Export thread

Where were you when America defaulted on its debt.

#1

Mathias

Mathias

That'll be the talk around the water cooler come August 2nd...


#2

Krisken

Krisken

I think the Republican leadership is starting to understand why courting the crazy elements of the nation is a bad idea.


#3

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Krisken said:
I think the Republican leadership is starting to understand why courting the crazy elements of the nation is a bad idea.
Click to expand...
Can't be. Rush and Roger Ailes won't allow it. ONWARD WITH THE CRAZY!!


#4

sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

I am a bit scared for my parents, as they both draw SSI.

I got a great IDEA! lets play Russian Roulette with the economy... That always ends well. Just ask Johnny Ace.


#5

Dei

Dei

http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/14/news/economy/debt_ceiling_credit_warning/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1


#6

TommiR

TommiR

I'm guessing there is a pretty good chance the two sides will come to an agreement before the August 2nd deadline. Although I am by no means in a position to talk about US domestic or fiscal politics with any degree of authority, though much has made of the apparent current deadlock in the talks, I'd wager it is mostly domestic political wrangling and brinkmanship about the relationship between the debt ceiling raise, spending cuts, and a tax hike, and the two sides will eventually cut a deal and the debt ceiling will be raised. Because, frankly, allowing the US to default could, in my view, have consequences that make the decision of not raising the ceiling be beyond stupid.

And I'm sure the US lawmakers still remember what happened immediately after the 2008 vote where they initially defeated the W bank bailout package: Dow Jones lost some 1.2 trillion in value in the biggest single-day point drop in history. Which I don't think would amount to anything near the total damage done should the US default.


#7

Dave

Dave

The response from the left? They've formed their own version of the Tea Party. Yeah. That's what we need. Another group of people unwilling to compromise and continue to stick to hard-line ideologies regardless of what's best for the country.


#8

Tress

Tress

Dave said:
The response from the left? They've formed their own version of the Tea Party. Yeah. That's what we need. Another group of people unwilling to compromise and continue to stick to hard-line ideologies regardless of what's best for the country.
Click to expand...
:facepalm:


#9

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

American Dream Movement kinda sucks as a name. It's nowhere near as catchy as Tea Party.


#10

Tress

Tress

AshburnerX said:
American Dream Movement kinda sucks as a name. It's nowhere near as catchy as Tea Party.
Click to expand...
The left is always bad with names. Always. I don't know why.


#11

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

Tress said:
The left is always bad with names. Always. I don't know why.
Click to expand...
The American Dream Party would have sounded fine. I think it's the Movement bit that kills it.


#12

sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

AshburnerX said:
The American Dream Party would have sounded fine. I think it's the Movement bit that kills it.
Click to expand...
The American Dream Movement: announced their new corporate sponsors, Metamucil and Exlax.


#13

Krisken

Krisken

sixpackshaker said:
The American Dream Movement: announced their new corporate sponsors, Metamucil and Exlax.
Click to expand...
Now that would be a smooth move.


#14

@Li3n

@Li3n

On top of a mayan pyramid, cutting out someone's heart...

What, someone has to start the new age, and hearts don;t cut themselves out as a sacrifice to teh gods...


#15

Mathias

Mathias

I was reading some comments today on a related article. One had me rolling.

"We should have these slimball politicians have the American public vote on whether the cap should be increased"

What a moron. You DO vote for it every 2, 4, and 6 years! But I guess that's what it takes, huh? If it's not American Idol style telephone voting, it's not worth getting up is it?

Fucking idiots are killing this country.


#16

Krisken

Krisken

I have to say, I'd rather have the people who are in charge making the decision than these guys.


#17

Tress

Tress

Mathias said:
I was reading some comments today on a related article. One had me rolling.

"We should have these slimball politicians have the American public vote on whether the cap should be increased"

What a moron. You DO vote for it every 2, 4, and 6 years! But I guess that's what it takes, huh? If it's not American Idol style telephone voting, it's not worth getting up is it?

Fucking idiots are killing this country.
Click to expand...
A friend of mine related a story earlier this week. He was listening to some show on the radio, and a caller suggested that there should be two presidents. One would handle all foreign affairs, and the other one would handle domestic affairs. The caller said that this was needed because the job was too big for one person to do alone. The radio host responded by asking what would happen to the cabinet.

