Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
davelj
Participant[quote=Arraya]Yeah Dave, I’m sure that S&P is full of people really trying to give their best analysis of risk unaffected by politics or money. [/quote]
I assume they’re affected by both politics and money, although I can’t really tell who’s pulling the strings here… after all, both the left and the right are spinning S&P’s report and downgrade into a “See, Daddy likes me best” argument. Both sides are pointing at the other saying, “Look what you’ve done now!”
What’s your position? That we should (1) spend more money, and/or (2) not raise taxes? Personally, I think less spending (particularly on defense) and higher taxes (particularly on the top 1%) makes all kinds of sense. But that’s just me.
Participant[quote=Arraya]Yeah Dave, I’m sure that S&P is full of people really trying to give their best analysis of risk unaffected by politics or money. [/quote]
I assume they’re affected by both politics and money, although I can’t really tell who’s pulling the strings here… after all, both the left and the right are spinning S&P’s report and downgrade into a “See, Daddy likes me best” argument. Both sides are pointing at the other saying, “Look what you’ve done now!”
What’s your position? That we should (1) spend more money, and/or (2) not raise taxes? Personally, I think less spending (particularly on defense) and higher taxes (particularly on the top 1%) makes all kinds of sense. But that’s just me.
Participant[quote=Arraya]Yeah Dave, I’m sure that S&P is full of people really trying to give their best analysis of risk unaffected by politics or money. [/quote]
I assume they’re affected by both politics and money, although I can’t really tell who’s pulling the strings here… after all, both the left and the right are spinning S&P’s report and downgrade into a “See, Daddy likes me best” argument. Both sides are pointing at the other saying, “Look what you’ve done now!”
What’s your position? That we should (1) spend more money, and/or (2) not raise taxes? Personally, I think less spending (particularly on defense) and higher taxes (particularly on the top 1%) makes all kinds of sense. But that’s just me.
ParticipantDebt ratings are a lagging indicator. If you follow the prices of most debt, the damage occurs well in advance of the downgrade. In the current unique set of circumstances, our economy is so weak that bond prices might actually increase from here (for a while, that is) despite our crappy fiscal situation.
The beauty of S&P’s downgrade is that both political parties have something to grab hold of. The Democrats will correctly point out that S&P is saying that the government needs more revenue (“They’re telling us to raise taxes!”). The Republicans will correctly point out that S&P is saying that the government needs to spend less (“They’re telling us we need to reduce spending!”). They’re both right.
What S&P is saying is, “We don’t care how you go about reducing the deficit – that’s a political issue – but you’ve gotta materially reduce the gap between the inflows and the outflows. We’re indifferent as to how you do it; again, that’s a political issue. But until you figure it out, we’re going to downgrade you and put you on negative watch.” Regardless of how you feel about S&P’s recent (large) gaffes, this is a pretty reasonable position to take… some might even say generous given the circumstances.
ParticipantDebt ratings are a lagging indicator. If you follow the prices of most debt, the damage occurs well in advance of the downgrade. In the current unique set of circumstances, our economy is so weak that bond prices might actually increase from here (for a while, that is) despite our crappy fiscal situation.
The beauty of S&P’s downgrade is that both political parties have something to grab hold of. The Democrats will correctly point out that S&P is saying that the government needs more revenue (“They’re telling us to raise taxes!”). The Republicans will correctly point out that S&P is saying that the government needs to spend less (“They’re telling us we need to reduce spending!”). They’re both right.
What S&P is saying is, “We don’t care how you go about reducing the deficit – that’s a political issue – but you’ve gotta materially reduce the gap between the inflows and the outflows. We’re indifferent as to how you do it; again, that’s a political issue. But until you figure it out, we’re going to downgrade you and put you on negative watch.” Regardless of how you feel about S&P’s recent (large) gaffes, this is a pretty reasonable position to take… some might even say generous given the circumstances.
ParticipantDebt ratings are a lagging indicator. If you follow the prices of most debt, the damage occurs well in advance of the downgrade. In the current unique set of circumstances, our economy is so weak that bond prices might actually increase from here (for a while, that is) despite our crappy fiscal situation.
The beauty of S&P’s downgrade is that both political parties have something to grab hold of. The Democrats will correctly point out that S&P is saying that the government needs more revenue (“They’re telling us to raise taxes!”). The Republicans will correctly point out that S&P is saying that the government needs to spend less (“They’re telling us we need to reduce spending!”). They’re both right.
