Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

S&P downgrade wasn't only about politics...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 08:38 AM
Original message
S&P downgrade wasn't only about politics...
In other words, though the way political leaders talk and bargain over the coming weeks will be of significance, it's the long-term structural issues that will be key. These, of course, seem extremely intractable; hence this turmoil happening in the first place. Regaining that AAA rating could yet be some way off.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/where-do-we-go-from-here-political-leaders-react-to-the-sp-downgrade.php?ref=fpa

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
1. 1. End the wars
2. Use that money to fund WPA-type programs, not another trickle-down POS
3. Medicare for all should bring costs down by 30% or more.
4. Restore historically-normal taxes on the wealthiest

Problem solved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. $1 trillion in Afghanistan and Iraq cuts already in the baseline.
That won't do a thing.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. We were supposed to be in Afghanistan and Iraq for the next 10 years?
which is it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Your source for "$1 trillion...already in the baseline"?


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/08/03/119360/deficit-cutting-deal-may-not-dent.html

Deficit-cutting deal may not dent defense spending much

WASHINGTON — The new deficit-cutting law appears to reduce defense spending by $350 billion up front and perhaps by as much as $850 billion over 10 years, but in fact that's highly unlikely to happen.

The initial $350 billion cut calls for slicing that much money over 10 years not from the Pentagon alone but from a broader group of funds labeled "defense and security." That includes programs such as homeland security, border enforcement, foreign aid and even veterans' benefits as potential targets.

And the new law's threat of an additional $500 billion in 10-year cuts from Pentagon budgets is thought to be so unacceptable to most lawmakers that they're likely to come up with alternatives that spread the pain far more broadly over the full range of federal programs.

Shaped in part by Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., the influential chairman of the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, the complicated budget deal disperses the initial $350 billion in so-called "defense and security" savings well beyond the Pentagon. Consequently, weapons-makers could be the winner in what comes next.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Are the Dems BSing us?
$1 Trillion in Savings From Winding Down the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will save $1 trillion.

http://democrats.senate.gov/2011/07/25/fact-sheet-100-of-spending-cuts-in-reid-debt-reduction-plan-were-supported-by-gop/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. You linked to something dated July 25, 2011
That was from the Reid plan.

Question: What happened to the Reid plan when it was voted on in the Senate on July 31?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/07/senate-defeats-reid-plan-leaders-work-to-finalize-deal-today.html">Answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. It's in the CBO's baseline.
Legal Requirement
While required by law to issue a current-policy estimate as its “baseline” projection, the CBO offered an alternative analysis. It calculated it would save $1.1 trillion by reducing forces to a combined 45,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq by 2015, down about 100,000 from today -- roughly in line with President Barack Obama’s announced plans.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-26/troop-cuts-become-easy-cost-savings-for-debt-reduction-plans.html


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. For the second time, Reid's plan didn't pass
The CBO's "alternative analysis" of an alleged $1.1 trillion in money that wouldn't have been spent anyway was not adopted in the final Obama/GOP debt deal.

And leaving Iraq and Afghanistan in 10 years years is not "ending the war".



Under Washington’s budget rules, the Congressional Budget Office is required to assume that war spending will stay at current levels of $159 billion a year, plus inflation, for the next 10 years, at a cost of $1.8 trillion.

Based on that official “baseline” projection, Reid, a Nevada Democrat, may count the already-begun reduction of U.S. forces as a cut.

snip

Analysts such as Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington agreed.

“Let’s not fool ourselves into thinking these are real savings,” said Harrison. “This is money we were never going to spend anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Jeez, Manny--
You been cribbing rom my posts again? :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Was it you who posted almost the same thing a week or two ago?
Can you point me to that so i can give credit in the future? I forgot to save it.

Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. I've been saying pretty much the same thing for years.
I don't claim to any particular originality, though. These ideas oght to be obvious to any progressive with a sense of history, and of the larger issues we're about to face. I was just teasing about the cribbing business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Someone posted a four-point platform a couple of weeks ago
I'd been struggling to come up with something concise for a while, but that post nailed it. If it was yours, thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 09:20 AM
Response to Original message
7. The Hangover of A Society That Said "Charge It"...
In the 70s this country began to live on the "I want it now" philosophy. Easy credit meant you could have the car you wanted or house or Betamax and as long as you made the payments all was golden. In the 80s the government began to run this way as well. Raygun needed to placate the growing corporate welfare and military industrial base and the credit card began to charge up. Since we're such a big country that affects other economies, the U.S. could get the credit limit pushed upwards. Things went into hyperspace during the boooosh years when two expensive wars were put on that charge card while revenues decreased. When the bubble burst in '08 it saw not just a tightening of credit but a closer accounting of who owed what to whom.

