Moody's takes Obie to class...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/live-updates-the-shutdown-4/?hpid=z2#c1e3ada3-dc00-41d8-92cb-327c5c814d82

fish82;1515495 wrote:Moody's takes Obie to class...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/live-updates-the-shutdown-4/?hpid=z2#c1e3ada3-dc00-41d8-92cb-327c5c814d82

You see though, in general, liberals don't let things like facts get in the way of their beliefs.

fish82;1515495 wrote:Moody's takes Obie to class...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/live-updates-the-shutdown-4/?hpid=z2#c1e3ada3-dc00-41d8-92cb-327c5c814d82

We believe the government would continue to pay interest and principal on its debt even in the event that the debt limit is not raised, leaving its creditworthiness intact,” the memo says. “The debt limit restricts government expenditures to the amount of its incoming revenues; it does not prohibit the government from servicing its debt. There is no direct connection between the debt limit (actually the exhaustion of the Treasury’s extraordinary measures to raise funds) and a default.

What they're saying is that the tsy would choose to default on other payments mandated by law than payments owed to owners to holders of tsy securities. All a default is a failure to do something required to do by law. It is not clear that the tsy can properly prioritize its payments as a lot of it is done automatically and it'd be tough to fix the software to make sure owners of tsy securities got paid first. Either way, the U.S. is still in default to other obligees and will be in arrears on different types of contractually owed obligations.

Even if we manage to still manage to be able to credit tsy securities accounts we'll still be in legal default and if it goes on for any amount of time the immediate contraction in spending will cause a recession in short order.

jmog;1515510 wrote:You see though, in general, liberals don't let things like facts get in the way of their beliefs.

Ironic.

BoatShoes;1515544 wrote:Ironic.

What's Ironic is that an agency that ACTUALLY DOES the credit ratings of countries comes out and states that a failed debt ceiling increase would not damage the credit rating, and you argue against them.

Paying the creditors is the main (if not whole) part of the credit rating, the government has PLENTY of money coming in to pay interest and principle on the debt, they just can't operate under a deficit if the debt ceiling isn't raised. I know THAT is the part that scares you most Boat NO DEFICIT.

jmog;1515546 wrote:What's Ironic is that an agency that ACTUALLY DOES the credit ratings of countries comes out and states that a failed debt ceiling increase would not damage the credit rating, and you argue against them.

Paying the creditors is the main (if not whole) part of the credit rating, the government has PLENTY of money coming in to pay interest and principle on the debt, they just can't operate under a deficit if the debt ceiling isn't raised. I know THAT is the part that scares you most Boat NO DEFICIT.

1. Moody's descriptions about what treasury operations officials will be able to pull off is tangentially related to their primary service that they provide. EDIT: BTW let's take notice that this right here on your part claiming that Moody's is the credit rater so they must be right was an appeal to authority...again...which you always do as is apparent here but you consistently complained about it in a previous thread and failed to acknowledge your consistent habit of doing the same thing.

Really, Moody's guess is as good as anybody's. Maybe tsy can pull it off. Even if they can it would still be bad and it is ludicrous...ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS....that we're even considering it in the United States of America. It is absolutely insane that it's even on the table.

2. Do you want to see what some of the other things that Mark Zandi and Moody's has put out that you will undoubtedly disagree with such as the benefits of Obama's stimulus...the harms on the economy of the sequester and debt ceiling brinkmanship....i.e. things that don't mesh with your beliefs? I doubt it.


3. the TGA is credited at regular intervals is used to debit the account responds to bills when they're due. There's no doubt they could choose to only pay holders or tsy securities but it's a question of whether the operations as they're currently constructed could really pull it off. Doesn't help that people at tsy are furloughed right now. Either way...you're just defaulting on obligations owed to different types of obligees anyway. If I choose to pay only my student loan bill and not bills owed to the gas company, I'm still in default. Not a good thing for the U.S. government

4. It's stupid to downgrade a sovereign currency's debt anyway. S&P recently said that it's really just a downgrade of the political system.

5. You should be scared of the rapid closing of "the deficit" too. Even if tsy could pull it off...it would be a short while before we're in a recession...something that Moody's also believes. See Mark Zandi:

Investors still might be spooked even if debt payments are kept up, said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics Inc. in West Chester, Pennsylvania.
“If I were a bond investor and I saw Social Security payments not being made, I would wonder how long it would be before I wouldn’t be paid,” Zandi said.
Whether the Treasury defaults or not, “we’re in for a long, deep recession” without an increase in the borrowing limit, he said.

But I suppose Zandi is just Full of Shit on that part.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-09/recession-looms-if-treasury-uses-tools-to-prevent-a-debt-default.html

BoatShoes;1515543 wrote:What they're saying is that the tsy would choose to default on other payments mandated by law than payments owed to owners to holders of tsy securities. All a default is a failure to do something required to do by law. It is not clear that the tsy can properly prioritize its payments as a lot of it is done automatically and it'd be tough to fix the software to make sure owners of tsy securities got paid first. Either way, the U.S. is still in default to other obligees and will be in arrears on different types of contractually owed obligations.

