Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Seems Moody's is reviewing U.S. AAA rating if we default, even short term,...
In what effectively was a warning about issuing a warning, Moody’s said it would place the U.S. government’s rating under review for possible downgrade on the “very small but rising risk of a short-lived default.” The Treasury Department said it would exhaust all funds by Aug. 2 if the debt ceiling is not lifted by then, in which case a default on existing obligations becomes a possibility.
Moody
seems to me that they care more about a short-term default ithan they are about immediate cuts. (and yes, i know they want the deficit to come down, too... as it should).
but can someone who actually knows something about this subject explain to me how anyone is even considering not raising the debt ceiling?
Seems Moody's is reviewing U.S. AAA rating if we default, even short term,...
In what effectively was a warning about issuing a warning, Moody’s said it would place the U.S. government’s rating under review for possible downgrade on the “very small but rising risk of a short-lived default.” The Treasury Department said it would exhaust all funds by Aug. 2 if the debt ceiling is not lifted by then, in which case a default on existing obligations becomes a possibility.
Moody
seems to me that they care more about a short-term default ithan they are about immediate cuts. (and yes, i know they want the deficit to come down, too... as it should).
but can someone who actually knows something about this subject explain to me how anyone is even considering not raising the debt ceiling?
It's nuts not to raise the debt ceiling, which is why we ultimately will.
However, we have to address the long term solvency of SS and Medicare, particularly the latter. My guess is that Moody's would look very favorably towards raising the debt ceiling while addressing long term solvency issues. Which means we are going to have to cut spending and raise taxes.
S&P and Moodys only started issuing warnings once Obama launched the the final annual trillion dollar deficit Progressive Jihad assault on the USA.
Them's the facts and fuck you if you don't like it
The situation would be only marginally different regardless of who was elected. Any economist will tell you that, and fuck you if you don't like it.
We didn't have a surplus and a burgeoning economy when Obama took office. We had quicksand left behind from your hero Bush Junior.
Obama strapped himself with his failed economic Progressive idea and has tried to blow up the US economy, thats why Pimco sold all their US treasuries, the dollar is in free fall, gas is $4/gallon and Moodys and S&P will eventually downgrade our credit.
They started looking at downgrading because the full implementation of Progressive economics under Obama has been an unqualified failure
There really is no need to "raise taxes" per se. We could simply elliminate all tax expenditures (I guess thats the new euphemism) in the code and cut marginal rates in half.Seems Moody's is reviewing U.S. AAA rating if we default, even short term,...
In what effectively was a warning about issuing a warning, Moody’s said it would place the U.S. government’s rating under review for possible downgrade on the “very small but rising risk of a short-lived default.” The Treasury Department said it would exhaust all funds by Aug. 2 if the debt ceiling is not lifted by then, in which case a default on existing obligations becomes a possibility.
Moody
seems to me that they care more about a short-term default ithan they are about immediate cuts. (and yes, i know they want the deficit to come down, too... as it should).
but can someone who actually knows something about this subject explain to me how anyone is even considering not raising the debt ceiling?
It's nuts not to raise the debt ceiling, which is why we ultimately will.
However, we have to address the long term solvency of SS and Medicare, particularly the latter. My guess is that Moody's would look very favorably towards raising the debt ceiling while addressing long term solvency issues. Which means we are going to have to cut spending and raise taxes.
Seems Moody's is reviewing U.S. AAA rating if we default, even short term,...
Moody
seems to me that they care more about a short-term default ithan they are about immediate cuts. (and yes, i know they want the deficit to come down, too... as it should).
but can someone who actually knows something about this subject explain to me how anyone is even considering not raising the debt ceiling?
It's nuts not to raise the debt ceiling, which is why we ultimately will.
However, we have to address the long term solvency of SS and Medicare, particularly the latter. My guess is that Moody's would look very favorably towards raising the debt ceiling while addressing long term solvency issues. Which means we are going to have to cut spending and raise taxes.
Why do we need to raise taxes? That will be a drain on the economy, which means GDP will be meagre at best. It already is. Without strong GDP growth we will strangle with this debt.
There really is no need to "raise taxes" per se. We could simply elliminate all tax expenditures (I guess thats the new euphemism) in the code and cut marginal rates in half.Seems Moody's is reviewing U.S. AAA rating if we default, even short term,...
Moody
seems to me that they care more about a short-term default ithan they are about immediate cuts. (and yes, i know they want the deficit to come down, too... as it should).
but can someone who actually knows something about this subject explain to me how anyone is even considering not raising the debt ceiling?
It's nuts not to raise the debt ceiling, which is why we ultimately will.
