[Big Mac]

The Chinese and Hong Kong news outlets are all over this story

U.S. may lose AAA-rating, Moody's warns
NEW YORK, Oct. 22 (Xinhua) -- The United States my lose its AAA-rating if it can not control its deficit hike, rating agency Moody's Investors Service warned on Thursday.

Steven Hess, Moody's lead analyst for the United States, said in a TV interview that the AAA rating of the United States is "not guaranteed." He said if the U.S. deficit does not drop to a sustainable level in the next three to four years, the U.S. rating will be "in jeopardy."
[SNIP]

What's the principle driver of the our record deficits and debt? Entitlements. And what do many of you guys want to do? Make the problem even worse by having the federal government create new health care entitlements. Some of you even want Medicare-for-all. Amazing.

Hello, McFly???

[Rumor]

Like tax breaks for the rich?

[Chuckit]

I'm not saying it couldn't happen, and I don't disagree with your point, but this story smells wrong to me. Somebody warned that under certain circumstances America's credit rating might possibly be in jeopardy several years from now? That's more speculative fiction than news story.

[Big Mac]

Oh it will happen and is virtually a certainty if we don't restrain Entitlements. Look at what's happening in Britain right now. Their rating has been threatened for a while, and they're actually paying attention to their debt to GDP ratio unlike US. They're actually selling government property to try to reduce their debt, and their debt to GDP ratio is several places lower than ours! We currently have wide latitude in the United States to fund ourselves with debt dollars because we're still the world's reserve currency. If that changes, which could very well happen if our credit rating gets cut, look out below. I don't see a way out of it now that the citizenry has become accustomed to getting government handouts from programs projected to have liabilities in the hundreds of Trillions over the next 75 years.

[Big Mac]

Experts continue to chatter about countries with large dollar reserves getting worried about this country's debt and looking to diversify out so that we will no longer have the reserve currency. Look at gold.

I will keep pounding this issue. At least there will be a record of me as a lone voice crying out in the MacNN wilderness.

And Rumor, really, "tax cuts for the rich!!!" I know you're smarter than that. The Entitlements sink hole dwarfs tax cuts for the rich and the wars.

[OreoCookie]

@BigMac
The problem isn't entitlements and it has started way before. E. g. Reagan left Bush 1 with huge debt from his excessive military spending and Reaganomics. Or if you look at the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (initiated by Bush 2) as well as the bail outs (started under Bush 2, continued by Obama), all of them are all in the trillion dollar range already.

Just a question: how much money do entitlements cost per year?

[Big Mac]

OC, I find it strange that you tell me that Entitlements aren't the problem and then you ask me how much they cost per year. Sounds like an ill informed opinion from you, which is unusual.

Also, Reagan made a promise with Congress to cut something a dollar for every two dollars increased in military spending, and there was an agreement but it never occurred.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And what do many of you guys want to do? Make the problem even worse by having the federal government create new health care entitlements. Some of you even want Medicare-for-all. Amazing.

I'm surprised that pro-business conservatives aren't on the Universal Health Care bandwagon. RIght now, providing Health Insurance is a huge obligation (and expense) on the part of employers. It diverts time that could be spent on other HR-related business endeavors. Small business owners can't afford it, and they can't afford to hire employees because of it.

If there was true Universal Health coverage that did not depend on your employer, employees would be generally healthier and would be able to report to work more of the time. Medical bankrupcies would be non-existent, again keeping employes where they are instead of forcing them to move to lower cost-of-living areas (or into their parents' basement). How many people would dive into starting their own small business if they didn't have to worry about dropping their Health coverage first?

And with all these extra people working, more income and sales taxes will be generated. It's Supply-Side Economics we can believe in!

As for why our deficit is so big, Oour government is in the business of building ammunition for the express purpose of exploding it in Iraq and Afghanistan, which has less of a ROI than health care reform.

[Big Mac]

When Socialized medicine for seniors, a.k.a. Medicare, is the most expensive government program by FAR, costs hundreds of times more than originally projected, keeps getting more expensive, is rife with fraud and abuse, I don't see anyone can claim to want to bring the federal government in to bankrupt us any faster. I just don't see it.

