User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 111

  1. #61
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,025

    Default

    Reread what S&P have stated again. That's not what they're saying.

  2. #62
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    I know what it's saying.

    I was referencing the part I highlighted.

    What it mentions about political brinkmanship in the beginning of the post I assumed as general "duh" knowledge.

  3. #63
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,025

    Default

    Highlighting phrases out of context doesn't change what S&P is saying. A kidnapper's glued together ransom note snipped out of a daily newspaper, doesn't mean that the newspaper agrees with what is being demanded.

  4. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    470

    Default

    If you want actual cuts on the militairy, you would need a president which with the foreign policy to do so. Guess but 1 man on the stage for that, Ron Paul

  5. #65
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Highlighting phrases out of context doesn't change what S&P is saying. A kidnapper's glued together ransom note snipped out of a daily newspaper, doesn't mean that the newspaper agrees with what is being demanded.
    You're angering me.

    I fucking know what I'm talking about.

    I've read 5 or six articles (from respected publications) about this prior to posting in this thread to make sure I had my facts correct.

    In every one of those articles the portion I highlighted was quoted and used to get a quick gist of what was being said in S&P's statement.

    Specifically, the most glaring reasons as to why S&P downgraded.

    In no way do these highlights misrepresent what S&P is trying to say, they merely illuminate two solutions that, had they been achieved, would have weighed against a decision to downgrade.

    Everything I have posted is germane to what I'm trying to say, and where the discussion was headed.

    I don't know what you're getting at here, but it has no bearing on what I've posted.

    If you think I'm wrong... fine that's you're right.

    But where do you get off suggesting I haven't done my homework on this?

    I have, and generally have more supportive background knowledge on the subject than most anyone else here.

    Make you're arguments don't bitch about mine.

  6. #66
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,025

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tantive View Post
    If you want actual cuts on the militairy, you would need a president which with the foreign policy to do so. Guess but 1 man on the stage for that, Ron Paul
    Years ago, I used to think Ron Paul was someone worth voting for. After the global financial meltdown, I now believe he's delusional. We're no longer in the WW2 era and while simplicity can be the most elegant solution, gutting the entire system using old style measures, would damage the U.S. and the entire democratic "free" world beyond recovery for decades to come. It's way too late for many of his "solutions" of which the worst one would be to revert to the gold standard.

  7. #67
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    You're spinning. It was a do or die vote. S&P is saying that what's happened which includes no tax revenue increases, isn't enough.
    No, I'm disagreeing with you. All the more reason for Democrats and Republicans alike to vote for it rather than risk default. And I'm saying that without the Tea Party in congress, the debt ceiling would have risen along with new stimulus measures and tax increases without corresponding budget cuts.

  8. #68
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    If the Democrats pulled these kind of tricks to get through policies they prefer (e.g. universal healthcare), do you think anybody would be using metaphors of blackmail, extortion, and kidnapping? No, they'd call it democracy in action, and, they'd say, representatives were just doing what their constituents voted them in for.

    Personally, I don't think more tax revenue will help, because the problem is systemic. Apparently, politicians have an incentive to keep running up unsustainable liabilities. If they have more revenue, then they'll just spend proportionally more until they're back in the same predicament. The discipline has to come on the spending and borrowing side eventually, like when ratings agencies begin downgrading long-term bonds.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  9. #69
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,025

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    You're angering me.

    I fucking know what I'm talking about.

    I've read 5 or six articles (from respected publications) about this prior to posting in this thread to make sure I had my facts correct.

    In every one of those articles the portion I highlighted was quoted and used to get a quick gist of what was being said in S&P's statement.

    Specifically, the most glaring reasons as to why S&P downgraded.

    In no way do these highlights misrepresent what S&P is trying to say, they merely illuminate two solutions that, had they been achieved, would have weighed against a decision to downgrade.

    Everything I have posted is germane to what I'm trying to say, and where the discussion was headed.

    I don't know what you're getting at here, but it has no bearing on what I've posted.

    If you think I'm wrong... fine that's you're right.

    But where do you get off suggesting I haven't done my homework on this?

    I have, and generally have more supportive background knowledge on the subject than most anyone else here.

    Make you're arguments don't bitch about mine.
    And your uncontrollable anger is supposed to concern me? Do you always react in anger when what you've stated isn't accurate?

    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.
    What this paragraph means to me is that S&P are saying that ideology and playing hardball are destabilising U.S. credibility on the world platform. The bolded says "comprehensive" which means that it covers "all".
    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.
    This paragraph indicates the differences between the "comprehensive" plan and what has happened which covers both new revenue increases (increase of tax dollars) and "containment of entitlements".

    S&P are saying that nancy boys have come to nancy boy agreements which do dick all. Get it?

  10. #70
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    What this paragraph means to me is that S&P are saying that ideology and playing hardball are destabilising U.S. credibility on the world platform. The bolded says "comprehensive" which means that it covers "all".
    Which doesn't contradict my statement at all. We weren't even discussing the negative affects of entrenched political stances on our financial stability.

    We had moved on to what specifically needed to have happened to forestall a downgrade. And more specifically, what specific policy failures led to the downgrade. And moving forward, what solutions would be most important for restoring faith in the economy.

    S&P are saying that nancy boys have come to nancy boy agreements which do dick all. Get it?
    Duh and/or hello. Already moved on from there.

    That paragraph also highlights the most important failures of the compromise deal, which I used possible policy solutions moving forward.
    Like I said before, it was an already acknowledged point that extremism in US politics negatively affects our economic outlook.

    And your uncontrollable anger is supposed to concern me? Do you always react in anger when what you've stated isn't accurate?
    No it should let you know that you need to pump you damn brakes on telling me what I'm saying, and whether or not what I've said is accurate.

    How could it not be accurate, the post was directly from S&P itself?

    And there was no flaw in my analysis, there was no analysis. I just reiterated what the statement itself had already said.

Similar Threads

  1. “I feel, for the first time in my life, that I am not invisible." - Donald Trump fan
    By Olm the Water King in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-27-2015, 08:01 AM
  2. For the first time, less than 10 percent of the world is living in extreme poverty
    By Olm the Water King in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-09-2015, 07:27 AM
  3. Just Watched The Godfather Trilogy For the First Time (Spoilers)
    By LunarMoon in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-14-2010, 12:48 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO