Next time Republicans claim that (a) their actions are not ruled by ideology, (b) they always want to save the taxpayers money, or that (c) if government cuts taxes on businesses, those businesses will pass the savings on to consumers, ask them why none of those was true in this case:

"FAA mess disproves two key conservative tenets"

[url]http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/28/999904/-FAA-mess-disproves-two-key-conservative-tenets?via=blog_1[/url]

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2.html?ref=sunday[/url]

@Ernst: Also, don't just compare deficits. Compare expenditure and revenues as well.

[QUOTE=garo;267800][url]http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2.html?ref=sunday[/url]

@Ernst: Also, don't just compare deficits. Compare expenditure and revenues as well.[/QUOTE]

Thanks ... But while continuing an idiotic/ruinous policy may be morally less-offensive than initiating one, it is functionally little different. (Try substituting things like continuing the indefinite detentions at Guantanamo and other "black sites" around the world for the deficit spending).

Also, the sheer lack of genuine leadership on so many key fronts is palpable ... Where are the FDR-style targeted jobs programs for the long-term unemployed? Where is the decisive action (there is a lot Obama could do by executive order and a couple phone calls to the IRS here) to close the gaping corporate tax loopholes and abuses which are costing us hundreds of billions per year? Instead we are hearing buzz about [url=http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/evil-corporate-tax-holiday-gains-bipartisan-support-20110726]growing bipartisan support[/url] for another "tax holiday", which would allow US multinationals to repatriate around $1 trillion in overseas-parked earnings, tax-free, for a loss of $250 Billion in revenues. The excuse for this insanity is "the companies will use the money to create jobs". Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure they will ... in fact, we have data from the [url=http://www.zerohedge.com/article/lost-cause-tax-repatriation-or-folly-homeland-investment-act-part-2]last similar tax giveaway[/url] which show unambiguously that the companies blew nearly all of the tax-free windfall on stockholder dividends, executive compensation, and any job creation which occurred in its wake was overwhelmingly in the same pl;ace those profits were earned -overseas. Obama could direct the IRS to force repatriation of the money and the tax to be paid ASAP ... but no, that would be "business-unfriendly", meaning it would cost him some juicy campaign contributions in his upcoming re-election bid.

[QUOTE][QUOTE]But the real question of the week is: Will any of the Big 3 ratings cartels have the guts to do the right thing and downgrade the US, irrespective of whether some silly "temporary agreement to pretend we will actually try to get our budget house in order but first extendify the debt ceiling, blah blah" is reached at the 11.99th hour, as we all know it will be? [/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

It seems that they definitely [B]don't[/B] have the guts: The USA is still rated with AAA which means that there is almost no risk for default.

Currently there is a non-negligible risk that the debt ceiling will NOT be raised - and I don't see any way that the USA will [i]not[/i] default (or selectively default) sooner or later - this would normally result in a CC rating (speaking in S&P terms, and no, I don't have any connections to this agency) or worse (look at the rating of Greece!) - please correct me if I'm wrong.

So currently the debt ceiling needs to be raised, and to achieve this, either the Republicans or the Democrats (or both!) need to have the guts to accept a compromise. In other words, the circumstances (i.e. debt ceiling) need to improve to avoid at least a selective default. Translated to German, this (approximately?) means "nur bei günstiger Entwicklung sind keine Ausfälle zu erwarten", which is the phrase which [URL="http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rating#Ratingcodes"]stands near the CCC+ and CCC (S&P) resp. Caa1 and Caa2 (Moody's) in German wikipedia[/URL].

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;267753]Yep. For the time being I have pulled my entire IRA/401K out of the
stock market. I maintain a position in REITS and in some bond funds
but I have pulled out of all equities. I will rethink my portfolio in a month
or so. I will probably put a much higher percentage into precious metals.
[/QUOTE]

What is IRA/401K, what is RETIS? (sorry, I have just joined this thread and I am not familiar with these abbreviations.)