Sure, you can point to payroll costs and say that businesses would benefit from offloading their health insurance costs on to the government, but that's a ridiculously shortsighted notion that ignores the fact that government services certainly aren't free, and shifting more of the responsibility on to government may mean your business won't be paying directly for health insurance but all tax payers will end up taking it in the rear from the new hyper-expensive government program. You'll either pay in higher taxes across the board, or you'll pay through the utter destruction of the value of the dollar when foreigners stop buying our worthless debt, we can't monetize it any more and inflation runs rampant.

This isn't difficult to understand guys, at least I don't think so. Maybe it's just because I'm so farking brilliant that it's so crystal clear to me.

[Big Mac]

Billionaire Steve Wynn says huge increases in government spending is not the way to go - on CNBC right now. He also says our debt level makes us a third world country, and that enormous damage is being done to the country right now.

Now who has a better record on economics: A billionaire businessman or a blowhard yet slick demagogue president who never ran a business in his life?

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

OC, I find it strange that you tell me that Entitlements aren't the problem and then you ask me how much they cost per year. Sounds like an ill informed opinion from you, which is unusual.

Also, Reagan made a promise with Congress to cut something a dollar for every two dollars increased in military spending, and there was an agreement but it never occurred.

Perhaps it is more so to put the numbers up to help your claim?

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I'm surprised that pro-business conservatives aren't on the Universal Health Care bandwagon. RIght now, providing Health Insurance is a huge obligation (and expense) on the part of employers. It diverts time that could be spent on other HR-related business endeavors. Small business owners can't afford it, and they can't afford to hire employees because of it.

If there was true Universal Health coverage that did not depend on your employer, employees would be generally healthier and would be able to report to work more of the time. Medical bankrupcies would be non-existent, again keeping employes where they are instead of forcing them to move to lower cost-of-living areas (or into their parents' basement). How many people would dive into starting their own small business if they didn't have to worry about dropping their Health coverage first?

And with all these extra people working, more income and sales taxes will be generated. It's Supply-Side Economics we can believe in!

As for why our deficit is so big, Oour government is in the business of building ammunition for the express purpose of exploding it in Iraq and Afghanistan, which has less of a ROI than health care reform.

Shhh, you can't bring facts into a political argument. It is against the Pol/War Lounge rules.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

OC, I find it strange that you tell me that Entitlements aren't the problem and then you ask me how much they cost per year. Sounds like an ill informed opinion from you, which is unusual.

Ill-informed?
I'm trying to get you to back up your opinion with hard numbers: if you claim entitlements are the key problem, then how much do they cost today per year?

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Also, Reagan made a promise with Congress to cut something a dollar for every two dollars increased in military spending, and there was an agreement but it never occurred.

I don't judge people by their promises, especially politicians!
Fact of the matter is: the budget deficit exploded when Reagan took office and with the exception of the Clinton years where the growth slowed down and some of the debt was even repaid, it started growing again at the same rapid pace as before.

Of course, you shouldn't blame single persons for this (president or not), this is something Congress decides. There are additional problems (large trade deficit due to outsourcing and dependency on oil, the latter alone is about seven hundred billion dollars or so).

In essence, I don't disagree with the conclusion, but I'm not at all convinced it's due to `entitlements' (which entitlements, you need to be specific)? From what I've seen, the other factors are far more significant. I've given a few examples and I'm sure I've forgotten a slew of others. My opinion here is not set in stone. But I need numbers to put them in relation to the other factors I've mentioned, for instance.

As a matter of fact, in many other first-world countries (every first-world country except for the US has a government-backed health insurance system in one form or another, for instance), the problem with the social welfare system can be more significant (relative to the size of the overall budget, of course). But the reasons differ from country to country and I would not draw conclusions without talking about specific countries. Nor would I infer anything from that for the system the US has.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I'm surprised that pro-business conservatives aren't on the Universal Health Care bandwagon. RIght now, providing Health Insurance is a huge obligation (and expense) on the part of employers. It diverts time that could be spent on other HR-related business endeavors. Small business owners can't afford it, and they can't afford to hire employees because of it.

pro-business conservatives are on board for decoupling health insurance from employers. They believe you should give the tax break for businesses to the individual for them to shop their own care. They believe inept government policy has created the state-by-state monopolies we're all subject to and that you can solve all the problems you mention without a bloated government bureaucracy; a system we're witnessing others trying to move away from.