Can you guess what the caller's response was?

"What do you mean? What's the cabinet?"


#18

Cajungal

Cajungal

Ouch.


#19

@Li3n

@Li3n

Relevant: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-13906274


#20

@Li3n

@Li3n

Way to go Fareed Zakaria: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/01/zakaria-tea-party-held-america-hostage/


#21

Covar

Covar

Yay, they did it. They've managed to raise the debt ceiling and not have to cut spending enough to prevent this from happening again. Problem solved guys. right? right?

FUCK both parties.


#22

Krisken

Krisken

Yeah, well, if there was an increase in revenue like every fucking economist says is needed, maybe it wouldn't be such an issue, eh? But no, lets keep having tax loopholes and just fuck the poor.


#23

Shegokigo

Shegokigo

@Li3n said:
and hearts don;t cut themselves out as a sacrifice to teh gods...
Click to expand...
Tell me about it :confused:


#24

TommiR

TommiR

Raising the debt ceiling was the right thing to do you know, as the potential consequences of a US default might have been catastrophic. And you might not want to cut public spending too much at an economic situation such as this, as the fall of aggregate demand could make things worse for the recovery.

But yeah, sooner or later you guys are going to have to do something about that budget deficit of yours, probable through both spending cuts and tax increases.


#25

Krisken

Krisken

TommiR said:
Raising the debt ceiling was the right thing to do you know, as the potential consequences of a US default might have been catastrophic. And you might not want to cut public spending too much at an economic situation such as this, as the fall of aggregate demand could make things worse for the recovery.

But yeah, sooner or later you guys are going to have to do something about that budget deficit of yours, probable through both spending cuts and tax increases.
Click to expand...
This I'd be ok with. Hell, I'm for spending cuts, as long as there is increased revenue. As it stands, this is a failure for the economy.

At this point, I'm wishing Hillary had won the Democratic nomination. My disappointment at the continued failure of this administration can not be measured in mere words.


#26

Shegokigo

Shegokigo

Except Hilary would have lost to McCain and he would have died in office. No matter what anyone thinks of Obama's job so far, they couldn't possibly even remotely consider that a Palin admin would have done any better.


#27

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

*sigh*



#28

Espy

Espy

Krisken said:
My disappointment at the continued failure of this administration can not be measured in mere words.
Click to expand...
But don't forget, half the fun of politics is feeling the way you do and knowing you don't have any choice but to keep voting for the same person who has let you down! Because, I mean, who else are we going to vote for? It's not like anyone in the party is going to have the balls to actually challenge the sitting pres or that anyone on the other side will suddenly turn into an ideal candidate. See? Politics are fun, especially if you like loathing yourself. :(


#29

Krisken

Krisken

I'm not normally this defeatist, Espy, but that's just about where I am. I just don't see how anything this administration does from this point on will be an improvement when they keep giving candy to the kids with ADD.


#30

Espy

Espy

The important thing to remember Krisken, is that no matter how dark the day may get, GE will never pay taxes and their CEO will continue to jerk off the pres under the table.

I dunno man, I wish I didn't feel so defeated and hopeless when it comes to politics, I don't like it, really. I just see nothing to change my mind about it so far from either side.


#31

SpecialKO

SpecialKO

I actually don't blame Obama for this one, I blame the people who voted the tea party congress-critters into office (and John Boehner for sabotaging Mitch Mcconnell's not-exactly-sane-but-at-least-not-holding-the-country's-economy-hostage plan)


#32

Charlie Don't Surf

Charlie Don't Surf

Now, okay, Gabrielle Giffords got shot in the brain and voted for this bill, but what is everyone else's excuse?


#33

Covar

Covar

Well lets see, Dems wanted to raise the debt ceiling enough to get past the election to avoid being accountable, Republicans wanted to raise the debt ceiling enough to where it would come back around the election so they could use it to play politics.

I repeat again, FUCK BOTH PARTIES. Screw it, FUCK ALL OF WASHINGTON. They're all a bunch of shitheads.


