Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Dems should not be faulted with the current job situation. Noone can expect them to turn around 8 years of mess the republicans left behind. If our economy is a mess its a mess because Bush left it that way. Its going to take some time to un-do all the mess this man created. Never has any president made such a mess of our country in recent history.
Now as far as this Bunning guy. Was he in office when Bush was giving all of these handouts to banks? If so, why didn't he vote against it?
Please stop..please.
I need my work shoes for all the B.S. your shoveling!
Explain to me what the problem is with Bunning holding up the bill?
We dont have any money left in the coffers you left winged dingbats lol.
Obama should pay more attention to creating jobs then this H.C non-sense.
The Dems should not be faulted with the current job situation. Noone can expect them to turn around 8 years of mess the republicans left behind. If our economy is a mess its a mess because Bush left it that way. Its going to take some time to un-do all the mess this man created. Never has any president made such a mess of our country in recent history.
Now as far as this Bunning guy. Was he in office when Bush was giving all of these handouts to banks? If so, why didn't he vote against it?
Oh my god, the bs detector didnt stop the whole time I was reading your posting.
DEMOCRATS have controlled Congress through the WHOLE recession. It didnt start to tank until they took over and made stupid moves which many stated would be harmful (like raising the minimum wage)...
Lets not even discuss the fact that it was a DEMOCRATIC Congress who gave handouts to the banks.
Don't have time to properly address every point you attempted to make in this post, but wanted to clarify but one of your simple inaccuracies.
Take all the time you need. I get busy when my nation calls as well, so I wouldn't hold intermittency against you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatyousay
That would be Australia they are referring to, not Austria.
While they do have a somewhat checkered history at it, Australia currently does maintain a AAA rating. They are not included in your graph nor are they covered in the AAA Sovereign newsletter. Austria is. If you want to claim that you were not confused between the two, but were independently trying to bring Australia into a discussion they had not previously been a part of, that's fine. No substantive issue hangs on the matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatyousay
So you are comparing the expert financial experts and economic forecasters at Moody's and S&P to a bottle of Pagan Pink Ripple and comparing yourself to a sophisticated 2005 Bordeaux?
More or less, though I was hardly meaning to constrain the Bordeaux side to myself alone. I have help. Quite a lot of help actually. I suppose it should be reassuring to learn that the ratings agencies retain only expert financial experts, but from the evidence, there may be some residual doubt as to the claim.
Begin for instance with the sovereign ratings of 1996 and move forward through the conversation while on the lookout for tips, hints, or inklings of the coming continuum of the 1997 Asian financial crisis, the 1998 Russian financial crisis, and the 1999 Brazilian financial crisis. What you'll find in the particular case is slim pickings. Even in the general case, you may indeed find it as hard as I suggested earlier it might be to demonstrate that sovereign ratings (except perhaps for the effects of their own positive feedback loops) provide any more usable information than would be available from paying general attention to bond spread developments and reading a couple of good newspapers. Sovereign ratings in general are based on some not so very sophisticated statistical analysis combined with a lot of subjectives. A may suggest B. C has been seen as a potential indicator of D. It's all very interesting, but it still may not say very much.
Even if we spin the clock forward and move the expert experts over onto the private sector side where their value and reputation are on firmer ground, we find them in the days leading up to the credit crisis slapping AAA onto CDO tranches left and right without so much as having looked at their actual composition. Apparently, knowledge of the blending formula alone was enough to make the call in one case after another until mark-to-market or model began pushing boxloads of this AAA paper into Tier III or onto the writedown line entirely. In fairness, the rating agencies may have been overwhelmed and their actions may in fact have been reasonable and defensible under the circumstances, but expert??? I'm not sure that's the right word to apply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatyousay
Well, you may keep your analogies. I trust the real experts, not some financial forum-posting wanna-be guru such as yourself. If that means I prefer the bottle of cheap bubbly in your eyes, can't say I really care.
I don't publish a newsletter. I'm not out scavenging for either followers or subscribers. Your decisions as to where and from whom to take your advice are of no concern to me that I can actually think of. Doesn't change the real world one way or the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatyousay
I've long since recognized your bias against anyone who differs from your opinion... expert and layperson alike.
The major biases that I have are against phony facts and sloppy reasoning, particularly when -- as they often are -- these are resorted to deliberately. Perhaps a belief for instance that balances in the SS Trust Fund have been stolen or that SS should simply give people their money back is rooted in mere misunderstanding. But when explications of the plain facts of the matter are met only with ever more furious denials of them, the grounds for such a presumption do start to fade. Many different opinions may in fact be valid. But their validity in every case depends upon the quality of the inputs evaluated and the integrity of the processes by which that evaluation is done. These days, fealty to quality and integrity do seem sometimes to be on the decline.