Even if we manage to still manage to be able to credit tsy securities accounts we'll still be in legal default and if it goes on for any amount of time the immediate contraction in spending will cause a recession in short order.

It's amazing that you were able to extrapolate all that from a passage that essentially says the opposite. Your gifts run deeper than first thought. :rolleyes:

fish82;1515573 wrote:It's amazing that you were able to extrapolate all that from a passage that essentially says the opposite. Your gifts run deeper than first thought. :rolleyes:

What is so hard to understand? I acknowledge that the treasury may be able to still pay owners of tsy securities and that Moody's thinks this would be able to happen. They are more confident than I am.

I also pointed out that not defaulting on tsy interest payments does not mean that we're not in default in other obligations. You people are acting like everything will be A-Ok if we manage to not fall into arrears on interest payments.

"Hey gaIz don't w0rry we can sk!p PaY1n sum r billz like teh p000rz on teh WelfAre do!!!"

BoatShoes;1515580 wrote:What is so hard to understand? I acknowledge that the treasury may be able to still pay owners of tsy securities and that Moody's thinks this would be able to happen. They are more confident than I am.

I also pointed out that not defaulting on tsy interest payments does not mean that we're not in default in other obligations. You people are acting like everything will be A-Ok if we manage to not fall into arrears on interest payments.

"Hey gaIz don't w0rry we can sk!p PaY1n sum r billz like teh p000rz on teh WelfAre do!!!"

We are currently working at about a 15% reduced government, in order to operate at zero deficit that would be required to be about 25% reduced federal government.

So we are already down 15% and really not hurting, while I agree that a 25% cut at one time will hurt, from where we are right now it would only be 10% more.

Now, if the democrats would actually negotiate, it could be reduced over time (you know, ACTUAL reductions instead of reduced increases).

The doom and gloom that the Ds said would happen with the sequestor did not happen. The doom and gloom that the Ds said would happen with a shut down did not happen. I agree that a debt limit being failed to pass would be worse than either of these, but the doom and gloom has been proven wrong before and it won't be AS BAD as they are saying.

BoatShoes;1515580 wrote:What is so hard to understand? I acknowledge that the treasury may be able to still pay owners of tsy securities and that Moody's thinks this would be able to happen. They are more confident than I am.

I also pointed out that not defaulting on tsy interest payments does not mean that we're not in default in other obligations. You people are acting like everything will be A-Ok if we manage to not fall into arrears on interest payments.

"Hey gaIz don't w0rry we can sk!p PaY1n sum r billz like teh p000rz on teh WelfAre do!!!"

You're the best Hipster Pseudo-Intellectual on the internet. We're fortunate to have you here to educate us.

^^^ EPIC.

jmog;1515591 wrote:We are currently working at about a 15% reduced government, in order to operate at zero deficit that would be required to be about 25% reduced federal government.

So we are already down 15% and really not hurting, while I agree that a 25% cut at one time will hurt, from where we are right now it would only be 10% more.

Now, if the democrats would actually negotiate, it could be reduced over time (you know, ACTUAL reductions instead of reduced increases).

The doom and gloom that the Ds said would happen with the sequestor did not happen. The doom and gloom that the Ds said would happen with a shut down did not happen. I agree that a debt limit being failed to pass would be worse than either of these, but the doom and gloom has been proven wrong before and it won't be AS BAD as they are saying.

1. The democrats already accepted the sequester levels of spending which they do not agree with as a matter of governing philosophy or whatever. They could be demanding that the sequester be undone because it is slowing economic growth from what it would have been without it but they do not because they don't treat everything like an epic struggle for Murica like this breed of Teapublicans do.

2. We are hurting. Remember Moody's who you were eager to hump earlier??? The Sequester has reduced gdp growth and raised unemployment this year. All the major banks and forecasters who are paid to be right...not political hacks...agree.

3. Again...you say "doom and gloom" about the sequester but save political posturing...the claim was that the sequester and the payroll tax raises would slow gdp and keep unemployment higher than it ought to be. That has happened. The FED and its QE3 was able to offset those losses with monetary policy but they started shitting that down their leg with the taper talk.

You should temper your belief that it won't be "that bad' The FED is not going to be able to offset the Debt Ceiling Breach as it's going to act like a real shock to the economy...like a hurricane or an earthquake...not just contractionary fiscal policy like the sequester and tax raises.

fish82;1515592 wrote:You're the best Hipster Pseudo-Intellectual on the internet. We're fortunate to have you here to educate us.