#34

Tress

Tress

Krisken said:
I'm not normally this defeatist, Espy, but that's just about where I am. I just don't see how anything this administration does from this point on will be an improvement when they keep giving candy to the kids with ADD.
Click to expand...
What did you want him to do? Let the economy default? Because the way the Tea Party was going, they were going to let it all burn just so they could say they didn't raise taxes even a tiny amount.


#35

Krisken

Krisken

The only option left, Tress. I hate it as much as the next guy, but the 14th amendment option was all that was left without giving a major win to the Tea Party terrorists.


#36

Tress

Tress

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
Click to expand...
That does not explicitly state whether or not the debt ceiling is valid. Any interpretation suggesting that the President would then be allowed to bypass Congress' responsibility and powers regarding the budget would set a very dangerous precedent.


#37

Krisken

Krisken

Perhaps, but it is his duty to uphold the Constitution and ensure our debts are paid (especially when Congress refuses to be grown ups and tries to ignore the Constitution). The difference between Bill Clinton and Obama appears to be a pair of testicles.


#38

SpecialKO

SpecialKO

Krisken said:
Perhaps, but it is his duty to uphold the Constitution and ensure our debts are paid (especially when Congress refuses to be grown ups and tries to ignore the Constitution). The difference between Bill Clinton and Obama appears to be a pair of testicles.
Click to expand...
Bill Clinton also had the benefit of surplus economy, no ongoing wars that he didn't start, no war-fatigue, and a right-wing base that, unlike the their fringe, thought that his tax dodging and an office blowjob were the worst they would have to put up with.

I liked Clinton too, but god only knows what Bill Clinton might have done.


#39

Krisken

Krisken

SpecialKO said:
Bill Clinton also had the benefit of surplus economy, no ongoing wars that he didn't start, no war-fatigue, and a right-wing base that, unlike the their fringe, thought that his tax dodging and an office blowjob were the worst they would have to put up with.

I liked Clinton too, but god only knows what Bill Clinton might have done.
Click to expand...
Funny you should say that.

Maybe I wouldn't be so hard on Obama if this wasn't the third time he's drawn a line in the sand and stepped over it. Every time he does it looks more and more like another 4 years of this will be more devastating than if someone else was in charge. I really don't know anymore.


#40

SpecialKO

SpecialKO

Krisken said:
Funny you should say that.
Click to expand...
I think you missed my point. Clinton is talking about what he would do, but he's not President now, and doesn't have to deal with the consequences of what his words and actions might mean. Talk's cheap, in other words.


#41

Krisken

Krisken

Yeah, he never made hard choices or anything.


#42

SpecialKO

SpecialKO

Krisken said:
Yeah, he never made hard choices or anything.
Click to expand...
He definitely doesn't have to make one now.
Added at: 15:31
I'm not trying to bag on Clinton, as you seem to think.

I'm just mystified why you think that his Presidency, taking place during a much less socially and politically and economically turbulent time, combined with his tough guy public speaking tour now, is even the remotest indication of what he would actually have done were he President in our current circumstances beyond the standard Democrat policy positions.


#43

Krisken

Krisken

It's not that I think you're bagging on Clinton. I'm saying I think, based on his past record with a Republican majority, he would have garnered a better deal, or at the very least prepared for the next fight instead of expecting them to do the right thing. He would have learned after the first stupid fight that he would face stupid opposition that would require a firm stance for later fights and knew how to use his political capitol.

It's like Obama forgot he's the President of the United States. Shit, even George W. Bush got shit done (a lot of shit, too) during his presidency with Democratic majorities. It's a hard job, and god damn it I expect him to do it with competence. Does he have a shit sandwich? Sure, but you'd think after the first two shit sandwiches he'd stop ordering it and figure out a way to get what he wants without going to the same well. The definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.


#44

SpecialKO

SpecialKO

I feel like you remember the 90s as a bit rosier than I do.

Remember the Balanced Budget Act and the Omnibus Reconciliation Act? The numbers being negotiated and demanded by the Repubs wasn't even close to what we're looking at now, and this was in an era when you didn't have a growing grassroots movement calling for everything to be repealed/cut (mostly because the economy was very strong).

That said, you're definitely right about Clinton knowing how to garner political capital with the Republicans.


