Moody's to Washington: Strike a Deal or get Struck

[SMR 368]

It's not stated directly but if you take a close look at what it says and then look at what's realisitically possible with cuts alone, then you are left with the necessity to enhance revenues in order to get to any decline in the debt to revenue ratio beginning in 5 years. The debt is going to grow over the next five years no matter what. The deficit isn't going to be eliminated over the next decade or two. Even the Paul Ryan blueprint doesn't eliminate the deficit over the next four decades despite working on assumptions such as 5% sustained economic growth (not gonna happen) and unemployment rates some 1.5% less than full employment (not gonna happen). So, even in the best of circumstances economically and even with the quasi elimination of Medicare, you don't get to a balanced budget in less than 40 years under the Ryan blueprint. It may be hard to swallow but the reality is that in the real world there is no balanced budget to be had without enhancing revenues. As long as we incur deficits, the debt is going to grow. Growing debt requires revenue growth at a faster clip than debt growth in order for the debt ro revenue ratio to decline.

Paul Ryan is a stooge along with every other moron in Washington who doesn't seem to think that a deficit free budget is possible this year. And you're silly to believe them. I'm not saying that the cuts wouldn't be felt. But if you start with the assumption that you can't borrow money, then you'll get there.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Good. We need higher interest rates. Lowering them to stimulate the economy didn't work, and now we have nowhere to go. The average investor shouldn't be relying on the stock and commodities markets to grow his investments. Let's go back to the days when grandma could buy a CD from her local bank, and get a double digit return.

[SMR 368]

Good. We need higher interest rates. Lowering them to stimulate the economy didn't work, and now we have nowhere to go. The average investor shouldn't be relying on the stock and commodities markets to grow his investments. Let's go back to the days when grandma could buy a CD from her local bank, and get a double digit return.

Exactly. I don't understand why the public has been brainwashed into thinking low interest rates are a good thing. A low interest rate means it's incredibly difficult to make any money with your savings. I'm not advocating double digits, necessarily. But being able to cut a CD for 4-7% would be a good thing for the average American who should be putting some money away.

[mawilson 2,133]

EITC pisses me off. End it. End the mortgage interest and property taxes deduction too and watch the property prices in places like NYC and LA metro areas become affordable to regular people again.

eta: ending those deductions will hurt me bad.

[^_^ 5,021]

Why is that funny?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Brainwashed? Because I state the simple fact that you do not get to rate the country's creditworthiness? Yeah, whatever. You're so full of shite!

I'm talking about the credit rating of the country. That's completely irrelevant to what's going on in Washington and just another scare tactic to make people think 'oooooooo.'

Your credit rating is going to go down if you borrow more money anyway. For what it takes for us to borrow more money, the value of the dollar will sink even further down the hole.

The issue here isn't the credit rating, it never has been. The issue is out of control spending in Washington that has been non-stop by both parties for the last 70 years, more so in the last 10 years and it's finally catching up with us.

We're done. We're broke. The ONLY thing we can do is to drastically cut back on spending. We aren't going to 'default' on anything as long as we keep paying our interest and start trying to work out a way to pay down the principal as well. We're still going to have the revenue to do that. If we default, it's the fault of 535 individuals and one President who refuse to get what's needed done to keep paying our bills first and then everything else second.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Paul Ryan is a stooge along with every other moron in Washington who doesn't seem to think that a deficit free budget is possible this year. And you're silly to believe them. I'm not saying that the cuts wouldn't be felt. But if you start with the assumption that you can't borrow money, then you'll get there.

And do what to the economy on the way? If we were to cut a trillion and a half in expenditures in 2012, we'd be headed back into a recession and those unemployment numbers we're looking at today would all of a sudden become something desirable. Of course, with a second recession we'd also look at further decreased revenues which would require additional cuts the year after and so on and so forth. Ireland tried this a few years back and their situation hasn't improved one bit. In fact, their bond rating now is just a step shy of junk.

[웃 910]

I'm talking about the credit rating of the country. That's completely irrelevant to what's going on in Washington and just another scare tactic to make people think 'oooooooo.'

Your credit rating is going to go down if you borrow more money anyway. For what it takes for us to borrow more money, the value of the dollar will sink even further down the hole.

The issue here isn't the credit rating, it never has been. The issue is out of control spending in Washington that has been non-stop by both parties for the last 70 years, more so in the last 10 years and it's finally catching up with us.

We're done. We're broke. The ONLY thing we can do is to drastically cut back on spending. We aren't going to 'default' on anything as long as we keep paying our interest and start trying to work out a way to pay down the principal as well. We're still going to have the revenue to do that. If we default, it's the fault of 535 individuals and one President who refuse to get what's needed done to keep paying our bills first and then everything else second.

If you go back 40 years here is what you get (approx.):

Excluding Obama:

Repubs: $9.4 trillion (in 20 years by Bush 1, 2, Reagan) = $470 billion average per year

Dems: $1.2 trillion (in 8 years by Clinton) = $150 billion average per year

Including Obama:

Dems: $4.2 trillion (in 11 years) = $380 billion average per year

*The debt problem is a Republican problem, not a Democrat one...

Edited July 14, 2011 by Lord Infamous

[mawilson 2,133]

Why is that funny?

If it's going to hurt you bad, why do you want to end those deductions?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If it's going to hurt you bad, why do you want to end those deductions?

'Cause he's a true patriot.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The Dems need to stop being the party of "no".