muck Posted July 31, 2011 Author Share Posted July 31, 2011 If we're going to castigate everyone when their wrong, this place is not going to be much fun. If you're both going to rail on each other, please find another thread in which you can perform the torturous application of prose to one another... This behavior is so old. From both of you (and others). Quite banal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 I really want to see the details. Isn't the debt ceiling a function of paying bills already incurred? Not future spending? Plus any progress on cuts in theory should be a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 I really want to see the details. Isn't the debt ceiling a function of paying bills already incurred? Not future spending? Plus any progress on cuts in theory should be a good thing. That is a point totally missed by most. The debt ceiling is indeed to allow the payment of debts already incurred, so it's a mechanism to avoid welching. The actions that need to be taken are medium to longer term, not immediate (other than obvious waste). It's also interesting to note that the debt is almost entirely owed to us, except for 4.4 trillion, which is partially balanced by what others owe us. I think the amount we (we as a whole) owe outside the US once what they owe us is factored in is less than 2 trillion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 (edited) One instance? there's probably a least 40+. Amd your question as posed is bs, it's not necessarily what it does but what it prevents, such as a catastrophic market result. Now, you can opine all you want about that, but like it or not that's the way the world works currently, so deal with it. oh so we have a debt problem and the only way out is to dig deeper?..... edit: I get it...I think we are trying to dig our way to China.....where is my friggin rimshot at when I need it!? Edited July 31, 2011 by Avernus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Wow. This thread had a meltdown before any details were released. I can spend an hour on my kids playground at recess (Watchdogs program is great) and hear better than this. Both in terms of good conversation and cut downs Doesn't this get boring? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted July 31, 2011 Author Share Posted July 31, 2011 That is a point totally missed by most. The debt ceiling is indeed to allow the payment of debts already incurred, so it's a mechanism to avoid welching. The actions that need to be taken are medium to longer term, not immediate (other than obvious waste). It's also interesting to note that the debt is almost entirely owed to us, except for 4.4 trillion, which is partially balanced by what others owe us. I think the amount we (we as a whole) owe outside the US once what they owe us is factored in is less than 2 trillion. Welcome to the party! If the US defaults, it is a big deal but it's not THAT big of a deal. Why? We're repaying ourself (primarily). Now, if the US debt goes down ... then, that frees up capital to reinvest in other parts of our economy (i.e., new roads and bridges, new R&D, new business creation / jobs, etc.) ... and/or ... to invest in other parts of the world (like China has here) to gain certain types of political leverage that we may find useful in the future. I've often wondered if our creditors would be open to a swap of debts owed to us by other countries. Say, picking a random country, South Africa owes the US $10 billion ... could we send that obligation to the Chinese in lieu of $9.7 billion we owe them (the difference is accounted for in the perceived relative credit risk of the two countries)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 (edited) Welcome to the party! If the US defaults, it is a big deal but it's not THAT big of a deal. Why? We're repaying ourself (primarily). Now, if the US debt goes down ... then, that frees up capital to reinvest in other parts of our economy (i.e., new roads and bridges, new R&D, new business creation / jobs, etc.) ... and/or ... to invest in other parts of the world (like China has here) to gain certain types of political leverage that we may find useful in the future. I've often wondered if our creditors would be open to a swap of debts owed to us by other countries. Say, picking a random country, South Africa owes the US $10 billion ... could we send that obligation to the Chinese in lieu of $9.7 billion we owe them (the difference is accounted for in the perceived relative credit risk of the two countries)? That might not be a bad idea if we want to internalize the debt as much as possible but I don't see how it reduces the overall top line figure (in fact it increases it slightly) and frees up money for investment elsewhere, unless you're factoring in the interest of course. Given interest rates being very low, would the exercise be worth it? One other thing - being indebted to the Chinese might actually be a leverage of it's own. Edited July 31, 2011 by Ursa Majoris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Welcome to the party! If the US defaults, it is a big deal but it's not THAT big of a deal. Why? We're repaying ourself (primarily). Now, if the US debt goes down ... then, that frees up capital to reinvest in other parts of our economy (i.e., new roads and bridges, new R&D, new business creation / jobs, etc.) ... and/or ... to invest in other parts of the world (like China has here) to gain certain types of political leverage that we may find useful in the future. I've often wondered if our creditors would be open to a swap of debts owed to us by other countries. Say, picking a random country, South Africa owes the US $10 billion ... could we send that obligation to the Chinese in lieu of $9.7 billion we owe them (the difference is accounted for in the perceived relative credit risk of the two countries)? This Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 That might not be a bad idea if we want to internalize the debt as much as possible but I don't see how it reduces the overall top line figure (in fact it increases it slightly) and frees up money for investment elsewhere, unless you're factoring in the interest of course. Given interest rates being very low, would the exercise be worth it? One other thing - being indebted to the Chinese might actually be a leverage of it's own. ... and this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 If we're going to castigate everyone when their wrong, this place is not going to be much fun. I think you meant "castigate everyone when they're wrong..." idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted July 31, 2011 Author Share Posted July 31, 2011 I think you meant "castigate everyone when they're wrong..." idiot. You non-thesaurus-using-when-you-post tool! Get outta my thread. MY THREAD. You got it? Did you ask for permission to post in this thread? NO. YOU DID NOT! Go find your own thread and take a dump in it! :grumble: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 I think you meant "castigate everyone when they're wrong..." idiot. DUDE! What was that? Maybe he was trying to make people take ownership of THEIR wrongness!?!