#45

LordRendar

LordRendar

It's sad how politics isnt anymore about serving your country like you swore you would do when you got voted into office,but instead powerplay,petty revenge and grandstanding.
They would rather do nothing then maybe hurt their chances for reelection.Dosnt matter if the people suffer,as long es they themselfs go through it unscathed.


#46

TommiR

TommiR

Covar said:
Well lets see, Dems wanted to raise the debt ceiling enough to get past the election to avoid being accountable, Republicans wanted to raise the debt ceiling enough to where it would come back around the election so they could use it to play politics.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but at least the addict still got a fresh shot to postpone the withdrawal symptoms. Yay.


#47

@Li3n

@Li3n



#48

@Li3n

@Li3n

Guess who got downgraded, boys: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14428930


#49

Charlie Don't Surf

Charlie Don't Surf

Congratulations Boehner and the Republican Party clowncar


#50

Krisken

Krisken

I don't think Boehner would have gone nearly as far without the crazies to blame in his own party.


#51

Tress

Tress

I'm going to extend the blame to everyone in Congress. They all need to get their shit together.


#52

@Li3n

@Li3n

I love this picture:



http://nutsandolts.com/2011/08/06/tea-party-led-republican-party-kills-its-hostage/

The interesting part:

The simple answer is stated by Jason Easley in the first sentence of his post, Republicans Kill The Hostage As S&P Downgrades US Debt

S&P downgraded America’s debt because the Republicans have made the process of governing so dysfunctional that Washington can no longer be trusted to agree to make even the most basic decisions.​
In fact, that is exactly what Standard & Poor’s says in the Rationale section of it’s written explanation for the downgrade. Here is an excerpt:


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 and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.
Our lowering of the rating was prompted by our view on the rising public debt burden and our perception of greater policymaking uncertainty, consistent with our criteria (see “Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions ,” June 30, 2011, especially Paragraphs 36-41). Nevertheless, we view the U.S. federal government’s other economic, external, and monetary credit attributes, which form the basis for the sovereign rating, as broadly unchanged.
We have taken the ratings off CreditWatch because the Aug. 2 passage of the Budget Control Act Amendment of 2011 has removed any perceived immediate threat of payment default posed by delays to raising the government’s debt ceiling. In addition, we believe that the act provides sufficient clarity to allow us to evaluate the likely course of U.S. fiscal policy for the next few years.
The political brinksmanship 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. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year’s wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently. Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.
Our opinion is that elected officials remain wary of tackling the structural issues required to effectively address the rising U.S. public debt burden in a manner consistent with a ‘AAA’ rating and with ‘AAA’ rated sovereign peers (see Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions,” June 30, 2011, especially Paragraphs 36-41). In our view, the difficulty in framing a consensus on fiscal policy weakens the government’s ability to manage public finances and diverts attention from the debate over how to achieve more balanced and dynamic economic growth in an era of fiscal stringency and private-sector deleveraging (ibid). A new political consensus might (or might not) emerge after the 2012 elections, but we believe that by then, the government debt burden will likely be higher, the needed medium-term fiscal adjustment potentially greater, and the inflection point on the U.S. population’s demographics and other age-related spending drivers closer at hand (see “Global Aging 2011: In The U.S., Going Gray Will Likely Cost Even more Green, Now,” June 21, 2011).​
Click to expand...


#53

Officer_Charon

Officer_Charon

Okay... I know I'm going to receive an inordinate amount of flak for this... but why on earth do we have a debt ceiling if we can just vote it up when it becomes inconvenient?

It's my understanding (limited though it may be), that a debt ceiling is a limit on how much the government is allowed to borrow (something I also don't understand...), and if the government can just vote the limit upwards, what is the purpose of it in the first place?


#54

Krisken

Krisken

Felix Salmon of Reuters is right there with ya, Charon.


#55

Officer_Charon

Officer_Charon

Now... I'll be the first to admit that my knowledge of the U.S. political machine is disgustingly minimal, but... my momma always taught me to never get in debt in the first place.... why would we want MORE?!


