Double Dip

[prole]

...and those chips ain't chocolate! Thanks Obama. Will Krugman be on your economic advisory team in '12? Doubtful.

[catbirdseat]

Thanks Obama? The economists have been saying for a long time that cutting spending is the wrong thing to do right now. The Tea Baggers are having then wet dream right now. Wall street now realizes that it's for real, hence the freefall.

[prole]

Obama could and should have been high pressure, full court press, media blitzkreig, "community organizing" on this (and other related issues) since day one. He's allowed the parameters of debate to be set by the Republicans on point after point after point, start negotiations from a self-imposed position of weakness, and then begin "compromising" again and again and again. It's fucking retarded! How many times have we seen this?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Don't get your panties in a wad.

[prole]

You missed me, didn't you?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

You were gone?

[prole]

So gone.

[kevbone]

You guys have it all wrong....its not Republican against Democrats.....its Washington against us. They are one.

[Hugh Conway]

Thanks Obama? The economists have been saying for a long time that cutting spending is the wrong thing to do right now. The Tea Baggers are having then wet dream right now. Wall street now realizes that it's for real, hence the freefall.

 

That's unpossible!

[billcoe]

Obama could and should have been high pressure, full court press, media blitzkreig, "community organizing" on this (and other related issues) since day one. He's allowed the parameters of debate to be set by the Republicans on point after point after point, start negotiations from a self-imposed position of weakness, and then begin "compromising" again and again and again. It's fucking retarded! How many times have we seen this?

 

Well, although I find it a refreshing change from your former "this is all Bush's fault"...but it's still not all Obamas fault. I'd give both of them blame for digging a deep financial hole.

__________________________________________________________

 

Thanks Obama? The economists have been saying for a long time that cutting spending is the wrong thing to do right now. The Tea Baggers are having then wet dream right now. Wall street now realizes that it's for real, hence the freefall.

 

If you check, you'll see that they didn't really do anything of substance. Still going in the shithole, if just slightly slowed it down, you will be paying a significant amount of interest on just the interest and the slide continues for the country.

 

A quick check of what the TARP money did would quickly abuse you of any notion that government spending is better than government spending within their means. Look at other countries...say, compare Greece to Switzerland or Germany to see what works and what doesn't.

 

[jon]

Prole, what did you do before you went to Harvard Law?

 

Yes, Obama should have not compromised and insisted on more. Reality is he wouldn't have gotten it. The stimulus should have been much bigger and financial reform should have been much tougher, going as far as breaking up some of the banks.

 

I think it's funny how everyone is NOW noticing things aren't good since the stock market is falling. Things haven't been good for two years. The raw data has been terrible and the governments actions across the world inadequate, especially in Europe. You now have China, which is highly corrupt, with completely over-leveraged municipal debt levels on bond money that likely doesn't even exist on land collateral valued at 10x realistic levels. Australia and Canada are in an enormous housing bubbles and household debt levels worse then the US ever was.

 

@noriel "Markets not buying into spin of a "better than expected" jobs # as report was lousy: unempl rate down only because 200k left the labor force"

 

Yes the unemployment rate is down to 9.1%. What is the real unemployment rate? How many people have a job now that pays much less then before?

 

[Stefan]

but! If you are into oil, you are doing great!....and gold!

[prole]

Prole, what did you do before you went to Harvard Law?

 

Yes, Obama should have not compromised and insisted on more. Reality is he wouldn't have gotten it. The stimulus should have been much bigger and financial reform should have been much tougher, going as far as breaking up some of the banks.

 

The point is not that Obama would ever get "everything he wanted" but that you craft a vision, build popular support around narratives that tell your side of the story, and start the bargaining process by asking for far more than you'd ever think you'd get. It's exactly what the GOP has been doing with with wild success (Paul Ryan plan, balanced budget amendment, etc.). Where's Obama's jobs plan? Where's the demand stimulus plan to boost growth? Make some proposals, engage in some brinksmanship of your own, and take the fight to your opponent instead of getting led around by your ass and/or getting left flatfooted time after time by a faction that's literally willing to crash the economy to get what it wants.

