US AAA credit rating downgraded

[mongers]

I'm going to go out on limb here and say these last few days, even just Friday and Saturday are going to be seen in future as some sort of watershed, when the mask of economic pre-eminence / invincibility began to slip and the power shift towards China became apparent to all those willing to look through the usual patriotic bluster; Is America now in permanent decline ?

[Ideologue]

I'm going to go out on limb here and say these last few days, even just Friday and Saturday are going to be seen in future as some sort of watershed, when the mask of economic pre-eminence / invincibility began to slip and the power shift towards China became apparent to all those willing to look through the usual patriotic bluster; Is America now in permanent decline ?

Yes.  I take back what I said about hegemony the other day.

[citizen k]

I'm going to go out on limb here and say these last few days, even just Friday and Saturday are going to be seen in future as some sort of watershed, when the mask of economic pre-eminence / invincibility began to slip and the power shift towards China became apparent to all those willing to look through the usual patriotic bluster; Is America now in permanent decline ?

That's all well and good but there is nobody able to take the lead at this time. China does not have anywhere near the power you seem to want to give them.

[DGuller]

The most frustrating part is that the decline is self-inflicted.  Our undoing is the cultural conflict that started centuries ago, and was never resolved even after we went through a civil war because of it.

[Ideologue]

The most frustrating part is that the decline is self-inflicted.  Our undoing is the cultural conflict that started centuries ago, and was never resolved even after we went through a civil war because of it.

Rutherford B. Hayes: history's greatest monster?

[citizen k]

Our undoing is the cultural conflict that started centuries ago, and was never resolved even after we went through a civil war because of it.

Your history is confused. We went through a civil war because of budgetary arguments?

[Razgovory]

Adequate enough to avoid the downgrade?  Do you honestly believe that Congress will hold through with a budget plan that goes to 2030 (when the plan projects a balanced budget).

Let me give the boys at S&P a quick call to see if 6.2 would have been enough.  Or you could do it yourself.

How the fuck am I supposed to know Raz?

Not sure I understand the logic behind the second question.  No, we can't guarantee that future Congresses will not undo everything that has been done.  They could increase monthly Social Security payments to a billion dollars a person and reduce taxes to minus infinity plus two.

See it just doesn't seem coincidental that they downgraded the US a few days after the huge debt ceiling fight ended.  I suspect it might be related.

Let me second question another way.  Has congress ever kept a budget plan for two decades with out changing it?

[Razgovory]

The most frustrating part is that the decline is self-inflicted.  Our undoing is the cultural conflict that started centuries ago, and was never resolved even after we went through a civil war because of it.

Well, look at the bright side.  You already have experience moving to a new country when the old one collapsed.

[Admiral Yi]

See it just doesn't seem coincidental that they downgraded the US a few days after the huge debt ceiling fight ended.  I suspect it might be related.

Couldn't agree more.  They downgraded a few days after the fight ended because it allowed them to know (a) whether we were going to default or not and (b) if we didn't, how much we would cut the deficit.

Let me second question another way.  Has congress ever kept a budget plan for two decades with out changing it?

I would be shocked it it had.  If the point you're trying to make is that any changes to the deficit outside the current budget year should be discounted, I agree completely. 

[Faeelin]

And given your comments, those are tax cuts the Republicans want eliminated to pay for the deficit, right?

And what the fuck does that have to do with Obama's support for deficit reduction?

Okay, a few thoughts.

First, the GOP is opposed to any revenue increases, so it's hard to see why anyone should take their claims for deficit reduction seriously. Especially since when they had the White House for 8 years they increased the deficit, and because they opposed revenue increases now.

Second, this is more on point, but I admit less clear,  Obama initially opposed continuing the Bush tax cuts, but faced with the Republican block didn't really have a choice. So...

Finally, this is in regards to the brinkmanship issue: You know how you could support deficit reduction without threatening financial armageddon? When you voted on the damn spending bills to begin with.