#56

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

Officer_Charon said:
Now... I'll be the first to admit that my knowledge of the U.S. political machine is disgustingly minimal, but... my momma always taught me to never get in debt in the first place.... why would we want MORE?!
Click to expand...
Because no government program once begun, can ever be cut. It's easy to bitch about "government waste", and the studies into "cow farts" and "shrimp on treadmills" make good copy for the wingnut chat shows. But if that project is in your district, you fight like hell to keep that government money rolling in for as long as you can. And you have industry lobbyists pushing you and you colleagues to make sure it keeps rolling in. Forever.

tl;dr Cut ALL the programs! Cut *all* the programs?


#57

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

Officer_Charon said:
Now... I'll be the first to admit that my knowledge of the U.S. political machine is disgustingly minimal, but... my momma always taught me to never get in debt in the first place.... why would we want MORE?!
Click to expand...
Debt gives us more funds to run our country on and is basically the only way to do so because of our political system, especially our anonymous political donation laws. If you try to raise taxes, you get called greedy and you won't get elected. If you try to reduce government spending to social programs, you get called heartless and you won't get elected. If you try to reduce military spending, you get called a coward and won't get elected...

So the only real option is to borrow from other nations and private finance groups to keep everything running. This works because, up until now, the average citizen wasn't really aware of how much we owed, who we owed it to, and exactly how much power our lenders have over our economy. Now that it's out in the open (mainly because the Tea Party lost their god damn minds), we may see a change in this.


#58

Officer_Charon

Officer_Charon

Yeah... funny thing about bread and circuses....


#59

@Li3n

@Li3n

Officer_Charon said:
Now... I'll be the first to admit that my knowledge of the U.S. political machine is disgustingly minimal, but... my momma always taught me to never get in debt in the first place.... why would we want MORE?!
Click to expand...
Because if you don't you'll lose your house, the car, your job etc. and you'll have to live in a dumpster...

Or cut everything like the brits did and end up with rioting.


#60

Adam

Adammon

I thought this was a particularly marketable idea: http://www.onecentsolution.org/ Everyone understands "A Penny" and cuts are made across large swaths of the government without the politics of specifically targeting certain groups.

Of course, the fact that everyone gets targeted means no one wants it, so it'll never pass.


#61

Jay

Jay

The economy is so bad that Anglina Jolie is adopting American kids now.


#62



TheBrew

Adammon said:
I thought this was a particularly marketable idea: http://www.onecentsolution.org/ Everyone understands "A Penny" and cuts are made across large swaths of the government without the politics of specifically targeting certain groups.

Of course, the fact that everyone gets targeted means no one wants it, so it'll never pass.
Click to expand...
I do like the sound of it and you are correct in that no one will want it because everyone is targeted. However, I am always wary of 'simple solutions' as they can ignore complex problems. That wariness mostly comes from listening to the TEA party which have absolutely simple-minded solutions to every problem.

One issue is that a 1% cut every year will be more because of inflation, so it will actually be worse cut. Maintaining spending levels can be considered >1% cut if you factor in inflation.


#63

Covar

Covar

TheBrew said:
I do like the sound of it and you are correct in that no one will want it because everyone is targeted. However, I am always wary of 'simple solutions' as they can ignore complex problems. That wariness mostly comes from listening to the TEA party which have absolutely simple-minded solutions to every problem.

One issue is that a 1% cut every year will be more because of inflation, so it will actually be worse cut. Maintaining spending levels can be considered >1% cut if you factor in inflation.
Click to expand...
Spending more money than you're making is a very simple problem, with 3 simple solutions.

1) you can make more money
2) you can spend less money
3) you can make more money while spending less

Of course you could go the route our government picked, don't make more money while still spending more than you're making.


#64

Adam

Adammon

TheBrew said:
I do like the sound of it and you are correct in that no one will want it because everyone is targeted. However, I am always wary of 'simple solutions' as they can ignore complex problems. That wariness mostly comes from listening to the TEA party which have absolutely simple-minded solutions to every problem.

One issue is that a 1% cut every year will be more because of inflation, so it will actually be worse cut. Maintaining spending levels can be considered >1% cut if you factor in inflation.
Click to expand...
Complex problems aren't solved by complex solutions, they're created by them. You can see that in the current US tax code. Not that I'm advocating the Fair Tax or anything but loopholes are created by the complexity of the system, not by its simplicity. Telling a department "You have to cut your expenditures 1%" is a relatively simple thing to do.

