Obama was elected to create jobs, raise taxes on the rich, was he not?
S&P Downgrades US!
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
your lying sack of shit Joe . I listened to That Beers guy from Standard and poors 5 times say it was both PARTIES . Entitlements were the main reason and the lack of revenue from the falling economy you keep saying is recovering .
Not only that but that there is to much uncertainty in U.S. politics . Granted more tax collections would have helped ( Feather for Demacoms ) More cuts (Feather for Tea bags ) Neither party is willing to go the mile in there own protective way.
You are evangelizing and that is against forum rules
I agree, Joe deserves a ban. He's like a zealot.
Right on Captain . God am I good or what . Did you read Me posts Thursday Captain ? That was why I separated "Spiral time" from the rest of me post. I knew no one would believe Me rhetoric and when I typed It I thought it would have more impact or deniable would be harder for the unbelievers. They still will and something tells Me they will deny no matter what . How many times will it have to happen ? How many times did Moses have to do it ?
Anyway that I could restore the markets that I would , but somethings you just can't buy your way out of . This is the hard lesson yet to be learned by the human race .
O.K. mods . I am not evangelizing. I am agreeing with The good Captain .
What is the matter Nietzchefan, can stand a little dose of reality and honesty?
OK, here is just one of your many problems Me-Ki-Gal, you are probably the most intellectually challenged individual I have met in a long time. And that is an accomplishment!
I suggest you clean the wax out of your ears and do some reading or at the very least some listening.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p339TWCjYso
There is a lot of uncertianty out there because of the political instability in the US political system as exhibited most recently by the debt ceiling hostage taking.
I have included a clip from S&P's head of soverign debt, John Chambers. So I am going to suggest that instead of passing out insults (which appears to be all that you are capable of doing), you do some listening. Listen carefully, and you just might learn something. At least we can hope.
Joe evangelizes, but the lying sack of shit there is the S&P guy. There is more explanation for the current US economy in the fact that he isn't in jail, than there is in anything he says.me-ki-gel said:
"Both Parties" were not significantly involved, either in the entitlement boondoggle (Medicare Plan D, etc) or in the debt crisis (Republican debt, Republican refusal to agree to pay). This is the Republican Party party we've been invited to, and found the doors locked from the outside.
Reaganomics, the older name for this stuff, was not a bipartisan invention.
Just what is evangelizes Ice? I think maybe you have been into that special Republican/Tea Party lexicon.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evangelizes
You dominate every discussion (even those not involving the U.S sometimes!), with :
Republicans suck.
Democrats rule.
It's boring and fucking lame, whistle us something new. As least BillyT reasonably argues exactly how mistakes have been made, you are a broken record. STFU.
Republicans suck.
Democrats rule.
It's boring and fucking lame, whistle us something new. As least BillyT reasonably argues exactly how mistakes have been made, you are a broken record. STFU.
Peter Schiff said something stupid on CNBC, He defended S&P and criticized Warren Buffett's and Greenspan's statements that the US government's ability to create money means that US government debt is just about the safest possible investment you can make in terms of default risk. Schiff brought up the inflation risk of money creation and said this justifies the US debt downgrade. But does Schiff understand that if you downgrade the US government debt for inflation risk then you must downgrade every dollar denominated fixed return investment for that inflation risk?
Ratings are supposed to be risk assessments, not coercive punishments designed to modify behaviors therefore unless S&P wants to apply inflation risk to all investments they have no honest rational reason for giving US government debt any rating lower than their top rating.
Ratings are supposed to be risk assessments, not coercive punishments designed to modify behaviors therefore unless S&P wants to apply inflation risk to all investments they have no honest rational reason for giving US government debt any rating lower than their top rating.
ok..stupid question..
what does it mean to default?
what does it mean to default?
Generally it means some borrower (and that would include purchasers who have promised to pay later) fails to pay amounts promised when they were due AND (and this is the seldom mentioned part) the lender brings a claim for the payment to whatever judicial system enforces contracts.
That is why when you miss your home mortgage payment for a few weeks, you are not in "default" - Typically the mortgage contract will have some automatically activated clauses that allow but do not require, the lender to impose a penalty or even demand full payment of the balance due, but usually this later is not done if payments resume with little delay.
If for example on 2 Aug 11 the debt ceiling had not been raised but by 7 August it had been and all who were not paid what was due them during those 5 days were paid on 8 Aug, then there would not have been a default (ASSUMING, no one brought claim to court and had it accepted during those five days.)
Thus, given the recent conflict in congress, and the unprecidented tying of the normally routine raising of the debt ceiling to various political agendas, S&P was probably correct to decide that there was now more than a zero chance that the US would not in some future date fail to pay its bills. If there were no "debt ceiling" limiting how many dollars could be printed*, then the probability of Treasury not paying is zero, an AAA rating, but that does not mean you will get the purchasing power you expected - only the fixed number of dollars you were due.
Having your debts in fixed amount of currency you can print is a great advantage, few governments enjoy. A few years ago Brazil was able, I think for the first time, to sell bonds that promised to pay X Real when they mature. (The Real is Brazil's currency.) Because the value of the Real is now much greater in dollars than what it was when they were sold, a 1000R$ bond is probably now worth $2000 USD. The Real has increased wrt the dollar 40% in the last year.
* The US is the only country with "debt ceiling" problem (Denmark has one but it is so large they never need to raise it). Debt ceilings are a tacit admission that your voters send children to pass laws that spend money, instead of responsible adults. "Children" vote for what they want, not what the country needs and can pay for. What most of these Congressional children want is funds for re-election or well hidden bribes from the likes of the NRA, AARP, AMA, the drug companies, etc. or federally funded projects in their election district (like the "bridge to no-where" or a study of the sex habits of the local bears, etc.) so of course the US has financial problems.
Last edited by a moderator:
Default means to break the terms of the contract. If the bond says it will pay 2% interest for 10 years and then return the initial invested money then doing anything less than that is default. Paying the interest and returning the initial money on time is not default regardless of whether or not inflation destroys the purchasing power of the returned initial investment.
ok..its just a term used to say you can't pay.
so what happens after it is determined that you can't pay?
does the debt go away?
What is the matter, cannot tolerate a litttle honesty? And it seems you are not paying attention either, you have good company with Me-Ki-Gal.
Yes were finally getting somewhere when we can admit that the ss checks are borrowed money.
AND Families are defaulting left and right. The government can start playing by the same rules and using the same math as the common folk any day now.
Currently SS is a net positive revenue source for the government and, I think, for at least a decade more before it switches (if changes are not made to reduce the benefits) to be net cost to the government.
So you want the government to default?
Additionally, this is not about math. It is about economics. And comparing a family to a sovereign nation is just a bit of a stretch. Actually it is a big stretch.
Most families don't have the huge responsiblitlies of being sovereign and they definately cannot make laws or print more money when they run short.
No that is not correct - read post 132. Quite few people with homes "under water" can pay their mortgages, but are choosing not to. Even then they are not in default until the lender begins legal foreclosure processes.
In most states, the lender can take the home back and sell it via foreclosure. In some states you must declare personnel bankruptcy to escape the "short sale" debt. (Difference between what the bank got via foreclosure sale and the unpaid balance of the mortgage) If you don't do this, even years later the lender can go to court and "attach your wages" , sell your car, etc. in many states, but not all. I think no state allows the lender to confiscate your "tools of your trade" and sell them to collect still owed sums.
The government, person, company or other type of institution owing the debt and the government, person, company or other type of institution being owed the debt both have options as to what they want to do about the broken contract.
The institution owing the debt can declare bankruptcy, do nothing or try to negotiate with the institution that they owe money to.
If the debtor does nothing then the institution owed the money has to decide what it wants to do about the bad debt. The institution that is owed can right harassing letters and call the debtor and can report the debtor to credit rating firms thereby ruing the debtors credit rating. The institution that is owed (debtee/lender/creditor/investor) can sell the debt for a loss to a collection agency. The debtee/investor can sue in court and get the judge to issue an order transferring ownership of whatever of the debtors assets they can find to the debtee/investor.
The debtee can get a court judgment against future wages or earnings of the debtor. The debtee can hire organized crime to intimidate the debtor into turning over their hidden assets. Lending nations have bombed borrowing nations in the past over repayment of debts.
The lender and borrower can reach an agreement without involving courts as to how many "pennies on the dollar" the borrower will repay if the borrower can't reasonably be expected to repay the whole debt. Sometimes the borrower just wants more time to pay and agrees to pay back the whole debt with more interest payments a later time.
Often there are many lenders not being repaid. In bankruptcy court the judge decides which lenders will be repaid and in what order. The bankruptcy judge may transfer ownership of a bankrupt company to a group of lenders and suppliers.
If the borrower doesn't have the money and won't have the money in the future than the lenders will just have too lose the money they lent.