This downgrade is political as it shows how little confidence Wall Street has in the ability of this government to deal with anything other than naming Post Offices. There are a loud, vocal minority that has hijacked the ability of the government to generate revenue...and if you can't earn money, would a creditor be willing to take a risk on you?

There needs to be a long term systemic fix to government spending and revenues...but politicians only see things in short term and that's the only fixes we can expect.

Cheers...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
13. You have to be sillier than a child (or at least paid to be) to see it as anything but politics
Edited on Sun Aug-07-11 12:24 PM by jpgray
Don't take it from me--take it from those who know more than either of us:

S&P downgrading the United States is like Consumer Reports downgrading Coca-Cola. Consumer Reports is a great institution. For example, if you want to know how reliable a 2007 Ford Explorer is going to be, they have done more research than anyone to figure out the reliability history of every single vehicle. Those ratings are a real public service, since they add information to the world. But when it comes to Coke and Pepsi, everyone has an opinion already, and no one cares which one, according to Consumer Reports, “really” tastes better. When S&P rated some tranche of a CDO AAA back in 2006, it meant that some poor analyst had run some model fed to her by an investment bank and made sure that the rows and columns added up correctly, and the default probability percentage at the end was below some threshold. It might have been crappy information, but it was new information. When S&P rates long-term Treasuries AA+, it means . . . nothing. And if any serious buy-side investor were tempted to take S&P’s rating into account, she would be deterred by the fact that the analysis that produced the rating included a $2 trillion arithmetic error.


http://baselinescenario.com/2011/08/06/so-what-part-two/#more-9228

Meanwhile, the CBO estimates potential real GDP in 2021 at about $18 trillion in 2005 dollars, or around $19 trillion in 2011 dollars.

Put these together, and they say that an extra trillion in borrowing adds something like 0.07% of GDP in future debt service costs. Yes, that zero belongs there. The $4 trillion S&P said it needed to see clocks in at less than 0.3% of GDP.

These are not, to say the least, make or break numbers. So what are we talking about here?

America does have a long-run fiscal problem, driven by the combination of rising health costs, an aging population, and the unwillingness to raise taxes to pay for the programs we already have. If we don’t come to grips with that problem, bad things will happen. But what happens to the deficit in the medium term is almost irrelevant to the question of whether our long-run finances will get under control.

Yet S&P (and others) obsess about those medium-term numbers, without ever explaining why. Maybe they think there’s some critical level of debt — but they don’t know that. Maybe they think that fiscal austerity over the next decade will somehow guarantee good behavior further out — but that didn’t work in the 1990s. Or maybe they’re just pulling stuff out of regions I can’t mention in the Times.


http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/06/the-arithmetic-of-near-term-deficits-and-debt/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
14. We can sit here and postulate all day that "Washington is broken"
and the punditry can pick up on the crazy fringes talking about it.
BUT...it comes down to this.
ANY legislation that is getting through is being done by sheer bully force.
Our side apparently doesn't have the stomach to engage in this...and the republicans are fully taking advantage of this.

But the truth is...there is no GOVERNANCE. None. And the rest of the world knows it. We here know it.
But there is a wave of denial in this country. Oh sure "nothing is getting done in Washington" is a meme meant to discredit the party in power...but this time, it is true.

There is no good indicator to the WORLD that we can come to a consensus of ANYTHING of importance.

We can't get judges approved, we can't get anyone appointed to key positions, we can't pass a budget without hostages, we can't even do the mundane (like the debt ceiling) without pure politics playing a key role. We are to the point of being broken beyond repair.

Along the way, those that saw this day coming began dropping in "rules". Both parties have done this. Hell, they don't even have to FILIBUSTER any more...they just have to say they will and we accept that as "the way it is".

I have no illusions that the folks partaking in this folly will come to their senses. They won't.
This will only embolden them. Instead of being better...I fully expect that things will become MUCH MUCH worse.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
16. It's ideological.
But I can't keep people from buying in. Will medicare have to change? Yes, but not the way they will do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 10:50 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC