US credit downgraded

[Gargamel]

You'll know exactly how many people "expected" this on Monday. If the market is fine then guess what...the huge drop on Thursday was the insiders, who knew it was coming from S&P, getting out of the market.

Hadn't thought of that.... Good point...

[The King]

You'll know exactly how many people "expected" this on Monday. If the market is fine then guess what...the huge drop on Thursday was the insiders, who knew it was coming from S&P, getting out of the market.

To me any serious investor, insider or not, should have already known after Tuesday that a credit rating drop was still a very real possibilty.

Monday will be interesting for sure, and not just in the U.S. markets.

[Steve]

I hope this is enough to convince people not to re-elect this clown and vote based on what has happened rather than voting blindly because of race.

[slow99]

To me any serious investor, insider or not, should have already known after Tuesday that a credit rating drop was still a very real possibilty.

Monday will be interesting for sure, and not just in the U.S. markets.

Serious investors have known it to be a very real possibility for 4 years. Knowing it's a very real possibility and knowing for sure and when it's coming are two vastly different things.

[Gargamel]

I hope this is enough to convince people not to re-elect this clown and vote based on what has happened rather than voting blindly because of race.

Sorry... the masses are still watching "Idol"....

[stevo]

The typical obama voter doesn't have a clue what is going on economically, much less care about it.

Stevo

[The King]

Serious investors have known it to be a very real possibility for 4 years. Knowing it's a very real possibility and knowing for sure and when it's coming are two vastly different things.

It was all but formally announced during the final days of the debt limit increase debate, but many people likely disregarded it as more fearmongering fostered by the powers that be in Washington. Granted though, no one knew with 100% certainty the exact day it might happen.

[Hobie]

They will spend us into oblivion, with nothing to show for it...i.e. "stimulus". It's time to get those assholes OUT.

Now speaking about the national debt in any sort of absolutes is misleading, I'm only talking about it in vagueness to demonstrate a point.

From 1776 to 2000 the US accumulated ~5 tril in debt. During the Bush administration that ~doubled. Again, over 200 years to reach 5 tril, doubled in only 8.

Again, there are a lot of factors at work, but the Bush years were hardly a model of federal fiscal restraint and fiscal conservatism.

I'm not giving the fuck-stick in office now a pass by any means, but can we really point to our party and say it's the solution, that our representatives were responsible? Hell no. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think George Bush ever veto'd a single spending bill.

We need a BIG BIG change, had John McCain beaten Barack we would still be in the same spot. Maybe it would be a year later, maybe not, but still just as fucked. This problem has been coming for a long time. This problem goes beyond simply who is in the oval office or which party controls the House and Senate. Either way they are both fucking us in the ass. The only difference is one does it missionary and the other does it doggy.

[Broncojohnny]

Now speaking about the national debt in any sort of absolutes is misleading, I'm only talking about it in vagueness to demonstrate a point.

From 1776 to 2000 the US accumulated ~5 tril in debt. During the Bush administration that ~doubled. Again, over 200 years to reach 5 tril, doubled in only 8.

Again, there are a lot of factors at work, but the Bush years were hardly a model of federal fiscal restraint and fiscal conservatism.

I'm not giving the fuck-stick in office now a pass by any means, but can we really point to our party and say it's the solution, that our representatives were responsible? Hell no. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think George Bush ever veto'd a single spending bill.

We need a BIG BIG change, had John McCain beaten Barack we would still be in the same spot. Maybe it would be a year later, maybe not, but still just as fucked. This problem has been coming for a long time. This problem goes beyond simply who is in the oval office or which party controls the House and Senate. Either way they are both fucking us in the ass. The only difference is one does it missionary and the other does it doggy.

All true. They all need to go.

[likeitfast55]

The partisan divide in politics has became like sports for people. They don't care what scumbag is on the team, they don't care how they do it, they just want to win at all costs.

The same people that bitched at Bush supporters because they had blind allegiance to a man and failed to evaluate him for his decisions are now the people that have that same blind faith towards Obama.

Citizens left and right don't care about what happens to this country, they just want their fucking team to win. Meanwhile both sides of the aisle have screwed the pooch.

Very well said. +1

[Hobie]

http://www.thegreatrecovery.com/home/



We, indebited American's, elect people to run our country the way we run our households. What if everyone elected people that would hold government to normal budeting practices.

