ForumGarden

Michele Bachman's position on this issue is completely contradictory and insane. Her argument, which was most succinctly articulated this morning on Face The Nation, is that Obama should be embarrassed and thrown out of office due to the downgrade. Bachman then goes on to say that the debt ceiling should not have been raised. So, essentially, what Michele is saying is the downgrade would not have occurred had the debt ceiling not been raised.

From what I remember is S&P's was threatening a downgrade if the ceiling were not raised, and the fact is that the reason the downgrade occurred anyway was due to letting the situation get too close to the wire and that there were no revenue included in the pending solution to the debt.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you agree with Ms. Bachman?

This is one of the agencies giving goldman sachs a AAA rating up until they went down the toilet. It's not the only agency but the main reason seems to be the political instability in the unites states. It's a concern shared elsewhere, especially china I suspect. Credit rating don't govern individual investors but institutional investors from the UK anyway when picking investments. It makes US stocks less attractive and whose going to touch your government bonds

Rachel Maddow Show

Some of your candidates don't seem to be terribly rational or maybe just don't understand it's not quite like making a late payment on a car loan

View from the other side.

Time to wait while market volatility plays out — RT

Rachel Maddow Show

:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

You couldn't make this up could you?

Ahso!;1365176 wrote: Michele Bachman's position on this issue is completely contradictory and insane. Her argument, which was most succinctly articulated this morning on Face The Nation, is that Obama should be embarrassed and thrown out of office due to the downgrade. Bachman then goes on to say that the debt ceiling should not have been raised. So, essentially, what Michele is saying is the downgrade would not have occurred had the debt ceiling not been raised.

From what I remember is S&P's was threatening a downgrade if the ceiling were not raised, and the fact is that the reason the downgrade occurred anyway was due to letting the situation get too close to the wire and that there were no revenue included in the pending solution to the debt.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you agree with Ms. Bachman?


My thought is that I do not agree with Bachman on most of her positions and think she has as much chance of becoming president as I do. I'll give 6 to one odds that she will never ever get nominated.

S&P is one of ... what? ... 3 major credit rating agencies, right? The other two kept the AAA rating. S&P dropped us from AAA to AA+. Not a huge difference other than emotional.

If the federal government had decided to continue spending at the current rate without increasing, by their own weird-ass calculations it would equate to a $9 trillion spending cut, far more than S&P was asking for. That's without cutting anything at all. It could have been done without any gnashing of teeth or plagues in the streets, but it would have been *gasp* unpopular.

Accountable;1365243 wrote: S&P is one of ... what? ... 3 major credit rating agencies, right? The other two kept the AAA rating. S&P dropped us from AAA to AA+. Not a huge difference other than emotional.

If the federal government had decided to continue spending at the current rate without increasing, by their own weird-ass calculations it would equate to a $9 trillion spending cut, far more than S&P was asking for. That's without cutting anything at all. It could have been done without any gnashing of teeth or plagues in the streets, but it would have been *gasp* unpopular.


The real issue was debt payments to bond holders, they take priority so it meant veterans and pensioners and government contractors would not have received their cheques. If you default and pay veterans and pensioners and not bond holders the capacity of the US to borrow money would disappear - think of it as a working over draught, don't make an interest payment on an over draught what happens. Institutional investors in the US would be among the first to stop buying US govt bonds.

As a private investor would you buy them knowing the interest payments might not be made?

So I take it you agree with Bachmann?

Accountable;1365243 wrote: S&P is one of ... what? ... 3 major credit rating agencies, right? The other two kept the AAA rating. S&P dropped us from AAA to AA+. Not a huge difference other than emotional.Chances are the only reason the affects of this downgrade have been negligible so far is due to the fact that other economies, especially European countries have had problems as well, that's a bit of luck. Don't think we're not going to feel aftershocks at some point. The fact is Moody's and Finch would have likely downgraded the U.S. had the ceiling not been raised. Moody's and Finch have been kind, that's all.

Accountable;1365243 wrote: If the federal government had decided to continue spending at the current rate without increasing, by their own weird-ass calculations it would equate to a $9 trillion spending cut, far more than S&P was asking for. That's without cutting anything at all. It could have been done without any gnashing of teeth or plagues in the streets, but it would have been *gasp* unpopular.I'm not sure what to make of this gibberish. If you'd like to either clarify or reconstruct what you mean into something coherent, I'll take another look at it.

Ahso!;1365267 wrote: I'm not sure what to make of this gibberish. If you'd like to either clarify or reconstruct what you mean into something coherent, I'll take another look at it.It's not gibberish. You're just pretending to be obtuse.

gmc;1365264 wrote: The real issue was debt payments to bond holders, they take priority so it meant veterans and pensioners and government contractors would not have received their cheques. If you default and pay veterans and pensioners and not bond holders the capacity of the US to borrow money would disappear - think of it as a working over draught, don't make an interest payment on an over draught what happens. Institutional investors in the US would be among the first to stop buying US govt bonds.