If there was true Universal Health coverage that did not depend on your employer, employees would be generally healthier and would be able to report to work more of the time.

Where do you get this?

Medical bankrupcies would be non-existent

Medical bankruptcies average approximately $5,000.00 in outstanding medical liability. Cost-containment does not occur by giving something away for free, then passing the expenditure on to someone else.

again keeping employes where they are instead of forcing them to move to lower cost-of-living areas (or into their parents' basement). How many people would dive into starting their own small business if they didn't have to worry about dropping their Health coverage first?

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but there are free market solutions that involve decoupling health insurance and employers.

And with all these extra people working, more income and sales taxes will be generated. It's Supply-Side Economics we can believe in!

Why are there extra people working? Where are they going to work?

As for why our deficit is so big, Oour government is in the business of building ammunition for the express purpose of exploding it in Iraq and Afghanistan, which has less of a ROI than health care reform.

In 2005, the federal government spent $2.3 trillion, up 6 percent from 2004. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid spending accounted for almost $1.1 trillion in 2005, nearly half of total federal spending and an 8 percent increase over 2004. Defense Department spending totaled $374 billion in 2005.

What is our ROI from all this spending on Medicare and Medicaid? Urgent calls for healthcare reform.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Shhh, you can't bring facts into a political argument. It is against the Pol/War Lounge rules.

Those were facts? That's news to me.

I don't want to fight with you Rumor, but I can tell you for a fact that this country didn't become the most powerful economy on earth through Soviet style command and control or through a behemoth Social welfare state. One upon a time Americans thought it was undignified to take handouts from their government, whereas today the majority thinks it's almost a divine right.

[Big Mac]

Thank you for reinforcing my arugments, ebuddy. I'm working right now and only have limited time to post, so I can't spend my time gathering facts to recapitulate everything to our friends on the other side for the tenth time.

[BadKosh]

The 0bama admin and the Statists are ruining all aspects of capitalism in this country in a way that we may never recover from. Those libs and lefty political types kept saying his admin had so many smart people in it that they would be able to fix everything. Another lie. They are spending as much as they can as fast as they can before the 2010 elections. They realize they are completely out of power after the mid-term elections, and much of their BS will be resended or canceled. Interesting that the most liberal/socialist states are worse off now as far as unemployment for these same idiotic policies at both the state and federal level. If they were as smart as advertised, they would have done what worked in the past to get the economy going again. Obviously, these idiots don't learn anything.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

What's the principle driver of the our record deficits and debt? Entitlements.

Which entitlements? You're going to have to be more specific. It's not Social Security and Medicare. Social Security is $179B in the black, and Medicare is about $5B in the hole at this point (so these entitlements, on the whole, are in the black).

They may eventually drive to deficits, but we're not there yet. So something else must be driving our current debt.

Social Security 2009 Annual Report Summary

[turtle777]

I don't hink it's going to happen.

Obama & Co. Are going to strongarm Moody's into dropping it.
otherwise, they're gonna dig make up some dirt, take over control and silence Moody's.

On the other hand, for anyone with brains there is no doubt that the US can NOT repay all it's debt. There is going to be a default in the form of inflation, no way around it.

Anyone who thinks the US deserves a AAA rating probably also thinks those MBS deserved the same rating. LOL.

-t

[Dork.]

I'll admit I half-heartedly made my arguments before rushing off to work. ebuddy is right in that there is more than one way to fix the problem, and there are free-market solutions to decouple employers and health care.

The subject of this thread is the budget deficit, and the fact that it needs to be brought under control. The statement from Moody's is kind of vague and useless. These are the same folks, remember, who rated all those credit default swaps as good investments, and that action contributed to the general mess we are in. I'm not sure if I trust their motivation. But regardless of their motivation, they're not telling us anything we don't know already.

First of all, any arguments that focus solely on spending for entitlements like Social Security and Medicare ignore the fact that these programs also generate revenue in the form of payroll taxes. Now these programs, taken alone on the basis of profit and loss, may not be solvent in the future. But comparing just the expenses of these major entitlement programs with the expenses on the war (which doesn't generate any revenue for the treasury) is only looking at half the picture.