 

Things haven't been good for two years. The raw data has been terrible and the governments actions across the world inadequate, especially in Europe. You now have China, which is highly corrupt, with completely over-leveraged municipal debt levels on bond money that likely doesn't even exist on land collateral valued at 10x realistic levels. Australia and Canada are in an enormous housing bubbles and household debt levels worse then the US ever was.

 

If ever it was the time for bold action...

 

 

[Jim]

The point is not that Obama would ever get "everything he wanted" but that you craft a vision, build popular support around narratives that tell your side of the story, and start the bargaining process by asking for far more than you'd ever think you'd get. It's exactly what the GOP has been doing with with wild success (Paul Ryan plan, balanced budget amendment, etc.). Where's Obama's jobs plan? Where's the demand stimulus plan to boost growth? Make some proposals, engage in some brinksmanship of your own, and take the fight to your opponent instead of getting led around by your ass and/or getting left flatfooted time after time by a faction that's literally willing to crash the economy to get what it wants.

 

I'd have to agree with this assessment. No leadership what so ever. This guy is in constant react mode and on his heels. Rather than working on jobs issues, what did we spend energy on the last several months - the GOP-manufactured crisis de jour of holding the debt ceiling hostage. So far the only thing I've seen that this guy believes in is compromise on any outlandish proposal put forward by the Tea Baggers.

[prole]

And then there's another hypothesis. Probably more accurate.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

The point is not that Obama would ever get "everything he wanted" but that you craft a vision, build popular support around narratives that tell your side of the story, and start the bargaining process by asking for far more than you'd ever think you'd get. It's exactly what the GOP has been doing with with wild success (Paul Ryan plan, balanced budget amendment, etc.). Where's Obama's jobs plan? Where's the demand stimulus plan to boost growth? Make some proposals, engage in some brinksmanship of your own, and take the fight to your opponent instead of getting led around by your ass and/or getting left flatfooted time after time by a faction that's literally willing to crash the economy to get what it wants.

 

I'd have to agree with this assessment. No leadership what so ever. This guy is in constant react mode and on his heels. Rather than working on jobs issues, what did we spend energy on the last several months - the GOP-manufactured crisis de jour of holding the debt ceiling hostage. So far the only thing I've seen that this guy believes in is compromise on any outlandish proposal put forward by the Tea Baggers.

 

FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!

[prole]

I am beginning to wonder if he really is the lesser of two evils...

[Jim]

And then there's another hypothesis. Probably more accurate.

 

Another stick in the eye. Thanks. It's Friday, c'mon, give me a break!

[jon]

The WaMu execs and Casey Anthony are having a party tonight!

[Off_White]

I just want to point out that I must be prescient, I called the play back in Nov 2010 link

[G-spotter]

Triple A to double A. Pretty soon you'll be using D cells.

[ZimZam]

The audacity.

[Hugh Conway]

Triple A to double A. Pretty soon you'll be using D cells.

 

Going from As to Ds is almost always an upgrade in the girlfriend department

[prole]

Worked like a fuckin' charm.

 

[video:youtube]

 

S.&P. Downgrade Is Seen as Adding Urgency to Debt-Cutting Panel

By ROBERT PEAR

 

WASHINGTON — The downgrade of the United States government’s credit rating by Standard & Poor’s is almost sure to increase pressure on a new Congressional “supercommittee” to mute ideological disagreements and recommend a package of deficit-reduction measures far exceeding its original goal of at least $1.5 trillion, lawmakers said Sunday.

 

Even before the panel is appointed, its mission is expanding. Its role is not just to cut the annual budget deficit and slow the explosive growth of federal debt but also to appease the markets and help restore the United States’ top credit rating of AAA. Otherwise, taxpayers may eventually have to pay more in interest for every dollar borrowed by the Treasury.

 

The report certainly got the attention of Capitol Hill. “I think this is one of the most telling, important moments in our country’s history right now,” Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, said Sunday on the NBC program “Meet the Press.” He added: “This poses a set of choices not just about a recession. It’s about a financial crisis and the structure of our economy, which really has been misallocating capital.”