As a private investor would you buy them knowing the interest payments might not be made?
The so-called "cuts" were in future increases in spending. Stopping those increases means that everybody gets paid just as they're getting paid today. Bonds are being paid; bonds would continue to be paid. Even if additional money were needed to make up any deficit (which I seriously doubt, given that we would be cutting over 8 times the amount the current agreement) then we have that $9 trillion of fictional money to play with.

Your last question isn't really relevant, since bond sales didn't drop.

Accountable;1365280 wrote:



The so-called "cuts" were in future increases in spending. Stopping those increases means that everybody gets paid just as they're getting paid today. Bonds are being paid; bonds would continue to be paid. Even if additional money were needed to make up any deficit (which I seriously doubt, given that we would be cutting over 8 times the amount the current agreement) then we have that $9 trillion of fictional money to play with.

Your last question isn't really relevant, since bond sales didn't drop.


They didn't drop because they came to an agreement. If they had defaulted what do you think would have happened? China won't sell them as that would rapidly deflate the prices they also have to worry if the US can't buy their exports it would mean unemployment in china. But it's a safe bet they are looking for other markets and also that they will think twice about buying the new issues as indeed will Europe, we've got enough problems of our own. It would be a pity of the US picked a fight with china as an excuse not to pay it's debts. Not saying they will but any sabre rattling by the US might be viewed in that light. Not saying they will but stranger things have happened and the US has a history of creating incidents as a Casus belli. I can't see the dollar being the worlds currency for much longer either.

Accountable;1365280 wrote: The so-called "cuts" were in future increases in spending.What cuts are you referring to? Accountable;1365280 wrote: Stopping those increases means that everybody gets paid just as they're getting paid today.Could we please widdle this down from 'everybody' to those you're actually referring to. Accountable;1365280 wrote: Bonds are being paid;TrueAccountable;1365280 wrote: bonds would continue to be paid. Even if additional money were needed to make up any deficit (which I seriously doubt, given that we would be cutting over 8 times the amount the current agreement) then we have that $9 trillion of fictional money to play with.Is your reference about bonds related to what you say about "any deficit", or are you talking about separate issues here. Not sure, would you mind clarifying.

And all this is related to the thread topic in that you're defending Michele Bachmann's position? An answer would be helpful.

gmc;1365281 wrote: They didn't drop because they came to an agreement. If they had defaulted what do you think would have happened? China won't sell them as that would rapidly deflate the prices they also have to worry if the US can't buy their exports it would mean unemployment in china. But it's a safe bet they are looking for other markets and also that they will think twice about buying the new issues as indeed will Europe, we've got enough problems of our own. It would be a pity of the US picked a fight with china as an excuse not to pay it's debts. Not saying they will but any sabre rattling by the US might be viewed in that light. Not saying they will but stranger things have happened and the US has a history of creating incidents as a Casus belli. I can't see the dollar being the worlds currency for much longer either.That's not accurate. They didn't drop because demand remained strong, in fact demand grew in spit of the downgrade, which was surprising to many economists. And the reason U.S. Treasury Bonds remained strong was and still is because in the face of what's happening in Europe, where else are people willing to put their money during volatility in the market?

I'd say give it a week or two and demand in the bond market will drop significantly provided the market continues to recover. However, anything goes right now, IMO.

Ahso!;1365284 wrote: That's not accurate. They didn't drop because demand remained strong, in fact demand grew in spit of the downgrade, which was surprising to many economists. And the reason U.S. Treasury Bonds remained strong was and still is because in the face of what's happening in Europe, where else are people willing to put there money during volatility in the market?

I'd say give it a week or two and demand in the bond market will drop significantly provided the market continues to recover. However, anything goes right now, IMO.


In to gold. Bond holders are in a cleft stick, if they sell prices will start to drop rapidly, better to hold and wait and see what happens and imo the agreement helped staved off a fall in demand. Bond prices are affected by the rate being paid a non payment would knock for six the notion it is a safe investment.

gmc;1365292 wrote: In to gold. Bond holders are in a cleft stick, if they sell prices will start to drop rapidly, better to hold and wait and see what happens and imo the agreement helped staved off a fall in demand. Bond prices are affected by the rate being paid a non payment would knock for six the notion it is a safe investment.Gold is very expensive right now and returns may end up being lower than may be gotten from bonds. To be clear, long term treasury bonds are not doing that well, it's short term that's being bought. That in itself signals some level of concern due to the downgrade.

Ahso!;1365283 wrote: Is your reference about bonds related to what you say about "any deficit", or are you talking about separate issues here. Not sure, would you mind clarifying.Meaning that if the spending freeze resulted in a real, immediate deficit, we could borrow enough to balance the books and still be far, far below the spending we currently project.