As far as Health Care reform goes, most arguments boil down to one simple question. Any insurance scheme will involve Someone Else collecting premiums, and deciding which medical bills are eligible to be paid and which aren't. Any insurance scheme involves rationing, to some extent, because someone will have to decide what medical procedures are wirth pursuing and which ones aren't.

You have two choices for who makes this decision: a Government agency, or a corporation (either private, or publically traded). Every insurance scheme lies somewhere in the spectrum between these two options. Who would you prefer making this decision? This is the crux of the whole debate.

IMHO, at least a government agency is, in theory, accountable to the American people. A corporation is only accountable to its shareholders. A public corporation has a fiduciary responsibility to screw over as many people as legally possible in order to generate revenue for shareholders. If they are not screwing over the people they insure, they are not doing their jobs properly.

I am starting to come to the conclusion that health insurance is incompatible with shareholder interests, and that we'd all be better off with non-profit cooperatives or the Government making those decisions. There, I said it, let the flaming begin!

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Which entitlements? You're going to have to be more specific. It's not Social Security and Medicare. Social Security is $179B in the black, and Medicare is about $5B in the hole at this point (so these entitlements, on the whole, are in the black).

They may eventually drive to deficits, but we're not there yet. So something else must be driving our current debt.

When Medicare is by far the biggest government program and getting more costly every year, it most definitely is a driver of the deficits. But you don't have to take my word on it, President Obama has said the same thing and used it as a justification for passing his health reform agenda.

Do you guys ever get tired of posting misinformation?

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

When Medicare is by far the biggest government program and getting more costly every year, it most definitely is a driver of the deficits. But you don't have to take my word on it, President Obama has said the same thing and used it as a justification for passing his health reform agenda.

Do you guys ever get tired of posting misinformation?

I (or is it 'us guys'?) posted a summary of SSA's annual report, straight from the horse's mouth. If you want to take that as misinformation, that's your prerogative. The FACTS are that SS (OASI component) ran a $179B surplus in the last full year, and Medicare ran a $5B deficit, as compared to the taxes that are collected specifically for their purpose. On top of that, the total OASI (retirement component of SS) payout was $516B, and the total HI (Medicare) outgo was $235B. So really - the total expense of Medicare isn't even half of SS, if you're looking only at expenditures. I don't know how that could be 'the biggest' driver.

So yeah, if you take away the payouts but keep the taxes, that's almost $800B of expenditure. But I have a hard time seeing that as a popular option with anyone. I would think if the entitlements go, the revenue from them goes as well. If you take away the SS/Medicare expenditures and revenue, we still have pretty much the same deficit (actually even a little larger). So - something else must be driving it. Certainly this could (and is expected to) change in the future, but if you're talking about current debts, it's just not true.

Regarding 'misinformation', well, I've provided some actual data showing the performance of SS and Medicare. You've provided a blanket statement 'entitlements are the problem', with absolutely nothing to back it up. I'll let others be the judge of credibility on that.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Now who has a better record on economics: A billionaire businessman or a blowhard yet slick demagogue president who never ran a business in his life?

Your billionaire pays 6% tax on his interest and dividend based income instead of the 35% he should be paying. I can think of a partial fix. How about the asshats exploiting tax loopholes pay their fair share of income tax like the rest of us working stiffs.

I think you're attacking a single problem, but not the source. The source is corruption, plain and simple. Both sides are so involved in it one way or another, it's unbelievable.

Entitlements aren't necessarily bad, but they can not be sustainable with obvious corruption. Medicare and Social Security would work if the funds were closed and untouchable and they're actually allowed to accrue interest; instead there's constant borrowing from it.

There needs to be some real, huge restructuring on all aspects of Federal funding. Tax loopholes, credit loopholes, pork and earmarks; all of that needs to removed. The government is being run by special interest groups.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Your billionaire pays 6% tax on his interest and dividend based income instead of the 35% he should be paying. I can think of a partial fix. How about the asshats exploiting tax loopholes pay their fair share of income tax like the rest of us working stiffs.

I don't see the need to blame the smart billionaire for taking advantage of stupid tax laws. What do you expect, that he would pay more taxes out of the goodness of his heart

I blame the politicians, who don't want to reform the tax laws. Just give us a flat tax, and all is good. Ron Paul FTW.