Maybe if the Dems. created jobs we wouldnt be talking about this crap............Cut taxes and watch the job explosion.
Two million jobs from the stimulus and counting. Not enough of course, given the colosaal dimensions of the mess Bush left behind. Then again, you were told by various people at the time that the stimulus package really needed to be at least twice the size it was if it was to have the desired levels of impact. I guess you've come around now to seeing the wisdom in that.
The stimulus package was 37% tax cuts. $288 billion worth of them. You got some. So did we get a job explosion or not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerrymac
B.S. Keynesian economics does NOT work!
Interesting that this would appear in the same post as a strident call for further tax cuts.
The Dems should not be faulted with the current job situation. Noone can expect them to turn around 8 years of mess the republicans left behind. If our economy is a mess its a mess because Bush left it that way. Its going to take some time to un-do all the mess this man created. Never has any president made such a mess of our country in recent history.
Now as far as this Bunning guy. Was he in office when Bush was giving all of these handouts to banks? If so, why didn't he vote against it?
democrats have had control of congress for 3 years now and exactly what have THEY accomplished?
people need to start thinking outside these 2 parties since both parties just want to increase the budget, increase the deficit, and spend taxpayers into oblivion.
Please stop..please. I need my work shoes for all the B.S. your shoveling!
Oh, the spin. I'm about to die laughing over here from all the spin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerrymac
Explain to me what the problem is with Bunning holding up the bill? We dont have any money left in the coffers you left winged dingbats lol.
We haven't had any money left in the coffers since Bill Clinton headed out of town. Bush and his tax cuts for the rich made sure of that, though his investments in bringing the blessings of democracy to the Middle East helped out some too. What's wrong with holding up the bill meanwhile is that it's nothing but partisan showboating and grandstanding undertaken at other people's expense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerrymac
Obama should pay more attention to creating jobs then this H.C non-sense.
Worse yet, he'd like to get an energy bill done too. You know, energy -- the other one of the top two problems confronting the nation.
Toledo? Did you notice the ten-year timeframe attached to that? Guess not. Come back and yap in 2019.
Yes, it is, which is why most people would know that it was really closer to 3.9 million over the first year. As opposed to 4.2 million the year before that.
Why be so conservative? We all know that it's just as true that he's on his way to a trillion lost jobs.
First thing he did was the stimulus. Two-plus million jobs and counting. Health care reform doesn't merely help everyone, it's a flat out necessity at this point unless we want to see the economy simply choked to death by medical costs. "No!" is no longer one of the choices.
Are you really saying he created 2 million NEW jobs?
Please link us to that fact.
If the economy was going to be choked to death by medical cost alone it would have happened long ago. Stop pretending it is the end of the world if we do not address HC. We need to address HC cost, that is true reform. Not this spend and tax scam job they are presenting. This scam bill wont save us a dime, it will cost us more and make the economy choke for real.
democrats have had control of congress for 3 years now and exactly what have THEY accomplished?
people need to start thinking outside these 2 parties since both parties just want to increase the budget, increase the deficit, and spend taxpayers into oblivion.
Answer to question above.
Nothing. 3 years with zero accomplishments and being the real party of NO to the American people.
While they do have a somewhat checkered history at it, Australia currently does maintain a AAA rating. They are not included in your graph nor are they covered in the AAA Sovereign newsletter. Austria is. If you want to claim that you were not confused between the two, but were independently trying to bring Australia into a discussion they had not previously been a part of, that's fine.
Let's revisit your original comments where you brought Australia into the conversation, not me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista Credit rating? Moody's rates corporations and private sector government entities. Moody's AAA Sovereign newsletter meanwhile covers official financial events in eight economies of their choosing. That's how you get this AAA "rating" of yours. Has Japan got such a "rating"? No. China? No. India? No. Korea? No. Australia? No. Saudi Arabia? No. Russia? No. Brazil? No. Luxembourg? Yes.
I called you out on your inaccuracy and then in the same sentence you actually acknowledge your inaccurate statements regarding Australia's AAA rating, you accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about? Wow, way to deflect. I was never confused between Austria and Australia, perhaps that confusion lies with you. Whether or not Australia was included in the graph that I later posted is completely irrelevant to the statements I originally made refuting your claim regarding Australia's credit rating. I was not using that graph to talk about Australia. I was making two separate points. Please, do try to follow along.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
More or less, though I was hardly meaning to constrain the Bordeaux side to myself alone. I have help. Quite a lot of help actually. I suppose it should be reassuring to learn that the ratings agencies retain only expert financial experts, but from the evidence, there may be some residual doubt as to the claim.
