DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I'm commenting on what it's done to my portfolio.
S&P just downgraded the US debt outlook to negative. Read more: http://www.businessi
- Thread starter DamnYankee
- Start date
And I'm telling you that "it" has nothing to do with the value of your portfolio. "It" was a non-event. If it had any impact on anything, it would have impacted the interest rate on treasuries. It didn't.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Bullshit! Not according to Liberals PRIOR to 2008! When WE made that same argument, you all claimed it was bullshit, that Bush could end the wars and bring the troops home, that staying there one more day, was causing more harm than good... causing them to hate us more... causing more Americans to die. You didn't want to hear any excuses, nothing was reasonable, we needed to end the war and bring them home, PERIOD! Now.... it's something that "involves a bit more" and we can't just up and leave! You didn't understand or comprehend this under Bush, it's a relatively NEW pinhead revelation. Not only have you discovered justification for continuing two wars, you have justified ANOTHER war too!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No one has EVER made the argument or case for a war on the basis of "we can afford it!" That is just not something that has ever happened. I have never known of a case where the decision to go to war was based on finances, and what can be afforded. It's this kind of comment that makes you look like a really stupid person. No one has "admitted there was extra money" ....I haven't heard it! We are $13 trillion in debt! Try to get that through your stupid pinhead! We don't have "extra money" because we have a debt of $13 trillion! We're not faking that! We're not PRETENDING we have a $13 trillion debt, we really do have the debt!
Don't forget the "secret" war in Pakistan where we bomb them with remote controlled airplanes, which, according to democrats before Obama was elected, causes further animosity towards the US as they kill indiscriminately, the same democrats who are silent when it is Obama in office who increased drone attacks killing still more brown people who suddenly don't matter quite as much as they did pre-Obama...
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Note to Apple.... FYI.... the DEMS controlled the purse strings as of early 2007. they did nothing to stop the spending. They are doing nothing now to stop the spending. The costs of the war are now minimal compared to the wasteful deficit spending amounts being shelled out of DC right now.
this is not to say Bush wasn't horrid fiscally, he was. But the continued insanity is now firmly in the hands of the Dems.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
They were not downgraded. The US was put on negative watch. This is simply a warning shot across the bow. Nothing more.
apple0154
MEOW
Yes, it did happen. I saw the interview. Unfortunately, I don't recall every interview I've ever seen but when asked about the Iraq war Cheney said it was an option they could afford. That interview took place years after the war started. Obviously, it was not the reason given at the time.
Regardless, here is a short interview with Cheney. The Bush Administration could never confirm a connection between Iraq and 911 and the possibility Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was low. The whole interview is only 2:41.
Cheney, in other interviews, has said he would have done the same thing the same way even after knowing those facts.
The point is everyone knows a war costs money. Even after Cheney knowing there was no reason to go into Iraq he said he still would have gone into Iraq. What does that tell you? It tells me he took the money and resources from the American people when 43 million didn't have medical insurance and he would have done the same thing even with the benefit of hindsight.
(Excerpt) As of February 2010, around $704 billion has been spent based on estimates of current expenditure rates, which range from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimate of $2 billion per week to $12 billion a month, an estimate by economist Joseph Stiglitz.
Those figures are significantly more than typical estimates published just prior to the start of the Iraq War, many of which were based on a shorter term of involvement. For example, in a March 16, 2003 Meet the Press interview of Vice President Dick Cheney, held less than a week before the Iraq War began, host Tim Russert reported that "every analysis said this war itself would cost about $80 billion, recovery of Baghdad, perhaps of Iraq, about $10 billion per year. We should expect as American citizens that this would cost at least $100 billion for a two-year involvement.". (End)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War
Are you following along here. Cheney would have still gone to war knowing it would take 700 billion dollars out of the pockets of the American people. That's one hell of a lot of doctor's appointments!
Remember, we're not talking "if he knew". It wouldn't have made any difference. He knows now and he said he would do it again. The Repubs not only spent the money that should have been used for social programs but ensured there wouldn't be any more money by lowering taxes on the wealthy. Do they have to carry a sign saying "To hell with the American people" before folks wake up?
See, I leave for a few days and no one calls you on your bullshit! There are those of us who do protest his bombing of any brown people, got it!!!!!!!
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
He's talking about congress critters Froggy.
I already have, and especially the Baggers, who seems to be willing to do this country a mess of harm with their junior representatives!
I know of a few that did, Kucinich and Sanders!
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Are you suggesting that no new blood should enter the government?
apple0154
MEOW
I agree the Dems are spending. It's pretty much inevitable both parties will spend. The problem is they spend on their pet projects so the question is what "projects" are helping the American people? The Repubs tend to favor military and big business while the Dems favor unions and social programs. Which ever party is in power spends all the money so there isn't any left for the opposition's projects which is what the Repubs did for eight years. Now that Obama is in the White House people say there's no money for social programs like medical care. If medical care is not implemented now once the Repubs get the White House it will never be implemented because there will always be a deficit which will be the excuse. The point being social programs are affordable if the military budget is cut and the taxes raised to where they were for decades.
The tax rates are currently lower than they've been in a long time. http://www.upi.com/Business_News/20...-at-lowest-point-in-years/UPI-74091273594893/
The situation can be corrected but the focus has to be to put social programs first. They are the things that enable people to see where their tax dollars are going.
The current mess can't be cleaned up in a couple of years. As the military slowly come home and taxes are slightly raised on the wealthy the deficit will come down and at the same time social programs will come on line. Social programs should be the last thing to cut as virtually everyone will benefit from one program or the other.
As the article states, "The idea that taxes are high right now is pretty much nuts," said Michael Ettlinger, head of economic policy at the Center for American Progress. The tax rate has fallen 26 percent since 2007..."
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you have no sense of the necessity of junior inexperienced lawmakers. that's sad. you need some serious framer history lessons.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
yeah, I read it in the paper......oh, wait.......
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
How it impacts your daily life:
http://www2.journalnow.com/business/2011/apr/21/WSBIZ01-the-briefcase-for-april-21-ar-965537/
Of course, the dollar has not been sliding since the S&P announcement. In fact, the Euro fell in value relative to the dollar in the immediate aftermath of the announcement. If the S&P announcement were taken seriously, it would not have taken two days to have effect. Like I said, it was a total non-event.
And the reasons why it was a total non-event are pretty clear. S&P doesn't know dick about the likelihood of a failure to raise the debt ceiling or budget negotiations than the market generally. It is not privy to inside information concerning the finances of the United States government that is not available to everyone else. The financial stability of the United States is not akin to mortgage-backed securities that no one really understands or has full knowledge of the risk associated with the investment such that the rating agencies are useful (in theory, but not in practice) to assist investors.