What S&P is saying is, “We don’t care how you go about reducing the deficit – that’s a political issue – but you’ve gotta materially reduce the gap between the inflows and the outflows. We’re indifferent as to how you do it; again, that’s a political issue. But until you figure it out, we’re going to downgrade you and put you on negative watch.” Regardless of how you feel about S&P’s recent (large) gaffes, this is a pretty reasonable position to take… some might even say generous given the circumstances.
ParticipantDebt ratings are a lagging indicator. If you follow the prices of most debt, the damage occurs well in advance of the downgrade. In the current unique set of circumstances, our economy is so weak that bond prices might actually increase from here (for a while, that is) despite our crappy fiscal situation.
The beauty of S&P’s downgrade is that both political parties have something to grab hold of. The Democrats will correctly point out that S&P is saying that the government needs more revenue (“They’re telling us to raise taxes!”). The Republicans will correctly point out that S&P is saying that the government needs to spend less (“They’re telling us we need to reduce spending!”). They’re both right.
What S&P is saying is, “We don’t care how you go about reducing the deficit – that’s a political issue – but you’ve gotta materially reduce the gap between the inflows and the outflows. We’re indifferent as to how you do it; again, that’s a political issue. But until you figure it out, we’re going to downgrade you and put you on negative watch.” Regardless of how you feel about S&P’s recent (large) gaffes, this is a pretty reasonable position to take… some might even say generous given the circumstances.
ParticipantDebt ratings are a lagging indicator. If you follow the prices of most debt, the damage occurs well in advance of the downgrade. In the current unique set of circumstances, our economy is so weak that bond prices might actually increase from here (for a while, that is) despite our crappy fiscal situation.
The beauty of S&P’s downgrade is that both political parties have something to grab hold of. The Democrats will correctly point out that S&P is saying that the government needs more revenue (“They’re telling us to raise taxes!”). The Republicans will correctly point out that S&P is saying that the government needs to spend less (“They’re telling us we need to reduce spending!”). They’re both right.
What S&P is saying is, “We don’t care how you go about reducing the deficit – that’s a political issue – but you’ve gotta materially reduce the gap between the inflows and the outflows. We’re indifferent as to how you do it; again, that’s a political issue. But until you figure it out, we’re going to downgrade you and put you on negative watch.” Regardless of how you feel about S&P’s recent (large) gaffes, this is a pretty reasonable position to take… some might even say generous given the circumstances.
Participant[quote=CONCHO]What is this “retirement” you speak of? That word sounds very 20th century.[/quote]
Hahaha… that’s what I was thinking. I think folks should plan on working at least until 70, and until 75, if possible. The best retirement plan is to find something that (a) you actually like doing, and (b) you can do well into old age. The longer you can stave off having to live off of your nest egg, whatever the size, the better.
Participant[quote=CONCHO]What is this “retirement” you speak of? That word sounds very 20th century.[/quote]
Hahaha… that’s what I was thinking. I think folks should plan on working at least until 70, and until 75, if possible. The best retirement plan is to find something that (a) you actually like doing, and (b) you can do well into old age. The longer you can stave off having to live off of your nest egg, whatever the size, the better.
Participant[quote=CONCHO]What is this “retirement” you speak of? That word sounds very 20th century.[/quote]
Hahaha… that’s what I was thinking. I think folks should plan on working at least until 70, and until 75, if possible. The best retirement plan is to find something that (a) you actually like doing, and (b) you can do well into old age. The longer you can stave off having to live off of your nest egg, whatever the size, the better.
Participant[quote=CONCHO]What is this “retirement” you speak of? That word sounds very 20th century.[/quote]
Hahaha… that’s what I was thinking. I think folks should plan on working at least until 70, and until 75, if possible. The best retirement plan is to find something that (a) you actually like doing, and (b) you can do well into old age. The longer you can stave off having to live off of your nest egg, whatever the size, the better.
Participant[quote=CONCHO]What is this “retirement” you speak of? That word sounds very 20th century.[/quote]
Hahaha… that’s what I was thinking. I think folks should plan on working at least until 70, and until 75, if possible. The best retirement plan is to find something that (a) you actually like doing, and (b) you can do well into old age. The longer you can stave off having to live off of your nest egg, whatever the size, the better.
Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=outtamojo] Besides, if as Davelj pointed out, Mexicans living in Mexico can be happier than Americans living in the U.S, we are doing something wrong : )[/quote]
That explains why so many Mexicans are risking their lives to come here. They are so happy they can’t stand it.[/quote]
That study was obviously reporting averages. The “average” Mexican has little desire to immigrate to the U.S. – they like living in Mexico. The average Mexican that crosses into the U.S. illegally is in the bottom quintile of Mexico’s economic spectrum… and not particularly happy (obviously). Just to clarify.
-
AuthorPosts
