I really love how they do this other thing. Such disgusting antics. They aren't wise at all.

Oh they downgraded the USA did they? I wanna know who UPGRADED them? Who gives a fuck what they think?

They deserve the decrepit funeral they've been funding.

 

[Giambattista]

Of course when I say "impoverished" I do mean very intelligent and well-meaning and wealthy and entitled.

Oh. Yes. Entitled.

But entitled in the best way. Entitled in the way that the free market would have us worship.

 

[Yazata]

Standard and Poors announced Friday night that they were downgrading US debt from AAA to AA+.

So, what now?

Some bond purchasers only purchase top-rated bonds, so this might reduce sales of treasuries at upcoming auctions by some as-yet unknown amount. That would raise interest rates. That in turn would kind of undo some of the QE stuff. Given the shaky state of the stock market the last week or so, it's conceivable that the US might slip into a recessionary 'double dip'.

It's probably going to accelerate movements away from the US dollar as the world's de-facto reserve currency. But given that the Euro is experiencing similar problems and China's too risky for a whole multitude of reasons, there aren't a whole lot of better places to go.

All in all, I'm guessing that this news might accelerate a few trends a bit, but its overall impact won't be tremendous.

 

[superstring01]

I have to say, while I haven't loved Obama as president, I get increasingly annoyed when people try to lay the blame for--basically everything--at his feet. Let's recap a bit:

• He inherited a financial mess created LARGELY by passed leaders, namely Bush and the Republican party (though, I'll accept that Democrats share blame in the financial mess, more on that later).
• Every attempt to do "something" has been blocked, literally, at every step by the Tea Party who's obstructionist means have made it next to impossible to govern. The lie has gotten so thick and so disgusting that ONLY other Tea Partiers don't see how disgusting it is. Like parents saying to their kid, "Suzy, you have to clean the house in the next two hours." Then, while she's cleaning it, they run around throwing everything on the floor, dump trash cans out all over the house, and trample mud through the building. THEN start screaming at her for not doing something. Look, I don't like all the "somethings" that Obama wanted to do, but don't even for a second say that "This president is no leader" when his every single effort at leading the nation has bee thwarted along the way.
• The downgrade is squarely at the feet of the Tea Party. Obama accepted every single one of the Republican demands early on, but they obstructed and re-upped the demands so as to make a political ruckus. The unfortunate nature of a REPUBLICAN government where parties SHARE power is that you must compromise. The Scorched Earth policy that the Tea Party is now using is a sign of some great mental handicap and I--who generally am more sympathetic to Republican budgetary measures than Democratic ones--am disgusted beyond words. You don't get to come to the table and say, "We are compromising, Mr. President. We're agreeing to up the debt ceiling." That's not compromise. That's fucking Fascism.
• The nature of COMPROMISE would be--oh, I don't know--actually looking logically at Obama's plan and say, demand the balanced budget amendment (which the Dems would have swallowed) but accept a REASONABLE tax raise on the top 1% of earners. I knows Republicans are desperate to vindicate trickle-down economics, because Reagan is the Republican Moses, but it's absolute nonsense.
• The Republican party had no issue doubling the debt under Bush, in order to invade a country that we had no business invading, but suddenly under Obama it's used as an opportunity to do EVERYTHING possible to attempt to destroy his presidency.
• Because of the Republican party, we are now stripping billions away from Transportation when our roads and bridges are rated a "D-" by the American Society of Civil Engineers (the gold standard in infrastructure evaluation). We went from having the greatest infrastructure in the world in 1971--but through progressive tax cuts and funding cuts demanded by Republicans--we've become dead last in the industrialized world. Unfortunately, private business can't build roads and INDUSTRY--especially the heavy kind needed--will not grow without this critical investment. The USA needs to spend an additional $255 billion--every year--for the next 50 years (fifty fucking years!!!) on ROADS ALONE just to get them back up to their once halcyon standards. This does not include ports, airports, railroads and other vital national investments. See: Road Work Ahead and America's aging infrastructure.
• Because of the Republican party, we are now slashing NASA, what is--without a doubt--the single most successful investment in American history. The organization has contributed more technology to make the USA "great" and "number one" in about a hundred industries. So, instead of that, we are not pissing it away giving tax breaks to billionaires who, IN TURN, are directing their dollars and corporations to offshore jobs to fucking China and India.
• In the 1950's and 60's the USA led the world in investment in American technology and infrastructure. We are now ranked 64th in the world in domestic investment in technology and infrastructure. So much for brilliant laissez fair economics. We have lost ground to Germany (who has been the world's leading exporter since the 90's--so much for "evidence" that high taxes and government spending ruins economies!!!!), and we have utterly become slaves to China (a country who's economy was pried open by--you guessed it--Nixon and who has companies offshoring to them by--you guessed it--large corporations who have benefited from BOTH US government investment and and then have shipped that investment overseas due to--you guessed it--deregulation. So they can take the money and then run overseas. Great!)
• If "higher taxes destroy economies" why has Australia had a consistently growing economy in the past 10 years (no recession like in the rest of the world), has spent more than CANADA on defense (a country that has 50% more people) has insured its entire population AND operates with little to no government debt. TALK ABOUT COMPETENT GOVERNMENT!!!
• Why has Germany consistently remained solvent, with high taxes, low unemployment and extremely high wages? Simple: their government "redistributes" money from the high wage earners into programs to make Germany attractive to inverters from around the world. But, per the Tea Party thinking, Germany should be collapsing right now. No recession since the damned 90's!