However, we have to address the long term solvency of SS and Medicare, particularly the latter. My guess is that Moody's would look very favorably towards raising the debt ceiling while addressing long term solvency issues. Which means we are going to have to cut spending and raise taxes.
Medicare as it is is unsustainable under any tax scheme. It needs to be changed. The Ryan plan to change it over the next ten year from a fee for services single payor system into a premium support system with gaurenteed coverages and low income supplements is a good idea. Not actually allowing any of it to be done for ten years isn't. I agree with newt on that, one change to ryan's plan that should be implemented immediately is to allow those who wish to, to voluntarily opt for premium support now. It would build confidence in the stystem so the changes in the future were less feared and less able to be demogogued,It's nuts not to raise the debt ceiling, which is why we ultimately will.
However, we have to address the long term solvency of SS and Medicare, particularly the latter. My guess is that Moody's would look very favorably towards raising the debt ceiling while addressing long term solvency issues. Which means we are going to have to cut spending and raise taxes.
Why do we need to raise taxes? That will be a drain on the economy, which means GDP will be meagre at best. It already is. Without strong GDP growth we will strangle with this debt.
If we want Medicare as is, we are going to have to raise taxes.
Cutting spending and raising taxes will slow the economy, so we should wait until the economy is stronger. But we raised taxes in the 90s and had strong economic growth. Repealing the Bush tax cuts puts us back to where we were in 2000.
Quoting progressive talking points does nothing to support the argument, using "appeals to autrhority" by quoting progressive sites who are quoting conservatives from 40 years ago does even less. That reagan said it, does not make it true. Not raising the debt limit only does damage to our credit rating if we choose to continue to spend the money we do take in for things other than servicing the debt.Obama's annual trillion deficits are to blame
The debt limit has increased "ten times in the past decade" and way beyond........
Back in 1983, conservative icon Ronald Reagan warned of incalculable damage if the debt ceiling were not raised. Todays Republicans would do well to take heed.
FLASHBACK: In 1983, Reagan Warned Of Incalculable Damage If Debt Ceiling Wasnt Raised | ThinkProgress
Moodys Investors Service on Thursday issued a mild warning to Congress and the White House over negotiations to lift the debt ceiling, saying that the outlook on the U.S. governments Triple-A rating could be cut if substantial deficit reduction hasnt occurred.
In what effectively was a warning about issuing a warning, Moodys said it would place the U.S. governments rating under review for possible downgrade on the very small but rising risk of a short-lived default. The Treasury Department said it would exhaust all funds by Aug. 2 if the debt ceiling is not lifted by then, in which case a default on existing obligations becomes a possibility.
Moody
The rating agency says its concerned about the talks. Although Moodys fully expected political wrangling prior to an increase in the statutory debt limit, the degree of entrenchment into conflicting positions has exceeded expectations, the agency said.
And it would likely downgrade the U.S. if a debt ceiling-related default were to occur, probably to the Aa range.
Moody
Seems Moody's is reviewing U.S. AAA rating if we default, even short term,...
In what effectively was a warning about issuing a warning, Moodys said it would place the U.S. governments rating under review for possible downgrade on the very small but rising risk of a short-lived default. The Treasury Department said it would exhaust all funds by Aug. 2 if the debt ceiling is not lifted by then, in which case a default on existing obligations becomes a possibility.
Moody
seems to me that they care more about a short-term default ithan they are about immediate cuts. (and yes, i know they want the deficit to come down, too... as it should).
but can someone who actually knows something about this subject explain to me how anyone is even considering not raising the debt ceiling?
None of which is proof of whether or not raising the debt cieling is a good or bad idea. They are only proofs of what some people said and may have believed at the time they said them. In short, niether Reagan nor Obama's opinion on the matter... matter. What matters is not what someone might have siad doing it or not doing might or would do, what matters is what it will do.Quoting progressive talking points does nothing to support the argument, using "appeals to autrhority" by quoting progressive sites who are quoting conservatives from 40 years ago does even less. That reagan said it, does not make it true. Not raising the debt limit only does damage to our credit rating if we choose to continue to spend the money we do take in for things other than servicing the debt.The debt limit has increased "ten times in the past decade" and way beyond........
Back in 1983, conservative icon Ronald Reagan warned of incalculable damage if the debt ceiling were not raised. Todays Republicans would do well to take heed.
FLASHBACK: In 1983, Reagan Warned Of Incalculable Damage If Debt Ceiling Wasnt Raised | ThinkProgress
Invoking a quote from Reagan in 1983 certainly puts the history of the debt ceiling issue in better perspective in relation to CrusaderFrank's knee-jerk talking point of blaming it all on our current president...