- t

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I don't see the need to blame the smart billionaire for taking advantage of stupid tax laws. What do you expect, that he would pay more taxes out of the goodness of his heart

I blame the politicians, who don't want to reform the tax laws. Just give us a flat tax, and all is good. Ron Paul FTW.

I'm not entirely blaming him, he's just apart of the overall problem as you've just underlined: politicians not fixing tax loopholes. One of the problems is, of course, what incentive is there for millionaire and billionaire politicians to change those tax loopholes?

I just think it's little hypocritical for a billionaire to be criticizing the Congress, that's all.

[deedar]

Why don't we just buy off Moodys too keep our AAA rating? The big banks/brokerages did.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Your billionaire pays 6% tax on his interest and dividend based income instead of the 35% he should be paying. I can think of a partial fix. How about the asshats exploiting tax loopholes pay their fair share of income tax like the rest of us working stiffs.

You haven't got any proper tax loopholes. If you did, I'd move to Colorado tomorrow and bring ten jobs with me.

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

the overall problem as you've just underlined: politicians not fixing tax loopholes

Dude, have you actually got any idea what you're talking about here? Barry and Levin have been working overtime lately to grab every last penny off their slaves.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by deedar 

Why don't we just buy off Moodys too keep our AAA rating? The big banks/brokerages did.

Well??? Any response from our Captains of Capitalism? Surely you will defend Moodys honor.....

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

Well??? Any response from our Captains of Capitalism? Surely you will defend Moodys honor.....

Any pinko commie-libs want to bring up the short list of more qualified or righteous entities? All I could say I guess is that they are probably the most frequently cited and among the most respectable sources for credit/investment data.

Now... while you're attacking this source of information, why don't you ask yourself what the others are saying of the US' credit rating.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Any pinko commie-libs want to bring up the short list of more qualified or righteous entities? All I could say I guess is that they are probably the most frequently cited and among the most respectable sources for credit/investment data.

Now... while you're attacking this source of information, why don't you ask yourself what the others are saying of the US' credit rating.

The whole system is corrupt, buddy. A complete overhaul is needed. Do I know who should oversee the financial industry? A righteous start would be a non-partisan, non-industry beholden group of citizens without an agenda to enrich their greedy selves at the expense of the people they are supposed to be protecting. I think even you would be for that. Moodys? They are responsible for the rating fiasco that ensured the mortgage meltdown. IF they are the most respected source of credit/investment data that the US relies on, we are in more trouble than any commie-lib pinko could possibly stir up.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

The whole system is corrupt, buddy. A complete overhaul is needed. Do I know who should oversee the financial industry? A righteous start would be a non-partisan, non-industry beholden group of citizens without an agenda to enrich their greedy selves at the expense of the people they are supposed to be protecting. I think even you would be for that. Moodys? They are responsible for the rating fiasco that ensured the mortgage meltdown. IF they are the most respected source of credit/investment data that the US relies on, we are in more trouble than any commie-lib pinko could possibly stir up.

Everyone has an agenda. There were warnings of the sub-prime crisis and they were not heeded. The rallying call was home ownership. Borrowers don't know what they're borrowing, lenders don't know what they're lending, investors didn't know what they were investing in, and the entities in place for oversight did not oversee. As long as there is any sort of credit rating employed for measuring prospective ventures, someone will be the arbiter of that rating.

The statement was made that the US would lose its AAA rating. You don't have to use Moody's if you find them distasteful, provide a more optimistic US monetary forecast to rebut the claim that the US will lose its AAA rating.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You haven't got any proper tax loopholes. If you did, I'd move to Colorado tomorrow and bring ten jobs with me.

Why do you have to move to Colorado? You just need to incorporate in Nevada, report all your income in Nevada, but run your business from somewhere else.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Why do you have to move to Colorado? You just need to incorporate in Nevada, report all your income in Nevada, but run your business from somewhere else.

See, that's what I mean. "Report all your income in Nevada".
I'm incorporated in places where I'm not legally required to report my income at all (thus, zero taxation). Your government's tax structure is such that I couldn't move to the US without having to declare the income coming in from these offshores and then have the pleasure of paying tax on it.