 

In the S.&P. report on Friday outlining the reasons for removing long-term Treasury debt from its list of nearly risk-free investments, the company cited doubts about the ability of the two political parties to bridge their gulf on fiscal policy.

 

Credit rating agencies have thus emerged as a powerful constituency whose concerns are taken seriously by Congress.

 

Representative Joe Courtney, Democrat of Connecticut, said he had “read and reread the S. & P. report” several times since it was issued Friday night, and he said it could spur action by Congress. If the 12 members of the committee, to be appointed by Aug. 16 by Congressional leaders of the two parties, could agree on a deficit-reduction package, and if Congress approved it, Mr. Courtney said, “that would surprise a lot of skeptics” and could disprove the company’s criticism of the United States political system.

 

Representative Blake Farenthold, a freshman Republican from Texas, said the S.&P. report could have a beneficial effect. “Anything that encourages the new committee to get the job done and get us back on a rational fiscal path is a good thing,” Mr. Farenthold said.

 

Another freshman Republican, Representative Steve Southerland II of Florida, said the credit report created “a sense of urgency for the two parties to come together.” The possibility of a further downgrade “scares me,” Mr. Southerland said.

 

The stated goal of the new panel, the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, is to cut federal budget deficits by a total of “at least $1.5 trillion” over the next decade.

 

The first round of savings under the new law, coming from annual caps on appropriations, is estimated at $917 billion over 10 years. Standard & Poor’s had said it was hoping to see $4 trillion in total deficit reduction. If the joint committee wanted to reach that goal, it might seek a bigger, more comprehensive deal, aiming to save $3 trillion rather than $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

 

If Congress wants to satisfy the rating agencies — Moody’s and Fitch have so far kept their AAA ratings of government debt — it will need to lock in substantial deficit-reduction measures, without using the kind of budgetary gimmicks that sometimes appear to produce savings under accounting rules prescribed by Congress, several lawmakers said.

 

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, said Sunday on “Meet the Press” that the credit downgrade created an “added incentive” for the new committee and Congress as a whole to agree on major deficit-reduction plans.

 

On the other hand, opposition to proposals from the committee, due by Nov. 23, could increase with the size of the package. And a bigger joint committee bill might make the alternative — automatic across-the-board cuts saving $1.2 trillion over 10 years — appear more attractive, lawmakers said.

 

Democrats like the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, cited the downgrade as another reason to include revenue-raising measures in a package. Republicans like Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio said the downgrade strengthened the case for deeper cuts in spending.

 

Before their talks broke down last month, President Obama and Mr. Boehner were pursuing a “grand bargain” that sought savings of $4 trillion over a decade.

 

Senator Kerry also endorsed that goal. The United States must show the markets that it is “deadly serious about dealing with its long-term structural debt,” he said, and the way to do that is by “putting a plan on the table, $4 trillion plus, if necessary.”

 

Republicans have historically seen the deficit as an issue that plays to their political advantage. Deficit-reduction proposals floated by Mr. Obama as part of a grand bargain set him against many of his liberal supporters.

 

Congressional Democrats, lobbyists for older Americans and advocates for the poor expressed alarm last month when Mr. Obama showed serious interest in proposals to reduce the cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security benefits, increase the eligibility age for Medicare and cut Medicaid payments to the states for treating poor people.

 

The new panel will have 14 weeks to do its work. Republicans have made clear that they will push for cuts in federal spending under the new health care law, arguing that it should be on the table along with other government programs and tax breaks. The Congressional Budget Office says the law will cover 34 million uninsured people by expanding Medicaid and subsidizing private insurance at a cost of $1.1 trillion over 10 years.

 

On “Fox News Sunday,” Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin and chairman of the House Budget Committee, said the new panel would probably not “achieve a full fix to our problems because Democrats have never wanted to put their health care bill on the table.”

 

S.&P. did not advocate a specific mix of increased revenue and spending cuts. But it did say that overhauling entitlement programs was “key to long-term fiscal sustainability” and that the debt deal “envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare.”

 

 

[jon]

Just remember these jackasses are the same ones who gave AAA ratings to the junk mortgage back securities that helped start this whole mess.