~String

 

[madanthonywayne]

Rand Paul and his father Ron Paul have proposed a very simple way to balance the budget. Freeze spending at current levels. Not just "discretionary" spending, all spending. That means no more baseline budgeting with it's automatic increases in spending every year. It also means no "cost of living" increase for anyone getting government checks.

Doing this (not that tough or draconian although it far exceeds any proposed "cuts" on the table during the recent budget negotiations) would balance the budget by 2015 if the economy grows as expected with no actual cuts whatsoever.

 

[superstring01]

But that measure IS draconian in that it doesn't take into consideration the vital role the US government plays in many industries.

• Our roads are crumbling. Not investing in roads--hell, not RAISING what we invest in raods--is causing massive infrastructural problems.
• Costs in many industries are going up, like health care. Wages for certain government workers must go up to be competitive.
• Critical research done at our universities and in government scientific programs have a direct impact on the US industry NOW and in the next 50 years. Cutting those programs effectively puts the US at a disadvantage compared to other nations and in many ways puts us out of business altogether.

All of this could be solved by returning the marginal tax system to the way it was in the 70's and--heck--if you want a balanced budget amendment, then it wouldn't actually hurt all that bad, considering the revenue that would be pouring in to pay for the many critical programs the government funds. My dad's retirement and medicare come to mind as one of those.

~String

 

[Yazata]

The trajectory of this Sciforums thread illustrates why it's going to be very difficult for anyone to turn this slow-motion disaster around.

The whole thing has become totally politicized. Even before news is reported, the news media is spinning it to favor editors' political allies. Subsequent commentary consists of little more than overly-wordy variants on 'Obama sucks!' or 'Republicans suck!' American politics increasingly resembles two rival street-gangs flashing their red and blue colors.

It's juvenile and it's disfunctional. And it's dangerous too, not only to Americans but to everyone in the world who looks to us for some leadership.

 

[adoucette]

Because of the Republican party, we are now stripping billions away from Transportation when our roads and bridges are rated a "D-" by the American Society of Civil Engineers (the gold standard in infrastructure evaluation). We went from having the greatest infrastructure in the world in 1971--but through progressive tax cuts and funding cuts demanded by Republicans--we've become dead last in the industrialized world. Unfortunately, private business can't build roads and INDUSTRY--especially the heavy kind needed--will not grow without this critical investment. The USA needs to spend an additional $255 billion--every year--for the next 50 years (fifty fucking years!!!) on ROADS ALONE just to get them back up to their once halcyon standards. This does not include ports, airports, railroads and other vital national investments. See: Road Work Ahead and America's aging infrastructure.