And yes young Senator Obama was indeed naive when he made that statement...
The credit rating is currently in question mostly because of the current debate to possibly not raise the debt limit...
Moodys Investors Service on Thursday issued a mild warning to Congress and the White House over negotiations to lift the debt ceiling, saying that the outlook on the U.S. governments Triple-A rating could be cut if substantial deficit reduction hasnt occurred.
In what effectively was a warning about issuing a warning, Moodys said it would place the U.S. governments rating under review for possible downgrade on the very small but rising risk of a short-lived default. The Treasury Department said it would exhaust all funds by Aug. 2 if the debt ceiling is not lifted by then, in which case a default on existing obligations becomes a possibility.
Moody
Medicare as it is is unsustainable under any tax scheme. It needs to be changed. The Ryan plan to change it over the next ten year from a fee for services single payor system into a premium support system with gaurenteed coverages and low income supplements is a good idea. Not actually allowing any of it to be done for ten years isn't. I agree with newt on that, one change to ryan's plan that should be implemented immediately is to allow those who wish to, to voluntarily opt for premium support now. It would build confidence in the stystem so the changes in the future were less feared and less able to be demogogued,Why do we need to raise taxes? That will be a drain on the economy, which means GDP will be meagre at best. It already is. Without strong GDP growth we will strangle with this debt.
If we want Medicare as is, we are going to have to raise taxes.
Cutting spending and raising taxes will slow the economy, so we should wait until the economy is stronger. But we raised taxes in the 90s and had strong economic growth. Repealing the Bush tax cuts puts us back to where we were in 2000.
actually Obamacare proposes that 500B in savings in medicare can be found by elliminating waste fraud and abuse, it budgets for this, but doen't change the entitlement. What do you think the chances of then actually finding that money are? It's smoke and mirrors and nothing else.Medicare as it is is unsustainable under any tax scheme. It needs to be changed. The Ryan plan to change it over the next ten year from a fee for services single payor system into a premium support system with gaurenteed coverages and low income supplements is a good idea. Not actually allowing any of it to be done for ten years isn't. I agree with newt on that, one change to ryan's plan that should be implemented immediately is to allow those who wish to, to voluntarily opt for premium support now. It would build confidence in the stystem so the changes in the future were less feared and less able to be demogogued,If we want Medicare as is, we are going to have to raise taxes.
Cutting spending and raising taxes will slow the economy, so we should wait until the economy is stronger. But we raised taxes in the 90s and had strong economic growth. Repealing the Bush tax cuts puts us back to where we were in 2000.
There is no "Medicare as is." Even the Obama plan slices $500b off Medicare. Keeping it as is is not a choice anymore.
Raising taxes does not produce strong economic growth. The 90s were an anomaly because of the tech revolution. Raising taxes will produce mediocre results.
actually Obamacare proposes that 500B in savings in medicare can be found by elliminating waste fraud and abuse, it budgets for this, but doen't change the entitlement. What do you think the chances of then actually finding that money are? It's smoke and mirrors and nothing else.Medicare as it is is unsustainable under any tax scheme. It needs to be changed. The Ryan plan to change it over the next ten year from a fee for services single payor system into a premium support system with gaurenteed coverages and low income supplements is a good idea. Not actually allowing any of it to be done for ten years isn't. I agree with newt on that, one change to ryan's plan that should be implemented immediately is to allow those who wish to, to voluntarily opt for premium support now. It would build confidence in the stystem so the changes in the future were less feared and less able to be demogogued,
There is no "Medicare as is." Even the Obama plan slices $500b off Medicare. Keeping it as is is not a choice anymore.
Raising taxes does not produce strong economic growth. The 90s were an anomaly because of the tech revolution. Raising taxes will produce mediocre results.
Mo chara, no one can explain it to you, because the answer will always be swayed by that person's political opinion. Even economists - and they are the ones who know the most about it - don't agree. When experts don't agree, that says there is no real fact based answer, it's too open to hypotheticals.
I personally (under sufferance) would support raising the ceiling.... IF we cut one dollar from the spend for every dollar we raise it. That, to me, is the only way we can keep this under control.
It is time to face facts, just like many other countries are doing, we simply cannot afford to be all things to all Americans. We cannot help everyone. We cannot save everyone's lives with Obamacare. A simple but hard decision lays ahead.
i agree in part. but i also think there are people who take a middle view and aren't nutbars on either side who can give perspective on this.
it seems to me, and i'm not an expert, so why it isn't obvious to the people who need to make these decisions, is that we have no choice but to raise the debt ceiling. the undermining of the full faith and credit of the U.S. government for partisan purposes is unforgivable. To get things BACK in order where they were when Clinton was president should then, to my mind, require a combination of cuts and a return to our previous tax rates. But you can't cut without cutting military spending, too and just dump the painful parts on the middle class.
