believer;854031 wrote:Yes. You simply include clear-cut clauses in the balanced budget amendment to consider such contingencies but it would take - say - a 70% majority vote in both houses of Congress to implement such emergency measures.
God damn it.
I Wear Pants;855269 wrote:God damn it.
If it's a real emergency I trust that common sense will rule the day under a balanced budget scenario.I Wear Pants;855139 wrote:You want to have emergency measures need a 70% majority approval from both houses? Hopefully the emergencies you're thinking of aren't ones that require expediency.
I barely trust those guys to be able to brush their teeth let alone think rationally or with a shred of moral understanding.believer;855288 wrote:If it's a real emergency I trust that common sense will rule the day under a balanced budget scenario.
I Wear Pants;855294 wrote:I don't.
We can agree on that.I Wear Pants;855294 wrote:I barely trust those guys to be able to brush their teeth let alone think rationally or with a shred of moral understanding.
http://www.businessinsider.com/report-senate-banking-committee-probing-sp-downgrade-of-us-credit-rating-2011-8“In the minds of serious, reasonable, and informed individuals there is no doubt that the U.S. will meet its debt obligations and we are seeing even more proof of that today. As the financial markets stumble, investors continue to regard Treasury debt as a safe haven in times of economic uncertainty. This irresponsible move by S&P may, however, have spillover effects that tax the American people by increasing interest rates on home loans, credit cards, and car loans, and by increasing the cost of finance for some state and local governments. I am deeply disappointed in S&P’s decision to enter into the game of political punditry.”
majorspark;855468 wrote:The Senate Banking Committee is gathering information surrounding the S&P downgrade for a possible investigation.
I can hardly wait for that dog & pony show. The politicians in DC are definitely in meltdown mode and eager to point fingers at everyone but themselves for getting us into this mess.majorspark;855468 wrote:Oh boy a Senate show trial where we get to watch an arrogant panel of pompous asses dress down the poor schmucks sitting at the table below them.
majorspark;855468 wrote:The Senate Banking Committee is gathering information surrounding the S&P downgrade for a possible investigation.
sleeper;856139 wrote:I was watching MSNBC last night, and whoever the host of the show was went all out on bashing S&P and trying to strip any credibility the company had left
LJ;856140 wrote:I dunno how you can disagree with this? S&P rated horrid junk MBS's as AAA
CCCCleveland Buck;856158 wrote:If a person:
Earns $50,000 a year
Spends $82,000 a year
Already owes $330,000 in debt
And has committed future obligations totaling $2,600,000
What would their credit rating be?
sleeper;856147 wrote:Yeah. I don't think S&P was right to do that either, but hindsight is 20/20. There's no way the US deserves to be AAA.
While we reserve judgment for S&P's effectiveness at being accurate in anything they do (they are, after all a rating agency and as such they goal seek results to comply with what their paying groupthink seeking customers demand), we would like to redirect to the modest topic of CBO predictive efficiency (the organization that is at the basis of the current credibility spat between Treasury and S&P, and which, incidentally has created the baseline forecast against which the debt ceiling compromise plan is supposed to cut $2.1 trillion over the next decade), by pointing out according to the same CBO back in 2001, net US indebtedness in 2011 would be negative $2.436 trillion, the ratio of debt held by the public to GDP would be 4.8%, total budget surplus would be $889 billion, and GDP would be $16.9 trillion. We won't comment on the error interval in CBO forecasts when compared to actual 2011 results, and we most certainly won't comment on the idiocy of the Treasury chastising someone, anyone, for erring, or disputing, forecasts
jhay78;856185 wrote:In 2001, here's where the CBO predicted we'd be today:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/speaking-credibility-here-cbos-2001-forecast-which-predicted-negative-25-trillion-net-debt-2011
jhay78;856185 wrote:In 2001, here's where the CBO predicted we'd be today:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/speaking-credibility-here-cbos-2001-forecast-which-predicted-negative-25-trillion-net-debt-2011
Ahhhh, yes, the "Axis of Deficit"QuakerOats;856247 wrote:At the time it was a far-fetched notion that the socialist triumvirate of obama/pelosi/reid could come to power.