I'm going to try and watch that before the weekend is over.

I'm coming up with this idea/theory, it's sort of a long those lines.

You, me, other people here are in the minority. Go to a poor nieghborhood and you will find pawn shops, check cashing, title loans, payday lenders, rent-a-tire. People that think borrowing for every need are the people that think the government owing $14T is no big deal.

As Dave Ramsey says: Debt is not the problem, it is a symptom of the problem. People in Washington are just like alcoholics.

Also goes with my idea.

LOL... Pickens is just pushing his wind energy agenda and says $4 gas will be back in a few months.

So does this.

The richest are trying to figure out a way to profit, I doubt they have much pride in country at this point. None are coming forward to offer solutions. Much like the politicians it is about their personal agenda.

This too.

The typical voter doesn't have a clue what is going on economically, much less care about it.

Stevo

FTFY






I'm sure someone smarter than me has said something like this long before, but this is the conclusion I'm coming to. Haven't really gotten it down to an effective "sound-bite" explanation.


The most powerful (whether that power is financial, political, or some combination of the two) among us are greedy and selfish perhaps to the point of having no limit. Which I'm not trying to say is even a bad thing. It's just what I think. For them more is always better than less, no matter what, and there is no such thing as too much. I'm not talking simply about Americans, I mean in all humanity.

These people wield in real time the financial power and political influence that would possibly take masses of "average" individuals many years or even many lifetimes to have. This has a butterfly effect. As a result there is an unintended consequence of their greed that causes economic bubbles and the following bust.

The gov't spending, the revolving door between gov't regulatory agencies with the very industries they are to regulate, it drives all costs up. Everyone of us strive for better. Some of us are much much more successful than the rest. The politicians with the most influence, the financiers with the most money, their quest for success drives up the cost of influence and financial products for even people at their own level. That trickles down to all of us and it seems to be cyclical. Life becomes more expensive for all and those near the bottom start borrowing more to improve their life. They may eventually shift that borrowing from improving their life to simply maintaining their life as things continue to rise in price. There is a "normalcy bias" working against them. They feel as if this is how they've always lived and don't realize that there is more borrowing to maintain the same life. Longer loan terms on cars, appliances, and using credit to maintain their life. In turn the people doing the lending are making more money in the short time as a benefit of all this borrowing, buying more influence, and the cost of financial products and political influence rises.

Eventually the poor-middle masses can't keep up with their debt. They stop spending whether it's because they realize they can't afford it or they default and no longer have the credit, as a result the bubble begins its burst. When that spending stops, industry slows, those financial products lose their value and plummet in price By this time all that purchased influence along with the demanded influence by the public leaves you with a huge gov't, big gov't deficits/debt.

Now what? I don't know the solution, don't know how you prevent it in the future, but it's sort of how I see all this happening. A small limited gov't seems like a step in the right direction. It won't prevent bubbles/bursts, but if won't leave individuals and businesses massively burdened with a bloated federal gov't slowing the recovery.

slow99 or broncojohnny care to help me out with this? Am I close?

[Hobie]

Probably should have proof-read that to make it more concise - it's the first time I've tried to put all these thoughts together in the written word, but I think y'all can get the jist.

[TexasDevilDog]

Now what? *I don't know the solution, don't know how you prevent it in the future, but it's sort of how I see all this happening. *A small limited gov't seems like a step in the right direction. *It won't prevent bubbles/bursts, but if won't leave individuals and businesses massively burdened with a bloated federal gov't slowing the recovery.*

slow99 or broncojohnny care to help me out with this? *Am I close?

I believe that stock markets need to be for investing not gambling. If someone is changing their position in less than a week is gambling. Add a 50% rate on capital gains from a change in less than a week, no loss write offs.*

[347Mike]

I believe that stock markets need to be for investing not gambling. If someone is changing their position in less than a week is gambling. Add a 50% rate on capital gains from a change in less than a week, no loss write offs.*

Day traders are gambling?

95% of my trades are less than a week.

[Denny]

I believe that stock markets need to be for investing not gambling. If someone is changing their position in less than a week is gambling. Add a 50% rate on capital gains from a change in less than a week, no loss write offs.*

They can buy and sell all they want if it is their money for something. All the leveraging and derivatives must go. That is the gambling.