NO NO NO

That report that you claim says it will take an additional $255 billion--every year--for the next 50 years (fifty fucking years!!!) on ROADS ALONE just to get them back up to their once halcyon standards.

Says NO SUCH THING.

First it is not Roads Alone, the $255 Billion a year is what they say it will take to Create and sustain the preeminent surface transportation system in the world.

And by that they mean ALL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION, including Rail, Freight and Waterways and many other anciliary issues such as environmental and biofuels.

Indeed they specify TEN areas of spending:

◦Rebuilding America: A National Asset Management Program

◦Freight Transportation: A Program to Enhance U.S. Global Competitiveness

◦Congestion Relief: A Program for Improved Metropolitan Mobility

◦Saving Lives: A National Safe Mobility Program

◦Connecting America: A National Access Program for Smaller Cities and Rural Areas

◦Intercity Passenger Rail: A Program to Serve High-Growth Corridors by Rail

◦Environmental Stewardship: Transportation Investment Program to Support a Healthy Environment

◦Energy Security: A Program to Accelerate the Development of Environmentally-Friendly Replacement Fuels

◦Federal Lands: A Program for Providing Public Access

◦Research, Development, & Technology: A Coherent Transportation Research Program for the Nation.

http://transportationfortomorrow.com/final_report/vol_1_chapter_1.htm

Secondly they don't say ADDITIONAL $255 billion per year, that's what we need to spend in TOTAL for the PREEMINENT Surface Transportation system in the world.

We ALREADY spend well over $150 billion per year now.

In 2007, the public sector spent $146 billion to build, operate, and maintain highways in the United States. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12043/01-19-HighwaySpending_Brief.pdf

But one of the key reasons we will have to spend more is laid out in the report:

By 2050, the total U.S. population is projected to reach 420 million, a 50 percent increase

And of course one would EXPECT that we would spend more as our population grows since we always have done so.

So the ACTUAL increase in spending to have the Preeminent Transportation System in the world is far less of an increase than $255 Billion a year, and when you consider population growth more on the order of $40 to $50 Billion more per year relative to what we are spending now.

Personally though I'm perfectly willing to save a bit of money and NOT have the Preeminent Transportation System in the world as competing for that honor with much higher density countries with relatively stagnant populations for that title is probably not cost effective.

Arthur

 

[Crunchy Cat]

It's conservative republicans that have made government disfunctional. They have clearly stated that their #1 goal is to make Obama fail. When you take office, you are expected to work for the people. Your #1 goal is to make the country succeed. If you are intentionally not doing that and even advertising it then you should be charged with treason and executed.

 

[adoucette]

[*]Because of the Republican party, we are now slashing NASA, what is--without a doubt--the single most successful investment in American history. The organization has contributed more technology to make the USA "great" and "number one" in about a hundred industries.

NOPE

The 2011 budget compromise Congress and the White House reached April 8 to avert a government shutdown includes $18.485 billion for NASA, or about 1.3 percent less than the $18.724 billion the U.S. space agency was given for 2010.

http://www.space.com/11374-nasa-budget-2011-congress-compromise.html

NASA Budget:

2000 13,428
2001 14,095
2002 14,405
2003 14,610
2004 15,152
2005 15,602
2006 15,125
2007 15,861
2008 17,318
2009 17,782
2010 18,724
2011 18,485

To put that in perspective, NASA's budget in 2011 is about 15% greater than it was in 2000 when inflation is factored in.

Now considering NASA won't be launching 5 Shuttle flights in 2011 at ~.5 Billion each, they actually have ~$2.5 Billion ADDITIONAL funds in their budget to spend on building our next manned launch vehicle.