Ahso!;1365283 wrote: And all this is related to the thread topic in that you're defending Michele Bachmann's position? An answer would be helpful.
The position she stated or the position you extrapolated? How about I just give you my opinion instead.

The debt ceiling never needed to be raised. As I stated, stopping any increases in spending would be more than adequate.

The debt ceiling never should have been established in the first place. It is a pre-approval of debt that should not be made. We would be in much better shape financially if Congress were forced to debate and decide every time they tried to spend more money than they have.

just found this...

How Almost Everyone Just Got Screwed In One Chart | MoveOn.Org

Wow! Articles with that much spin should come with a warning and a dose of dramamine.

Accountable;1365536 wrote: Meaning that if the spending freeze resulted in a real, immediate deficit, we could borrow enough to balance the books and still be far, far below the spending we currently project.It's becoming more difficult to follow you. Perhaps If I asked you to list the specific spending you'd want to freeze?



Accountable;1365536 wrote: The position she stated or the position you extrapolated?Here's the transcript. I don't see how it could be interpreted any other way.REPRESENTATIVE MICHELE BACHMANN wrote: Well, President Obama had an all Democrat Congress and look what we got. This last week, we got a punch to the gut in the United States, like we've never seen before. We've never lost our AAA credit rating before. We've have absolutely anemic growth in the job creation numbers are-- are terrible.Here Bachmann seems to be saying S&P's downgrade was due to "anemic growth in the job creation numbers are-- are terrible." Besides the fact that she articulates herself terribly, S&P's said they downgraded our rating because congress could not do it's job effectively and that the political process has become circus-like. Bachmann is either intentionally misstating the truth or has comprehension problems. I think it's a combination of both. Also, we only got downgraded after Republicans took over the house so her facts there are wrong too. Michelle Bachmann wrote: I offered a plan, which is different from President Obama, who offered no plan. My plan was to tell the markets there is no problem with default. We will not default. And we'll-- we'll prioritize our spending. President Obama knew in January, that we were in trouble, but he presented a budget that had 1.5 trillion in failure. So he-- he in essence, his policies planned for this failure that we are in.She calls that a plan? What Bachmann (as well as you) apparently doesn't understand is that if the ceiling were not raised as was her (and your) preference all three of the credit rating bureaus would have downgraded us.



Accountable;1365536 wrote: How about I just give you my opinion instead.Since we're talking about a process, would you mind backing it up with some evidence instead of pure conjecture?

Accountable;1365536 wrote: The debt ceiling never needed to be raised.Not according to the credit rating bureaus. Perhaps you can point me to statements from Finch, Moody's and S&P's which prove your case? Accountable;1365536 wrote: As I stated, stopping any increases in spending would be more than adequate.Well, if we're borrowing what we spend, how would freezing spending provide revenue in order to pay down the debt or it's interest?

Accountable;1365536 wrote: The debt ceiling never should have been established in the first place. It is a pre-approval of debt that should not be made. We would be in much better shape financially if Congress were forced to debate and decide every time they tried to spend more money than they have.Woulda - coulda - shoulda. The debt ceiling is a fact of life and how we deal with it makes all the difference in the world. Stomping our feet and complaining it should not be there is immature.

Accountable;1365582 wrote: Wow! Articles with that much spin should come with a warning and a dose of dramamine.


Leaving spin aside do you do you disagree with the figures?

Ahso!;1365586 wrote: It's becoming more difficult to follow you. Perhaps If I asked you to list the specific spending you'd want to freeze?
Accountable;1365243 wrote: If the federal government had decided to continue spending at the current rate without increasing, by their own weird-ass calculations it would equate to a $9 trillion spending cut, far more than S&P was asking for. That's without cutting anything at all.


Ahso!;1365586 wrote: Also, we only got downgraded after Republicans took over the house You write like this was a sudden incident that just happened all by itself. We weren't downgraded because your beloved Democrat Party lost the Speaker's chair. It was just one consequence of a decade-plus-long tradition of spending without any concern of budget or repayment. As long as you and others keep blaming one half of The Party and voting for the other half, we'll never see anything but status quo and unchecked erosion of individual liberty.

Ahso!;1365586 wrote: She calls that a plan? What Bachmann (as well as you) apparently doesn't understand is that if the ceiling were not raised as was her (and your) preference all three of the credit rating bureaus would have downgraded us.So what??? We don't deserve a AAA credit rating. We overspend AND overborrow. We NEED to get Washington back under our control. If that means a devastating plunge in credit alllllll the way down half a letter, then that's a small price to pay. Far smaller than letting them continue mortgaging our grandchildren's future.

Ahso!;1365586 wrote: Since we're talking about a process, would you mind backing it up with some evidence instead of pure conjecture?Process?!? What have you offered other than conjecture? We're comparing opinions, nothing more.