As for inflation, one of its root causes is government expenditure...


#65



TheBrew

Covar said:
Spending more money than you're making is a very simple problem, with 3 simple solutions.

1) you can make more money
2) you can spend less money
3) you can make more money while spending less

Of course you could go the route our government picked, don't make more money while still spending more than you're making.
Click to expand...
Not to say that our spending vs. revenue is unbalanced (because it is), but I think that you cannot really compare personal spending vs. government spending as they offer on much different principles. Business spending would be closer, but still not analogous IMO.


#66

Chad Sexington

Chad Sexington

Adammon said:
I thought this was a particularly marketable idea: http://www.onecentsolution.org/ Everyone understands "A Penny" and cuts are made across large swaths of the government without the politics of specifically targeting certain groups.

Of course, the fact that everyone gets targeted means no one wants it, so it'll never pass.
Click to expand...
Two articles by a blogger which highlight some concerns with the Penny Plan:
http://www.libertyreborn.com/2011/07/29/the-mack-penny-plan-more-smoke-and-no-mirrors/
http://www.libertyreborn.com/2011/07/30/complaints-about-my-criticism-of-the-mack-penny-plan/


#67



TheBrew

It brings up some good concerns vis-a-vis the plan's predictions on GDP and revenue, but holy Chocolate-Bunny-Pooping-Christ is that guy an idiot. I read his plan to fix the budget and it was insane. No money to protect our water supply? :Leyla:


#68

SpecialKO

SpecialKO

It's a good point about how revenue uncertainty is kind of a key factor in whether that kind of plan can ultimately work, but small across-the-board cuts with some flexibility doesn't seem like an overall bad idea.

EDIT: I think there also needs to be some focus on how money is spent, but cutting budgets can be an excellent motivator when it comes to streamlining.


#69

Adam

Adammon

Chad Sexington said:
Two articles by a blogger which highlight some concerns with the Penny Plan:
http://www.libertyreborn.com/2011/07/29/the-mack-penny-plan-more-smoke-and-no-mirrors/
http://www.libertyreborn.com/2011/07/30/complaints-about-my-criticism-of-the-mack-penny-plan/
Click to expand...
His criticism seems to be based purely on "We don't know what's going to happen in 8 years re: GDP, budget, etc" which is a really....strange (Being nice here) line of argument against a plan. I want to buy a chocolate bar for lunch, but I don't know what's going to happen in 8 years, so I shouldn't..

He's advocating for even more drastic cuts which suggest he's not concerned about reality, he's concerned about ideology.


#70

Chad Sexington

Chad Sexington

Adammon said:
His criticism seems to be based purely on "We don't know what's going to happen in 8 years re: GDP, budget, etc" which is a really....strange (Being nice here) line of argument against a plan. I want to buy a chocolate bar for lunch, but I don't know what's going to happen in 8 years, so I shouldn't..

He's advocating for even more drastic cuts which suggest he's not concerned about reality, he's concerned about ideology.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I didn't explore his blog much... I had just happened across it (from another source), and having read about the plan here... Also while I understand economic concerns to an extent, I won't pretend at being any kind of expert.


#71

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

Apparently S&P stood to make a shitload of cash over the downgrade. They are now being investigated.


#72

Tress

Tress

AshburnerX said:
Apparently S&P stood to make a shitload of cash over the downgrade. They are now being investigated.
Click to expand...
On one hand, it would be just like those greedy bastards at S&P to twist the market to their advantage while screwing people over. On the other hand, it would be just like those stupid bastards at the SEC to make these accusations as a way of getting back at S&P. So either way someone is probably being a bastard here. It's like watching two snakes eat each other.


#73

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

Somebodies going to jail. That much is certain. The only question is who's going to be the sacrificial lamb for S&P.


#74

DarkAudit

DarkAudit

AshburnerX said:
Somebodies going to jail. That much is certain. The only question is who's going to be the sacrificial lamb for S&P.
Click to expand...
Whomever Goldman Sachs says to lock up.


#75

Espy

Espy

DarkAudit said:
Whomever Goldman Sachs says to lock up.
Click to expand...
Pretty much.


Top