Arthur

 

[madanthonywayne]

But that measure IS draconian in that it doesn't take into consideration the vital role the US government plays in many industries.

That, my friend, is a separate consideration and is more a matter of prioritizing than total spending. We cap spending at present levels (which are already well above what has been the norm for most of US history) and congress can then do it's fucking job and see to it that important things like roads, defense, NASA, and scientific research get funded by actually cutting spending elsewhere.

We should also include a line item veto in the balanced budget amendment. Clinton was the only president to enjoy that power before it was declared unconstitutional. Prior to the 1974 Congressional Budget Reform and Impoundment Control Act., the president had something like the line item veto in that he could refuse to spend funds authorized by congress. Unfortunately, the aforementioned "reform" pretty much put an end to that.

 

[United for Communism]

Thank you, capitalism!

This is the failure of the exploitation system.

 

[Repo Man]

Thank you, capitalism!

This is the failure of the exploitation system.

While you're free to do as you like, it's going to get quite boring if this is all you ever have to offer on any thread having anything to do with politics. You might as well not even bother to type them out, just save them as a text file and C&P as necessary. Much as Adstar does by pointing out that everything that is wrong has to do with people not living as the bible says they should.

 

[United for Communism]

I'm repeating myself because my arguments apply to anything capitalist...do you not see the crumbling society? Our financial system is in a mess thanks to capitalism; it is, indeed, a creation of the capitalist.

I'm just trying to rub it in the faces of the conservative right-wing morons.

:m:
Peace

 

[Repo Man]

I'm repeating myself because my arguments apply to anything capitalist...do you not see the crumbling society? Our financial system is in a mess thanks to capitalism; it is, indeed, a creation of the capitalist.

I'm just trying to rub it in the faces of the conservative right-wing morons.

:m:
Peace

Pointing out problems is fine. Dogmatically insisting that you have the answer in another thing entirely. I don't buy that the answer to all of our problems lies in Marxist scriptures.

 

[United for Communism]

Pointing out problems is fine. Dogmatically insisting that you have the answer in another thing entirely. I don't buy that the answer to all of our problems lies in Marxist scriptures.

The problem is capitalism; therefore, the answer is the abolition of capitalism.

Simple logic, really.

 

[joepistole]

Rand Paul and his father Ron Paul have proposed a very simple way to balance the budget. Freeze spending at current levels. Not just "discretionary" spending, all spending. That means no more baseline budgeting with it's automatic increases in spending every year. It also means no "cost of living" increase for anyone getting government checks.

Doing this (not that tough or draconian although it far exceeds any proposed "cuts" on the table during the recent budget negotiations) would balance the budget by 2015 if the economy grows as expected with no actual cuts whatsoever.

As with so much of right wing nonsense, on the surface it appears appealing. But when you pull back the covers and look at it you get to see all the worms.

First, forget COLAs. As COLA's have been zero for the last few years and still spending has soared because of the economy - high numbers of people on extended unemployment and social safety net programs and lowered federal revenues because of The Great Recession.

Your proposal fails to recognize changing demographics and the effects of the economy on the federal budget. Today, the federal government pays X on Social Security. Tomorrow it will pay x + y on Social Security as the population is aging and more and more folks are becoming Social Security recipients rather than contributors. So your proposal would amount to a reduction in Social Security benefits and many other programs as well.

 

[joepistole]

I'm repeating myself because my arguments apply to anything capitalist...do you not see the crumbling society? Our financial system is in a mess thanks to capitalism; it is, indeed, a creation of the capitalist.

I'm just trying to rub it in the faces of the conservative right-wing morons.

:m:
Peace

No, we are in this state because of a failed political system and corruption - not because of capitalism.

 

[United for Communism]

No, we are in this state because of a failed political system and corruption - not because of capitalism.

The failed system is economic; we are in an economic crises, after all. You can't control capitalism...it always finds a way to get you.

Capitalism is the failure.