Guy, the phrase "pseudo-intellectual" is played out. You should switch it up to calling people on teh Internetz intellectual-lightwights to add some diversity to your schtick. But the addition of "hipster" was a neat twist I suppose. : thumbup:

BoatShoes;1515612 wrote:Guy, the phrase "pseudo-intellectual" is played out. You should switch it up to calling people on teh Internetz intellectual-lightwights to add some diversity to your schtick. But the addition of "hipster" was a neat twist I suppose. : thumbup:

Hence, "switching up." :huh:

That said, when it stops being spot-on accurate, I'll quit using it.

Carry on.

In BS's case, "Big Hat No Cattle" would be an apt description. Can talk a decent game (even with a high percentage being incorrect), does nothing with the knowledge.

fish82;1515641 wrote:Hence, "switching up." :huh:

That said, when it stops being spot-on accurate, I'll quit using it.

Carry on.

Probably still at the "EMO" stage if I were to venture a guess. Hope this helps. :RpS_wub:

queencitybuckeye;1515655 wrote:In BS's case, "Big Hat No Cattle" would be an apt description. Can talk a decent game (even with a high percentage being incorrect), does nothing with the knowledge.

More like "No Hat, No Cattle". Not sure I have the "Big Hat" part down yet as might be exemplified by a statement like this:

Originally Posted by queencitybuckeye The dumbest person in my class at Kellogg is smarter than any engineer from fucking Akron.


How's that you pretentious asshole?

jmog;1515591 wrote:The doom and gloom that the Ds said would happen with the sequestor did not happen. The doom and gloom that the Ds said would happen with a shut down did not happen. I agree that a debt limit being failed to pass would be worse than either of these, but the doom and gloom has been proven wrong before and it won't be AS BAD as they are saying.

Stop. The doom was tampered after the feeling was FY13 cuts were not bad. Contracts were funded through the end of FY13.. But, the cuts in FY14-15, are the ones that worry a lot of contractors.

On the shutdown, back in 95 it cost a lot of money. The loss in productivity, not to mention moral is loss, and other services that are not immediately felt may start to have an impact if this mess continues.

If this continues, contractors will have to lay off people. Talked to a architecture firm today that if the shutdown continues, they will have to release some people as they are not getting paid for the work.
It is extremely more complicated that say, "Oh, the cuts and shutdown isn't that bad."

BoatShoes;1515694 wrote:More like "No Hat, No Cattle". Not sure I have the "Big Hat" part down yet as might be exemplified by a statement like this:

Nothing wrong with stating facts. : thumbup:

ptown_trojans_1;1515700 wrote:Stop. The doom was tampered after the feeling was FY13 cuts were not bad. Contracts were funded through the end of FY13.. But, the cuts in FY14-15, are the ones that worry a lot of contractors.

On the shutdown, back in 95 it cost a lot of money. The loss in productivity, not to mention moral is loss, and other services that are not immediately felt may start to have an impact if this mess continues.

If this continues, contractors will have to lay off people. Talked to a architecture firm today that if the shutdown continues, they will have to release some people as they are not getting paid for the work.
It is extremely more complicated that say, "Oh, the cuts and shutdown isn't that bad."

Not to mention, every federal employee, except the military, is still working for free.

Outside of that, the housing market is grinding to halt. we barely started recovering from the last crash and it is about to implode again.

I think people like jmog expected things to just come to halt overnight.

Shutdown could hit millions of veterans
http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/national-world/shutdown-could-hit-millions-of-veterans/article_4e972a7f-19b6-5dac-8b05-a2111ea34905.html

Shutdown's economic toll on parks: $76 million a day
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/10/10/national-parks-shutdown-cost/2957033/

Foreclosures Surge in D.C. Area After Federal Budget Cuts
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-10/foreclosures-surge-in-d-c-area-after-federal-budget-cuts.html

Fidelity sells off short-term US government debt
http://www.boston.com/business/news/2013/10/09/fidelity-sells-off-short-term-government-debt/gHJ0k6hRTsgr4X3sWWdn0K/story.html

Glory Days;1515737 wrote:Foreclosures Surge in D.C. Area After Federal Budget Cuts
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-10/foreclosures-surge-in-d-c-area-after-federal-budget-cuts.html

You mean Beltway peeps whose livelihoods depend on sucking off the artificially sweetened and over-inflated gubmint teet are finally feeling what most of mainstream Murica has been feeling for a decade or more? Tell me it isn't so.

believer;1515744 wrote:You mean Beltway peeps whose livelihoods depend on sucking off the artificially sweetened and over-inflated gubmint teet are finally feeling what most of mainstream Murica has been feeling for a decade or more? Tell me it isn't so.

Ohh, the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Coulter nails it...again - http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2013/10/09/democrats-to-america-we-own-the-government-n1720481/page/2

Her summary:

If you are in the minority of Americans not already unalterably opposed to Obamacare, keep in mind that the only reason the government is shut down right now is that Democrats refuse to fund the government if they are required to live under Obamacare. That's how good it is!

jmog;1515510 wrote:You see though, in general, liberals don't let things like facts get in the way of their beliefs.

This is funny on a site where one of the loudest conservatives is Quaker.