Ahso!;1365586 wrote: Not according to the credit rating bureaus. Perhaps you can point me to statements from Finch, Moody's and S&P's which prove your case? Do your own research. I've already addressed this.

Accountable;1365243 wrote: If the federal government had decided to continue spending at the current rate without increasing, by their own weird-ass calculations it would equate to a $9 trillion spending cut, far more than S&P was asking for. That's without cutting anything at all.


Ahso!;1365586 wrote: Well, if we're borrowing what we spend, how would freezing spending provide revenue in order to pay down the debt or it's interest?By not increasing our spending, we wouldn't need to increase our borrowing.

Ahso!;1365586 wrote: Woulda - coulda - shoulda. The debt ceiling is a fact of life and how we deal with it makes all the difference in the world. Stomping our feet and complaining it should not be there is immature.Sure, so was slavery and Jim Crow. The debt ceiling is a law, a piece of paper that can be overturned at any time.

But the ceiling wouldn't matter if we forced Washington to operate within a budget. We'd never reach it.

gmc;1365589 wrote: Leaving spin aside do you do you disagree with the figures?
The figures aren't the point of the graphic. It's the outrageous implications. The "Bush tax cuts" which Obama extended were for all taxpayers. The moniker is a purely political ploy those with political agendas to sway the stupid. It did not cut anything at all from special education or anything else.

I could go down the entire list, but I'm hopeful that you see the point. I paid $50 for a new pair of shoes. A poor child can eat well for a week on $50. that doesn't mean that my spending starved a kid.

Accountable;1365708 wrote: You write like this was a sudden incident that just happened all by itself.No, if you follow the conversation, what I was pointing out was that Bacmann claimed democrats occupied both houses of congress when the downgrade occurred and her point was inaccurate.Accountable;1365708 wrote: We weren't downgraded because your beloved Democrat Party lost the Speaker's chair.There you go again putting your own spin on what was said Accountable;1365708 wrote: It was just one consequence of a decade-plus-long tradition of spending without any concern of budget or repayment.Talk about extrapolating. You either don't understand national economics or you're bull-headed, or you're reckless. It's probably a combination of all three.

Accountable;1365708 wrote: As long as you and others keep blaming one half of The Party and voting for the other half, we'll never see anything but status quo and unchecked erosion of individual liberty.For a person who claims to hate spin you sure rely on it often enough.

Accountable;1365708 wrote: So what??? We don't deserve a AAA credit rating. We overspend AND overborrow. We NEED to get Washington back under our control. If that means a devastating plunge in credit alllllll the way down half a letter, then that's a small price to pay. Far smaller than letting them continue mortgaging our grandchildren's future.You really don't understand economic policy even a little bit. Your ranting would seem more coherent and credible if you actually understood policy, instead you appear to be throwing tantrums. And the thing is, you don't appear to want to understand what's happening.

Stop viewing the economics of a country to your own home budget, they're not the same in most respects.

Accountable;1365708 wrote: Process?!? What have you offered other than conjecture? We're comparing opinions, nothing more.I began this thread talking about, point by point, what Michele Bachmann has claimed, you, OTOH have tried to take the discussion off topic while offering non-factual and unsupported claims.

Accountable;1365708 wrote: Do your own research. I've already addressed this. Yes you have, and your position is that you just don't care, and that, my friend, seems to be your position these days on just about everything.



Accountable;1365708 wrote: By not increasing our spending, we wouldn't need to increase our borrowing.Try viewing the spending as investing and then make choices from that perspective on where you believe the investments are wasteful and cut the borrowing based on those decisions instead of this reckless "cut - cut - cut" mantra that ignorant people are spouting. Then we can enjoy a meaningful conversation.

Accountable;1365708 wrote: Sure, so was slavery and Jim Crow. The debt ceiling is a law, a piece of paper that can be overturned at any time.The debt ceiling is a mechanism which broadcasts to the markets and the world that America plans to keep its commitment to the viability of it's economy and the investments of it's people and infrastructure.

Unfortunately, only one party is still committed to American's viability, and it isn't the Republican Party or The Ron Paul Conspiracy Party.

Accountable;1365708 wrote: But the ceiling wouldn't matter if we forced Washington to operate within a budget. We'd never reach it.You just don't get it.

Accountable;1365710 wrote: The figures aren't the point of the graphic. It's the outrageous implications. The "Bush tax cuts" which Obama extended were for all taxpayers. The moniker is a purely political ploy those with political agendas to sway the stupid. It did not cut anything at all from special education or anything else.

I could go down the entire list, but I'm hopeful that you see the point. I paid $50 for a new pair of shoes. A poor child can eat well for a week on $50. that doesn't mean that my spending starved a kid.The figures are GMC's point of the graphic, try dealing with them.