BTW: if the "unthinkable" happens and the USA defaults (possibly causing treasury bonds worth 14.3e12 $ to become worthless overnight if the US would go bankrupt) - would ANY kind of financial investment (including noble metals) be able to withstand the jet-black days on the stock-markets? (imagine 14e12$ "disappearing" from the portfolios of banks, insurances and other financial institutions) :nuke:

[QUOTE=Andi47;267854]What is IRA/401K, what is RETIS? (sorry, I have just joined this thread and I am not familiar with these abbreviations.)[/quote]IRAs and 401Ks are tax-adavantaged retirement accounts. IRAs are set up and maintained by the individual, 401Ks are set up and maintained by a person's employer. Both allow you to contribute money each year, subject to limits; the money (hopefully) grows tax-free until you retire. After retirement, as you draw the money out, it is taxed at your current (most likely lower) tax rate.
[quote]BTW: if the "unthinkable" happens and the USA defaults (possibly causing treasury bonds worth 14.3e12 $ to become worthless overnight if the US would go bankrupt) - would ANY kind of financial investment (including noble metals) be able to withstand the jet-black days on the stock-markets? (imagine 14e12$ "disappearing" from the portfolios of banks, insurances and other financial institutions) :nuke:[/QUOTE]Hopefully it will not reach that point. There is some talk about whether or not the 14th ammendment to the US constitution would allow President Obama to ignore the debt ceiling.....even if that option is not used, currently the revnue would allow the US to pay interest on US Treasuries due in the coming days, the hard part comes after that.

After the current interest is paid, painful decisions will have to be made about who/what to pay next.....

Apple holding more cash than USA
 

Hmm...

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14340470[/url]

[QUOTE=Andi47;267854]BTW: if the "unthinkable" happens and the USA defaults (possibly causing treasury bonds worth 14.3e12 $ to become worthless overnight if the US would go bankrupt) - would ANY kind of financial investment (including noble metals) be able to withstand the jet-black days on the stock-markets? (imagine 14e12$ "disappearing" from the portfolios of banks, insurances and other financial institutions) :nuke:[/QUOTE]

The risk of an actual default (in terms of not paying the interest due on maturing government debt) has been greatly overblown, especially by those desperate to kick the can past the 2012 elections. The treasury has plenty of money coming in to pay maturing debt, the main impact of not raising the debt ceiling would be that they would only be able to pay about 60% of the total bills of all kinds coming due each month. It's been quite hilarious, actually, listening to the pundits and financial media describing such a scenario - "Treasury would only be able to pay out as much as it takes in in revenues" - as though it were some bizarre, alien concept.
There are also numerous "creative financing" avenues Treasury can use - typically involving some debt-shuffle-dance between the various govt trust funds and the Fed - to help make good the 4)% shortfall, at least for a few months. Apparently there have been ongoing secretive "doomsday scenario" talks at Treasury mapping out exactly such things.

So even absent a last-second "compromise" (I use quotes because the spending-cut component of any such is likely to be laughably small, i.e. "both sides have agreed to a compromise involving less spending cuts than either side previously proposed") there is 0 risk of a technical default near-term, just the same kinds of painful who-gets-paid decisions needing to be made that any household needing to live within its means must make.

The ratings agencies should have started downgrading already anyway, because no scenario I've seen involves cutting even close to the $400 billion-per-year figure the RAs have cited as a "good start" in terms of avoiding a rating downgrade. That number appears to have stemmed from the recommendation of the bipartisan Bowles/Simpson debt-reduction commission which was constituted by the president himself and tasked with mapping out a short and long-term path toward fiscal sustainability, and whose serious, well-thought recommendations were promptly ignored by the president and both sides of the congressional aisle - but apparently not by the ratings agencies.

[QUOTE=Andi47;267854][QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;267753]< snip > I maintain a position in REITS[/QUOTE]

<snip> what is RETIS?[/QUOTE]REITs = Real Estate Investment Trusts

[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_estate_investment_trust[/URL]

[URL]http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/reit.asp[/URL]

ewmayer,

I'm disappointed in you. You don't seem to recognize that the faults you are attributing to the Democrats are actually the Republicans' fault. As Garo pointed out, the spending policies approved by Democrats under George Bush's watch, and which have been continued by Obama, are really just the Republican party's fault. You need to stop "weasel[ing] out of acknowledging Republican faults".

Oh, and this new bill just passed by the Republicans? Clearly it's the Republicans' fault it won't pass in the Senate. They need to stop acting out of ideological purity.

[Note for the sarcasmless among us: The post above is not serious. I appreciate ewmayer for clearly understanding the faults of both sides, and trying to put those faults in perspective of one another.]

Zeta-Flux,

Setting sarcasm aside for a moment:

Will you please point out for us where you've posted sincere acknowledgements of Republican faults described by other posters?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;267914]Zeta-Flux, Will you please point out for us where you've posted sincere acknowledgements of Republican faults described by other posters?[/QUOTE]

Um, how 'bout going a mere one post back:

[quote]I appreciate ewmayer for clearly understanding the [b]faults of both sides[/b],[/quote]