7/31/2011 1:22:20 PM

Quote :

"Moody's said new proposed Can kicking plan would be enough to avoid a credit downgrade. That is awsome, I wanna go work at Moody's. It seems you can be wrong for a decade and get paid big coin to stamp your seal on ponzi schemes. This is the same feedback loop we had in the housing market."

Do what? New statement from Moody's then?

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/801-economy/174447-moodys-neither-plan-protects-the-nations-aaa-rating

Quote :

"07/29/11 The "limited magnitude" of both debt plans put forward by congressional leaders would not put the nation's AAA credit rating back on solid footing, Moody's Investors Service announced Friday."

7/31/2011 3:39:52 PM

Quote :

"Just a reminder, even more than a month has passed since the Treasury suspended payments (debt suspension period) to the Civil Service retirement fund, technically breaking the law, although the payment came due quite awhile ago. You see, the treasury secretary manages the pension and is not about to complain that he stopped making payments to himself. In effect, he is already prioritizing payments in order of least damage. I would say the treasury secretary's behavior speaks louder than some journalist at the New York Times' assertions."

Nope.

Quote :

"How does the debt ceiling affect the CSRDF? The CSRDF is invested in special-issue Treasury securities, which count against the debt limit. In 1986, Congress provided Treasury statutory authority to take certain actions in the event that the outstanding debt reaches the debt limit. Specifically, the statute authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to determine that a "debt issuance suspension period" exists and, once he has done so, Treasury can (1) redeem certain existing investments in the CSRDF, and (2) suspend new investments by the CSRDF."

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm#DebtLimit

The debt issuance suspension period is not illegal. The law that allows the Treasury to suspend payments (5 USC §8348) applies specifically to the retirement fund.

[Edited on July 31, 2011 at 3:56 PM. Reason : ]

7/31/2011 3:55:42 PM

whoever "wins," we are all fucked.

7/31/2011 7:14:06 PM

Disastrous deal struck, ouch for all Americans we all got screwed today

Here's an amazing piece from David Rosenberg on Friday to help all of us grieve.

Quote :

" You know what — I am sick and tired of all the so-called mainstream pundits out there lambasting the Tea Party. Those who know me, and know me well, know that I am not some right-wing nutbar but come on. Why is everyone so scared about committing to a balanced budget amendment? Why is there so much fear about admitting that living within your means is not a terrible thing? Government spending, in the United States, is simply out of control. Over the past decade, federal expenditures rose at an average annual rate of 6% while the growth rate in the number of households has risen at a 0.8% annual rate. At around 25% of GDP, spending is higher now than at any other time since 1946. That is an outlier. Admittedly, revenues at 15% of GDP are abnormally low as well, and while a partial by-product of the recession and sluggish recovery, loopholes galore and endless tax gimmicks are also at play — in the 1991 economic downturn that ratio was around 18% and in the severe economic decline in the early 1980s, it was 19%. Revenues have to go up and there's a cool trillion sittin' right there in loopholes — oh, sorry, deductions and "tax expenditures", we don't want to offend anybody — that could be eliminated without sacrificing growth while reducing the ridiculous complexity of the tax code. A few less lawyers and IRS staff would be just fine by us. But to think that the U.S. government cannot manage to deliver effective and essential services with a $2.5 trillion revenue base is absurd. If that is what spending has to ultimately equal, so be it. Isn't 21 grand per household of government benefits enough? Before 2005, such a level of government expenditure per household was unheard of (in Bill Clinton's final days as President, that ratio was barely above $16,000). At the height of LBJ's "Great Society" glory, government spending per household didn't even approach $3000. So indeed, the problem is more with this massive spending infrastructure. Even the word "entitlement" is so grotesque. Entitled to what? Taxpayer funds? Come on, man! Tighten the belt and make the move towards fiscal integrity. After all, the shift towards austerity is already occurring at the state and local government levels. Households have been paring debt and raising their savings rates for two years. And Congress and the President should actually start behaving more like children (that's right) because the Denver Post just ran a story titled Tooth Fairy Gets Frugal in Shaky Economy. Indeed, the "going rate" for that loose tooth that made it under the pillow has declined from $3 on average a year ago to $2.60 today. And guess what? The kids are all right. Time for the guys in Washington to follow on the heels of that generation. All it takes is for the President to sign on to a balanced budget amendment, and this whole fiasco is over. Then again, and we hope we're not too harsh, but if Mr. Obama thought they actually did have a spending mismatch, he would have offered up some restraint on that score when he unveiled his budget six months ago. "

7/31/2011 10:12:33 PM

obama is the political lebron.

[Edited on July 31, 2011 at 11:45 PM. Reason : i guess that makes boehner dirk]

7/31/2011 11:45:37 PM

Do you feel it's harder to survive recently? I mean is the economy worse than before?

8/15/2011 12:59:50 PM