I don't think it's rocket science. I'm not an economist, not a financier, and it seems like there isn't any other choice.
The only way that panel will realize any savings is through severe rationing including restrictions on the type of care medicare will NOT pay for. It is the "death panel". It is much preferable to go to a premium support structure and allow seniors to purchase coverage that does cover what they need it to cover. Not everyone needs the same coverage, and not everyone wants the same coverage.actually Obamacare proposes that 500B in savings in medicare can be found by elliminating waste fraud and abuse, it budgets for this, but doen't change the entitlement. What do you think the chances of then actually finding that money are? It's smoke and mirrors and nothing else.There is no "Medicare as is." Even the Obama plan slices $500b off Medicare. Keeping it as is is not a choice anymore.
Raising taxes does not produce strong economic growth. The 90s were an anomaly because of the tech revolution. Raising taxes will produce mediocre results.
Hacing seen numerous gov't programs that vow to root out waste fraud and abuse I can say the chances of any savings are slim and none. And Slim's left town.
Instead he has a panel of 15 experts who are supposed to find savings. This will end up about as well as his pledge to cut 100m from the cabinet's budget.
There really is no need to "raise taxes" per se. We could simply elliminate all tax expenditures (I guess thats the new euphemism) in the code and cut marginal rates in half.It's nuts not to raise the debt ceiling, which is why we ultimately will.
However, we have to address the long term solvency of SS and Medicare, particularly the latter. My guess is that Moody's would look very favorably towards raising the debt ceiling while addressing long term solvency issues. Which means we are going to have to cut spending and raise taxes.
The way we will deal with this is - I think - will be to eliminate tax breaks while lowering rates, which will wind up being net positive. The majority of the pain will come on the spending side however. Simpson-Bowles is a good framework.
Well that's one way to put it. I'd have used "Special," but we can go with "simple."Mo chara, no one can explain it to you, because the answer will always be swayed by that person's political opinion. Even economists - and they are the ones who know the most about it - don't agree. When experts don't agree, that says there is no real fact based answer, it's too open to hypotheticals.
I personally (under sufferance) would support raising the ceiling.... IF we cut one dollar from the spend for every dollar we raise it. That, to me, is the only way we can keep this under control.
It is time to face facts, just like many other countries are doing, we simply cannot afford to be all things to all Americans. We cannot help everyone. We cannot save everyone's lives with Obamacare. A simple but hard decision lays ahead.
i agree in part. but i also think there are people who take a middle view and aren't nutbars on either side who can give perspective on this.
it seems to me, and i'm not an expert, so why it isn't obvious to the people who need to make these decisions, is that we have no choice but to raise the debt ceiling. the undermining of the full faith and credit of the U.S. government for partisan purposes is unforgivable. To get things BACK in order where they were when Clinton was president should then, to my mind, require a combination of cuts and a return to our previous tax rates. But you can't cut without cutting military spending, too and just dump the painful parts on the middle class.
I don't think it's rocket science. I'm not an economist, not a financier, and it seems like there isn't any other choice.
I'm a simple girl.
Willowtree said:So I'll explain it thusly. Think about your household. Could you run it that way?
Well that's one way to put it. I'd have used "Special," but we can go with "simple."i agree in part. but i also think there are people who take a middle view and aren't nutbars on either side who can give perspective on this.
it seems to me, and i'm not an expert, so why it isn't obvious to the people who need to make these decisions, is that we have no choice but to raise the debt ceiling. the undermining of the full faith and credit of the U.S. government for partisan purposes is unforgivable. To get things BACK in order where they were when Clinton was president should then, to my mind, require a combination of cuts and a return to our previous tax rates. But you can't cut without cutting military spending, too and just dump the painful parts on the middle class.
I don't think it's rocket science. I'm not an economist, not a financier, and it seems like there isn't any other choice.
I'm a simple girl.
Willowtree said:So I'll explain it thusly. Think about your household. Could you run it that way?
It ain't a household. It ain't a business. It's a government. The rules and motivations are different. Stop trying to make a complex issue simple.
However, if it WAS a household, we've just had a massive flood and the foundation needs to be fixed. You bet that this year you're going to spend more than you make this year, because you have to keep the house from collapsing.
You might also come to conclusion that because of this problem, you and the other people in your house are going to have to pony up more to fix this problem than they might be accustomed to for 'Normal' living expenses.