I mean, we know that the GOP prioritizes low tax cuts over deficit reduction because Obama offered Boehner a significantly greater program:

bama had proposed to Republicans a "grand bargain" that accomplished a host of individual things that are unpopular on their own, but that just might pass as a huge package jammed through Congress with default looming. Obama offered to put Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid cuts on the table in exchange for a tax hike of roughly $100 billion per year over 10 years. Meanwhile, government spending would be cut by roughly three times that amount.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/09/john-boehner-debt-ceiling_n_893952.html

[CountDeMoney]

With your attitude that we can solve all our problems by just taxing "the rich" enough being reflective of the anti-TP retards in the Dem party, I am pretty certain I am correct in my assessment of the odds that the Dems would have pushed through any actual spending reductions.

Your assessment that "without the brinksmanship our overall situation in regards to the debt mess would be worse, not better" is what makes you retarded.

You know what would've happened without the brinksmanship over the debt ceiling? Nothing.  Like the last 30 fucking times it's gone up.

Way to swallow the Kool-Aid over actuarial accounting procedures, Berk.

[CountDeMoney]

Especially since when they had the White House for 8 years they increased the deficit, and because they opposed revenue increases now.

You forgot about the part where they permanently eliminated revenue streams in those 8 years.  Permanently.  As in, that money's never going to come back.

[CountDeMoney]

I'm going to go out on limb here and say these last few days, even just Friday and Saturday are going to be seen in future as some sort of watershed, when the mask of economic pre-eminence / invincibility began to slip and the power shift towards China became apparent to all those willing to look through the usual patriotic bluster; Is America now in permanent decline ?

At least we possess the elasticity to right the ship over time;  I bet the Chinese don't.
The Chinese house of cards is built on graft, corruption and government manipulation to such an extent, it makes Congress' fingerbanging with Wall Street look like a 7th grade ice cream mixer.

[Admiral Yi]

Okay, a few thoughts.

First, the GOP is opposed to any revenue increases, so it's hard to see why anyone should take their claims for deficit reduction seriously. Especially since when they had the White House for 8 years they increased the deficit, and because they opposed revenue increases now.

What does this even mean?  Do you think if Obama had caved in to the Ryan plan the bond market and the rating companies would have said to themselves this 6.2 trillion dollar reduction in the deficit is not a serious?  You're treating this as a PR excercise, if only people disliked the Republicans more then we wouldn't have lost our AAA.

Second, this is more on point, but I admit less clear,  Obama initially opposed continuing the Bush tax cuts, but faced with the Republican block didn't really have a choice. So...

You're off a little on your political catch phrases.  The Bush tax cuts were for all income brackets.  The ones Obama opposed extending were the "Bush tax cuts on millionaires and billionaires."  It was his idea to "not raise taxes on hard-working middle class Americans."  I.e. extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone else.

Finally, this is in regards to the brinkmanship issue: You know how you could support deficit reduction without threatening financial armageddon? When you voted on the damn spending bills to begin with.

They voted on the damn spending bills to begin with.  The House passed the Ryan plan.  The Senate did not.  So no appropriations.

Now what?

I mean, we know that the GOP prioritizes low tax cuts over deficit reduction because Obama offered Boehner a significantly greater program:

bama had proposed to Republicans a "grand bargain" that accomplished a host of individual things that are unpopular on their own, but that just might pass as a huge package jammed through Congress with default looming. Obama offered to put Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid cuts on the table in exchange for a tax hike of roughly $100 billion per year over 10 years. Meanwhile, government spending would be cut by roughly three times that amount.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/09/john-boehner-debt-ceiling_n_893952.html

Agreed.  I was furious when they turned that down.

But the fact remains that Obama never would have come up with that proposal if the GOP had not started warming up the ICBMs. 

[DontSayBanana]

Let me second question another way.  Has congress ever kept a budget plan for two decades with out changing it?

The question isn't whether or not the plan will be kept to- the question is whether the plan will grind to a screeching halt or show enough quick positives to become a political snowball for future administrations to definitively cut fat from the budget.

I appreciate the sentiments behind calling for entitlement reform, but almost to the individual, they're refusing to account for the human element- people in power don't tend to think of their power as entitlement enough; they tend to view it as a "responsibility" and expect further compensation for the "chores" they take on.  There are a lot of psychological and social factors that need to be addressed before we can get congress to dismantle the sandcastles it's built.