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 DUDE! What was that? Maybe he was trying to make people take ownership of THEIR wrongness!?!? Not only have you not been sleeping well, your deadpan humor detector is broken too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 and there's a big difference between being wrong, and being wrong and not admitting it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 If the US defaults, it is a big deal but it's not THAT big of a deal. Why? We're repaying ourself (primarily). I am quite stunned to see that you wrote this. You might be right, but you are going to have to explain yourself further. 59% of AAA-rated assets in the world are US government securities. You really don't think a default on US debt won't throw a shockwave through the global financial system? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 (edited) This is where your perception is dead fracking wrong. I made 1 grand prediction about the market hitting a certain level by a certain time and I was wrong and have admitted as much several times. 99% of my babbling revolves around the horrible institution of the Federal reserve and how I think we're in the early stages of a depression that will see a major stock market decline during this time. I've also reiterated that a cash-heavy position is the optimal safe investment during this depression. My timeline for this has remained consistent in that it will happen over the next several years (5-10). I know it's easy for people like you to be easily confused and take other people's perceptions and make them your own truth and I'm sorry for you. That's really gotta suck to be that reliant on others to formulate your own opinions. are we up to 5-10 now? by next year, will it be 10-20? Edited July 31, 2011 by Jackass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted August 1, 2011 Author Share Posted August 1, 2011 I am quite stunned to see that you wrote this. You might be right, but you are going to have to explain yourself further. 59% of AAA-rated assets in the world are US government securities. You really don't think a default on US debt won't throw a shockwave through the global financial system? No, not really. The last paragraph reads: “The U.S., downgrade or no downgrade, is still going to be the benchmark,” said Rick Rieder, the chief investment officer at New York-based BlackRock Inc., who manages $612.5 billion in fundamental fixed-income portfolios. “Even with a downgrade, I think the market would assume the safest asset you could buy in a portfolio was still Treasuries.” NOTE: This is the second thread I've posted this in... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 I for one am very proud of Nancy Pelosi. She was quoted in a CNN article yesterday evening saying that can "not say if (she) supports the legilation until (she) reads it." All sides are a bunch of children. We need to cut defense and entitlements, PERIOD! (I know, I know, I followed it with and exclamation point. But the exclamation point alone doesn't connote the same thing.) So little is being taken out of the budget that we will soon find our self in this mess again. Fu(k 'em all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 No, not really. The last paragraph reads: “The U.S., downgrade or no downgrade, is still going to be the benchmark,” said Rick Rieder, the chief investment officer at New York-based BlackRock Inc., who manages $612.5 billion in fundamental fixed-income portfolios. “Even with a downgrade, I think the market would assume the safest asset you could buy in a portfolio was still Treasuries.” NOTE: This is the second thread I've posted this in... your quote references downgrade. not default. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 I for one am very proud of Nancy Pelosi. She was quoted in a CNN article yesterday evening saying that can "not say if (she) supports the legilation until (she) reads it." All sides are a bunch of children. We need to cut defense and entitlements, PERIOD! (I know, I know, I followed it with and exclamation point. But the exclamation point alone doesn't connote the same thing.) So little is being taken out of the budget that we will soon find our self in this mess again. Fu(k 'em all. Pelosi's main problem is that she was sidelined for much of this and didn't like it. Hey, Nancy, you had an opening to get much of this stuff on track and by so doing, you could have kept the Tea Party lunatics out of it. You didn't. As to the rest of it, the entitlements don't need to be hacked and slashed, they just need to be properly managed and not be pure entitlements any more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted August 1, 2011 Author Share Posted August 1, 2011 your quote references downgrade. not default. 1) Did you read the article? 2) Default on the bonds ain't gonna happen. Never was gonna happen. But even if it did, it would be short-lived and fully cured. And besides, it's not like some other country is capable of becoming the worlds' reserve currency by the end of the week. The USA is and will remain the only game in town for global investors for quite some time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 It's cute that the Tea Party people that were voted in to stop bankrupting America are the lunatics, but the Democrats that controlled all 3 branches a couple of years ago and could've done anything they wanted to the budget - and decided to keep bankrupting America - are the sane ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted August 1, 2011 Author Share Posted August 1, 2011 As to the rest of it, the entitlements don't need to be hacked and slashed, they just need to be properly managed and not be pure entitlements any more. I think that Dems typically refer to that as hacking and slashing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 I think that Dems typically refer to that as hacking and slashing. I think Reps typically refer to it as job creation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayItAintSoJoe Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 Hey, Nancy, you had an opening to get much of this stuff on track and by so doing, you could have kept the Tea Party lunatics out of it. You didn't. How? Are you referring back to when she was speaker? Or to something more recent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.