Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Obama Press Conference

RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 10:55:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I watched President Obama's press conference yesterday. It set a new mark for false statements. The Washington Post Fact Checker invented a new symbol, an upside down Pinocchio, to celebrate the achievement.

President Obama repeatedly claimed that failure to raise the debt ceiling would cause loan defaults. Income from taxes is $2.3 trillion, while loan payments are around $0.4 trillion. Default would only occur if he elected to pay something other than the debt interest.

President Obama said that debt limit increases had never been held hostage as a negotiating tool. In fact, that has been the case every time. In 2006, Senator Obama voted against the debt limit increase and called Bush's spending un-American.

President Obama said the debt increase only covered payments already committed. No, there is no budget. (Even a budget is only a plan, not a commitment.) The government is operating under a continuing a continuing resolution. Payments are intended, but not committed. It's like planning to take a vacation, but not having bought the tickets.

The President said that mere talk of failing to increase the debt limit last time cause the US credit rating to be downgraded. Actually, the downgrade came after the debt limit was raised without including substantial spending cuts.

The President incorrectly stated public opinion polls on the subject.

It was an amazing performance. I suspect use of hallucinogenic drugs.
DoubtingDave
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 11:18:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/15/2013 10:55:31 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
I watched President Obama's press conference yesterday. It set a new mark for false statements. The Washington Post Fact Checker invented a new symbol, an upside down Pinocchio, to celebrate the achievement.

This is false. The upside down Pinocchio indicates a flip flop http://www.washingtonpost.com...

This symbol has been used before. Though I agree with the rest of what you are saying.
The Great Wall of Fail

"I have doubts that anti-semitism even exists" -GeoLaureate8

"Evolutionists think that people evolved from rocks" -Scotty

"And whats so bad about a Holy war? By Holy war, I mean a war which would aim to subdue others under Islam." -Ahmed.M

"The free market didn't create the massive wealth in the country, WW2 did." -malcomxy

"Independant federal regulators make our capitalist society possible." -Erik_Erikson
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 12:37:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You're right. I didn't know it was the flip-flop symbol. They need a new symbol, something along the theme of a steaming heap.

Obama was so divorced from reality I found it disturbing. It was edging up on derangement.
DoubtingDave
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 12:49:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/15/2013 12:37:11 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
You're right. I didn't know it was the flip-flop symbol. They need a new symbol, something along the theme of a steaming heap.

Obama was so divorced from reality I found it disturbing. It was edging up on derangement.

That I can 100% agree with.
The Great Wall of Fail

"I have doubts that anti-semitism even exists" -GeoLaureate8

"Evolutionists think that people evolved from rocks" -Scotty

"And whats so bad about a Holy war? By Holy war, I mean a war which would aim to subdue others under Islam." -Ahmed.M

"The free market didn't create the massive wealth in the country, WW2 did." -malcomxy

"Independant federal regulators make our capitalist society possible." -Erik_Erikson
Heineken
Posts: 1,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 1:05:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The man said he was going to be the most transparent President ever. I think he succeeded. I think it takes an almost religious fanaticism to believe anything he says.

To quote Berny Frank:" I wouldn't believe my own d*ck, if it came out of his mouth."
Vidi, vici, veni.
(I saw, I conquered, I came.)
DoubtingDave
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 1:10:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/15/2013 1:05:01 PM, Heineken wrote:
The man said he was going to be the most transparent President ever. I think he succeeded. I think it takes an almost religious fanaticism to believe anything he says.

To quote Berny Frank:" I wouldn't believe my own d*ck, if it came out of his mouth."

LOL! +infinity

I wouldn't believe Obama if he said that he was lying!
The Great Wall of Fail

"I have doubts that anti-semitism even exists" -GeoLaureate8

"Evolutionists think that people evolved from rocks" -Scotty

"And whats so bad about a Holy war? By Holy war, I mean a war which would aim to subdue others under Islam." -Ahmed.M

"The free market didn't create the massive wealth in the country, WW2 did." -malcomxy

"Independant federal regulators make our capitalist society possible." -Erik_Erikson
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 7:30:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/15/2013 10:55:31 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
I watched President Obama's press conference yesterday. It set a new mark for false statements. The Washington Post Fact Checker invented a new symbol, an upside down Pinocchio, to celebrate the achievement.

President Obama repeatedly claimed that failure to raise the debt ceiling would cause loan defaults. Income from taxes is $2.3 trillion, while loan payments are around $0.4 trillion. Default would only occur if he elected to pay something other than the debt interest.

President Obama said that debt limit increases had never been held hostage as a negotiating tool. In fact, that has been the case every time. In 2006, Senator Obama voted against the debt limit increase and called Bush's spending un-American.

President Obama said the debt increase only covered payments already committed. No, there is no budget. (Even a budget is only a plan, not a commitment.) The government is operating under a continuing a continuing resolution. Payments are intended, but not committed. It's like planning to take a vacation, but not having bought the tickets.

The President said that mere talk of failing to increase the debt limit last time cause the US credit rating to be downgraded. Actually, the downgrade came after the debt limit was raised without including substantial spending cuts.

The President incorrectly stated public opinion polls on the subject.

It was an amazing performance. I suspect use of hallucinogenic drugs.

From what I read on the news, the debt limit increases is kind of a routine task. The 2011 showdown was the first time that caused such drama.

S&P cited the political instability (The politician gridlock in Washington) as the primary reason to downgrade the U.S credit rating (AAA -> AA+ ).
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 8:36:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/15/2013 7:30:42 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 1/15/2013 10:55:31 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
I watched President Obama's press conference yesterday. It set a new mark for false statements. The Washington Post Fact Checker invented a new symbol, an upside down Pinocchio, to celebrate the achievement.

President Obama repeatedly claimed that failure to raise the debt ceiling would cause loan defaults. Income from taxes is $2.3 trillion, while loan payments are around $0.4 trillion. Default would only occur if he elected to pay something other than the debt interest.

President Obama said that debt limit increases had never been held hostage as a negotiating tool. In fact, that has been the case every time. In 2006, Senator Obama voted against the debt limit increase and called Bush's spending un-American.

President Obama said the debt increase only covered payments already committed. No, there is no budget. (Even a budget is only a plan, not a commitment.) The government is operating under a continuing a continuing resolution. Payments are intended, but not committed. It's like planning to take a vacation, but not having bought the tickets.

The President said that mere talk of failing to increase the debt limit last time cause the US credit rating to be downgraded. Actually, the downgrade came after the debt limit was raised without including substantial spending cuts.

The President incorrectly stated public opinion polls on the subject.

It was an amazing performance. I suspect use of hallucinogenic drugs.

From what I read on the news, the debt limit increases is kind of a routine task. The 2011 showdown was the first time that caused such drama.

S&P cited the political instability (The politician gridlock in Washington) as the primary reason to downgrade the U.S credit rating (AAA -> AA+ ).

A. Tax receipts are ESTIMATED at $2.3 trillion for the year.
B. It's January 15th.
C. Ergo - at best, we've received 1/24 of expected yearly tax revenue, or $.1 trillion. If loan payments are $.4 trillion, well...

Now, obviously, that's not exactly how it works, but when the debt ceiling isn't raised and we've reached our Congressional mandated borrowing limit, that's it. The Federal Budget is ~$4 trillion, so half of that doesn't cut it. The lights get turned off and only essential services are operational at that point.

I'm sure a month's worth of gas for the Army is less than $2.3 trillion as well, but since we're basically $1.7 trillion short of what's been budgeted, not raising the debt ceiling means that things get cut. Do you leave Private Sanchez stuck with his @ss hanging out and no gas, in a Humvee with no armor plating, in the middle of Afghanistan, or do you not pay the credit card?

That's an easy decision, as far as I'm concerned.

S&P was trying to dictate terms to our government and when we didn't give in, they spanked us, because they have the power to spank us.

We're no worse off than The UK, France, Germany, or a host of other AAA rated governments.S&P's downgrade meant nothing when they did it, and it means nothing now...other than S&P is a sham organization.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 11:15:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A. Tax receipts are ESTIMATED at $2.3 trillion for the year.
B. It's January 15th.
C. Ergo - at best, we've received 1/24 of expected yearly tax revenue, or $.1 trillion. If loan payments are $.4 trillion, well...

Now, obviously, that's not exactly how it works, but when the debt ceiling isn't raised and we've reached our Congressional mandated borrowing limit, that's it. The Federal Budget is ~$4 trillion, so half of that doesn't cut it. The lights get turned off and only essential services are operational at that point.

I'm sure a month's worth of gas for the Army is less than $2.3 trillion as well, but since we're basically $1.7 trillion short of what's been budgeted, not raising the debt ceiling means that things get cut. Do you leave Private Sanchez stuck with his @ss hanging out and no gas, in a Humvee with no armor plating, in the middle of Afghanistan, or do you not pay the credit card?

That's an easy decision, as far as I'm concerned.

S&P was trying to dictate terms to our government and when we didn't give in, they spanked us, because they have the power to spank us.

We're no worse off than The UK, France, Germany, or a host of other AAA rated governments.S&P's downgrade meant nothing when they did it, and it means nothing now...other than S&P is a sham organization.

I am not sure whether $.4 trillion is annual payment or just monthly payment. But regardless, it is a lot of money. Threat of "Default" may provide Congress with some incentive to lift the debt ceiling limits.

If no deal is achieved (increasingly likely given some Republicans voice the willingness to allow the U.S. to default), entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) will burden the brunt of cuts. Government would prioritize the payment to ensure that the obligations to the creditors are met.

I think the credit rating has some intricate relations with borrowing rate. Over-reliance upon the unregulated rating agency is problematic, but who doesn't want a perfect credit rating?

P.S. Do U.K and France still hold AAA rating? I thought S&P downgraded them several months ago.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 11:53:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/15/2013 8:36:40 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
From what I read on the news, the debt limit increases is kind of a routine task. The 2011 showdown was the first time that caused such drama.

It's always been debated, sometimes more than others.

S&P cited the political instability (The politician gridlock in Washington) as the primary reason to downgrade the U.S credit rating (AAA -> AA+ ).

The "gridlock" is about failure to enact a meaningful deficit reduction plan, definitely not about failure to raise the debt ceiling. The downgrade was after the debt ceiling was raised without meaningful reductions.

A. Tax receipts are ESTIMATED at $2.3 trillion for the year.
B. It's January 15th.
C. Ergo - at best, we've received 1/24 of expected yearly tax revenue, or $.1 trillion. If loan payments are $.4 trillion, well...

No, interest payments are $.4 trillion per year. Principal is rolled over under the existing ceiling. Taxes are actually collected ahead of when they are due, and the interest comes due a week at a time incrementally as the bonds are rolled over. There is no chance of default, not even Obama is that crazy.

The Federal Budget is ~$4 trillion, so half of that doesn't cut it. The lights get turned off and only essential services are operational at that point.

It's $3.7 trillion of spending and $2.3 trillion in revenues, so it's about a 1/3 cut.

I'm sure a month's worth of gas for the Army is less than $2.3 trillion as well, but since we're basically $1.7 trillion short of what's been budgeted, not raising the debt ceiling means that things get cut. Do you leave Private Sanchez stuck with his @ss hanging out and no gas, in a Humvee with no armor plating, in the middle of Afghanistan, or do you not pay the credit card?

Operations in Afghanistan are about $.15 trillion. I'm not saying the cuts would be trivial, but the debt, active military ops, Social Security, and Medicare would all be covered. Obama is demagoging with the standard "give us all the money we want, or we default, let the troops die, and, oh, kill your children. It's your choice."

We're no worse off than The UK, France, Germany, or a host of other AAA rated governments.S&P's downgrade meant nothing when they did it, and it means nothing now...other than S&P is a sham organization.