Glad to know you aren't suffering from low self esteem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Begin for instance with the sovereign ratings of 1996 and move forward through the conversation while on the lookout for tips, hints, or inklings of the coming continuum of the 1997 Asian financial crisis, the 1998 Russian financial crisis, and the 1999 Brazilian financial crisis. What you'll find in the particular case is slim pickings. Even in the general case, you may indeed find it as hard as I suggested earlier it might be to demonstrate that sovereign ratings (except perhaps for the effects of their own positive feedback loops) provide any more usable information than would be available from paying general attention to bond spread developments and reading a couple of good newspapers. Sovereign ratings in general are based on some not so very sophisticated statistical analysis combined with a lot of subjectives. A may suggest B. C has been seen as a potential indicator of D. It's all very interesting, but it still may not say very much.
Falling back on that trusted technique of "If the experts don't agree with you, denigrate their data" I see? You use that one often.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Even if we spin the clock forward and move the expert experts over onto the private sector side where their value and reputation are on firmer ground, we find them in the days leading up to the credit crisis slapping AAA onto CDO tranches left and right without so much as having looked at their actual composition. Apparently, knowledge of the blending formula alone was enough to make the call in one case after another until mark-to-market or model began pushing boxloads of this AAA paper into Tier III or onto the writedown line entirely. In fairness, the rating agencies may have been overwhelmed and their actions may in fact have been reasonable and defensible under the circumstances, but expert??? I'm not sure that's the right word to apply.
Yes, they were not aggressive enough in calling a pig a pig. The same applies to the US credit rating. If anything, they consistently erred on the side of being too lenient in their positive ratings, just as they are doing with the US now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
The major biases that I have are against phony facts and sloppy reasoning, particularly when -- as they often are -- these are resorted to deliberately. Perhaps a belief for instance that balances in the SS Trust Fund have been stolen or that SS should simply give people their money back is rooted in mere misunderstanding. But when explications of the plain facts of the matter are met only with ever more furious denials of them, the grounds for such a presumption do start to fade. Many different opinions may in fact be valid. But their validity in every case depends upon the quality of the inputs evaluated and the integrity of the processes by which that evaluation is done. These days, fealty to quality and integrity do seem sometimes to be on the decline.
Your definition of phony facts and sloppy reasoning always seem to be on the side of those whom you disagree with (read: conservatives). Anyone, expert or layperson, who disagrees with you presents phony facts and sloppy reasoning because you are never wrong. It must be great going through life always believing that you know it all.
Money has been taken from the SS fund and spent by the federal government. I call it theft, you call it "investment". There is no misunderstanding as to what happened with the money. Are you honestly telling me that it's better to have IOU's in the SS trust as opposed to real money? We would be better off earning 0% on that money and still have the principle intact rather than have IOU's with the government's promise of principle and interest being repaid "someday".
Oh my god, the bs detector didnt stop the whole time I was reading your posting.
Oh, the spin. I'm about to die laughing over here from all the spin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
DEMOCRATS have controlled Congress through the WHOLE recession. It didnt start to tank until they took over and made stupid moves which many stated would be harmful (like raising the minimum wage)...
Unfortunately, we didn't get rid of the idiot Republicans in time. By the start of 2007, the damage had already been done. The tax cuts for the rich, the diversion of productivity gains into corporate profits, the zero interest rates pushing up home prices and inviting the wolves of Wall Street into the secondary mortgage markets, the relaxing of leverage limits, the refusal to recognize rampant abuse of subprime credit markets and the effects that would have. The real estate market had already cracked in the Spring of 2006. The credit crisis that would blossom into full view in the Summer of 2007 was already a done deal, and reluctance to do anything meaningful about it then brought us straight to the Fall of 2008. All Republicans. All the time.
The Democratic Congress did finally bottle Bushie up, leaving him unable to do much further damage, but faced by record-breaking Senate Republican obstructionism and the ever-waving veto pen, it was no mean feat to get anything actually constructive done at all. S-CHIP for instance died twice, but the LONG OVERDUE increase in the minimum wage did finally make it through the minefield and began to put purchasing power back where it was needed -- remember the real median income of all households not at the top of the income scale had FALLEN between 2000 and 2006 -- but things were too far gone and too fundamentally wrong for that alone to have had any decisive effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Lets not even discuss the fact that it was a DEMOCRATIC Congress who gave handouts to the banks.
LOL. What you mean to say is that even the Republicans who created the crisis had to rush off to Congress for funds when the inevitable results of their unprecedentedly poor stewardship came to smack them in the face. Oh, we've brought ourselves to the brink of a global financial meltdown. Maybe we should do something about that. Yeah, maybe we should. Nice freaking work, Republicans! Thanks so much for all that...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