Gee, do you mean that Obama is demagoging the significance of a downgrade? You're right. All that matters are the interest rates required to sell bonds. Default would be an immediate disaster. Failure to address the deficits inevitably brings high rates and collapse, but how long it will takes is in doubt.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 1:12:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/15/2013 11:53:17 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 1/15/2013 8:36:40 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
From what I read on the news, the debt limit increases is kind of a routine task. The 2011 showdown was the first time that caused such drama.

It's always been debated, sometimes more than others.


I didn't write that. I know the tenuous history of the debt ceiling debate.

S&P cited the political instability (The politician gridlock in Washington) as the primary reason to downgrade the U.S credit rating (AAA -> AA+ ).

The "gridlock" is about failure to enact a meaningful deficit reduction plan, definitely not about failure to raise the debt ceiling. The downgrade was after the debt ceiling was raised without meaningful reductions.

No, the downgrade was after Biden shot his mouth off, as he is apt to do, in order to appease S&P, who had been threatening to downgrade the US credit rating for quite some time, and then the Legislative Branch didn't follow along with his off-the-cuff policy comment.


A. Tax receipts are ESTIMATED at $2.3 trillion for the year.
B. It's January 15th.
C. Ergo - at best, we've received 1/24 of expected yearly tax revenue, or $.1 trillion. If loan payments are $.4 trillion, well...

No, interest payments are $.4 trillion per year. Principal is rolled over under the existing ceiling. Taxes are actually collected ahead of when they are due, and the interest comes due a week at a time incrementally as the bonds are rolled over. There is no chance of default, not even Obama is that crazy.

Yes, I know. I used the generic "loan payments" because I'm a smart-@ss.

Also, late payments (something the debt ceiling issue has caused one other time in our history) and defaulting on payments are two separate things. Being late doesn't cause a meltdown. It does cause a bit of a bump in the market, though, and one that Congress wouldn't be able to ignore as they called an emergency session to raise the debt ceiling right after it happened (like last time).


The Federal Budget is ~$4 trillion, so half of that doesn't cut it. The lights get turned off and only essential services are operational at that point.

It's $3.7 trillion of spending and $2.3 trillion in revenues, so it's about a 1/3 cut.

That's estimated. Show me a federal budget that came in at the estimated levels and not 10-20% over, and I'll show you a rainbow unicorn. (also, it's closer to a 60/40 split than a 66/33 split, and in case you're unfamiliar, "~" is used to denote an approximate)


I'm sure a month's worth of gas for the Army is less than $2.3 trillion as well, but since we're basically $1.7 trillion short of what's been budgeted, not raising the debt ceiling means that things get cut. Do you leave Private Sanchez stuck with his @ss hanging out and no gas, in a Humvee with no armor plating, in the middle of Afghanistan, or do you not pay the credit card?

Operations in Afghanistan are about $.15 trillion. I'm not saying the cuts would be trivial, but the debt, active military ops, Social Security, and Medicare would all be covered. Obama is demagoging with the standard "give us all the money we want, or we default, let the troops die, and, oh, kill your children. It's your choice."

I was being melodramatic and using hyperbole. It's the internet. You may want to get more accustomed to these things.


We're no worse off than The UK, France, Germany, or a host of other AAA rated governments.S&P's downgrade meant nothing when they did it, and it means nothing now...other than S&P is a sham organization.

Gee, do you mean that Obama is demagoging the significance of a downgrade? You're right. All that matters are the interest rates required to sell bonds. Default would be an immediate disaster. Failure to address the deficits inevitably brings high rates and collapse, but how long it will takes is in doubt.

See...you can use sarcasm and hyperbole as well. Why U pretend U not understand?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 1:20:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/15/2013 11:15:26 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:

I am not sure whether $.4 trillion is annual payment or just monthly payment. But regardless, it is a lot of money. Threat of "Default" may provide Congress with some incentive to lift the debt ceiling limits.

If no deal is achieved (increasingly likely given some Republicans voice the willingness to allow the U.S. to default), entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) will burden the brunt of cuts. Government would prioritize the payment to ensure that the obligations to the creditors are met.

Not if the Democrats want to have a shot at the White House in 2016, they won't. I'm not sayin' it's the right way to go. I'm just sayin' that's reality.


I think the credit rating has some intricate relations with borrowing rate. Over-reliance upon the unregulated rating agency is problematic, but who doesn't want a perfect credit rating?

In most other situations, I'd agree, but the US is a special case. We're the world's largest economy, the world's largest debtor (total debt, not per capita or as a function of GDP) and the world's largest importer of goods and services.

The world has an incentive, in protecting all its investments it has in us, to basically ignore the S&P rating decrease, which they've done, by and large.


P.S. Do U.K and France still hold AAA rating? I thought S&P downgraded them several months ago.

I have no idea. I try to ignore S&P. If there is a legitimized racket out there, it is these ridiculous rating companies and their bullsh!t rating systems (you may recall a number of financial institutions, just before they required a massive bailout, were rated at AAA as well...S&P/Moody's and whatever the other one is, are all shams.)
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 9:20:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The "gridlock" is about failure to enact a meaningful deficit reduction plan, definitely not about failure to raise the debt ceiling. The downgrade was after the debt ceiling was raised without meaningful reductions.

I believe you are partially right. According to S&P:
- We have lowered our long-term sovereign credit rating on the United
States of America to 'AA+' from 'AAA' and affirmed the 'A-1+' short-term
rating.
- We have also removed both the short- and long-term ratings from
CreditWatch negative.
- The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan
that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of
what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's
medium-term debt dynamics.
- More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness,
stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political
institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic
challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a
negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.
http://www.standardandpoors.com...

I would say the 2011 downgrade has more to do with the stability of policymaking (effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking) than with deficit deduction.

Besides, according to Tony Fratto (an assistant secretary in the U.S. Treasury Department before moving to the White House in September 2006 as Deputy Assistant to President George W. Bush and Principal Deputy Press Secretary), the debt ceiling must be raised, and prioritizing payments won"t work. Details can be found at http://www.aei-ideas.org...
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 9:56:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Not if the Democrats want to have a shot at the White House in 2016, they won't. I'm not sayin' it's the right way to go. I'm just sayin' that's reality.

I would agree. It would be unwise for the Democrats to touch the entitlement. Social Security is a off the table (It won't pass the Senate). Medicare & Medicaid are wild cards.

In most other situations, I'd agree, but the US is a special case. We're the world's largest economy, the world's largest debtor (total debt, not per capita or as a function of GDP) and the world's largest importer of goods and services.

The world has an incentive, in protecting all its investments it has in us, to basically ignore the S&P rating decrease, which they've done, by and large.

True. But it cannot be served as an excuse to ignore the rating agency. The U.S is indeed the world largest economy and it will be for years to come, but the debt problem has troubled Americans for decades. President Bush blowed up the debt ceiling, and President Obama did not make much progress on it. Investors do pay a lot attention to the rating agency, but they have yet reacted negatively partially because they believe the America will always pays its debt, partially because only S&P downgrades the U.S. credit rating. But if S&P or other agencies (Moody's for example) further downgrade the U.S credit rating, well...God only knows what would happen.

I have no idea. I try to ignore S&P. If there is a legitimized racket out there, it is these ridiculous rating companies and their bullsh!t rating systems (you may recall a number of financial institutions, just before they required a massive bailout, were rated at AAA as well...S&P/Moody's and whatever the other one is, are all shams.)

Yea. Rating agencies did mislead the market (intentionally or unintentionally) during the financial crisis. But to what extent? I have no idea. Besides, rating agencies are still very powerful in terms of their influences on the market. I would not write them off the equation. Moreover, both Republicans and Democrats are very sensitive to the market reaction. If S&P and other agencies voice their concerns (NASDAQ already did), it would serve a powerful incentive for the Republicans to abandon their demands.