Like I said, you haven't got any proper tax loopholes. If you did, I'd be up there in those mountains (because I like 'em) tomorrow.

[besson3c]

Doofy: the problem is, you'd have to file with the INS and they'd have your ID on file for life!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Doofy: the problem is, you'd have to file with the INS and they'd have your ID on file for life!

Nah. The problem is your stupid CFC laws. It's about $17 to permanently and untraceably change my ID.

It's all related to your idiot government (not just Barry, either). I've stopped doing business with the US because it's just too much of a pain in the ass. A lot of banks won't even look at you if you have US ties or investments these days, simply because of all the new reporting requirements the IRS foist on them. So where does inward investment to the US come from? Not from me. And not from other people who know what they're doing either.

[besson3c]

I don't know about the IRS and investments, but I highly doubt that you could obtain legal immigration status to the US without them knowing all sorts of information about you. For starters, they'll want a copy of your birth certificate.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't know about the IRS and investments, but I highly doubt that you could obtain legal immigration status to the US without them knowing all sorts of information about you.

No, you're missing it. They wouldn't have my ID for life because after I left the US I'd simply ditch the one I'd got into the US on.

The point is moot anyway. Until the IRS dies it's not going to happen.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

For starters, they'll want a copy of your birth certificate.

Couldn't I just get a new one from Hawaii?

[besson3c]

It's all Department of Homeland Security now. They'd know about your ID change. They'd probably know about you having a library card!

When you do get a birth certificate from Hawaii, I would suggest getting it to say "Not Doofy". I always thought that having ID that said "not" and then my suspected name would be a pretty good scheme, because then people would look at me and go "oh, there's Besson3c!" But, then they'd look at my ID and exclaim "wait, I guess I was wrong, it is clearly Not Besson3c". It's pretty brilliant really.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's all Department of Homeland Security now. They'd know about your ID change.

I don't see how, since there's no legal requirement for me to file it anywhere. The former me would simply "stop" - dead end.

You're not telling me that over there in the land of the free you can't do things like this without telling the government in triplicate?

[besson3c]

The government has records of all sorts of things: social security, your taxes, etc. and they have authorization to wire tap, have the banks reveal your funding. I'm sure there are all sorts of other things in the Patriot Act in this so-called post 9/11 world. I don't know all of this for certain, but I would fully expect that it is literally impossible or at least *extremely* difficult to live completely off the grid here.

I'm wondering whether there will be a time when Americans are no longer pumped full of fear of the terrorist boogieman and come to realize what they have given up. Until then, most seem content with having a trail of data. I'm mostly resigned to this fact, especially since I came here on a student VISA, but I do think it's wise to not be completely blind.

How would you immigrate here anyway? You need some sort of in. Would you charm the pants off some dumb American and marry him or her?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The government has records of all sorts of things: social security, your taxes, etc. and they have authorization to wire tap, have the banks reveal your funding.

Heh. Not my banks.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How would you immigrate here anyway? You need some sort of in.

Easy. E2.

Not that I'm going to, of course. I like my freedom a little too much.

[besson3c]

You'd dump over $200,000 into our markets?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You'd dump over $200,000 into our markets?

If it served my purposes, yes.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You'd dump over $200,000 into our markets?

Originally Posted by Doofy 

If it served my purposes, yes.

Are hookers and blow that much different in America?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Are hookers and blow that much different in America?

Don't know, never tried any. Are they?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Don't know, never tried any. Are they?

It's your money.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

It's your money.

Are you suggesting that I should spend my money on hookers and blow? Is it worth spending my money on hookers and blow? I mean, I've never tried any but I assume that since you appear to speak with authority on the subject that you must have done and liked it. Now, I liked Firefly on your recommendation, so you know, maybe this hookers and blow thing will be OK too.

[olePigeon]

America is all about he hookers and blow. I thought you knew that, else why would you invest $200,000?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

America is all about he hookers and blow. I thought you knew that, else why would you invest $200,000?

Silverado duallies.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Everyone has an agenda. There were warnings of the sub-prime crisis and they were not heeded. The rallying call was home ownership. Borrowers don't know what they're borrowing, lenders don't know what they're lending, investors didn't know what they were investing in, and the entities in place for oversight did not oversee. As long as there is any sort of credit rating employed for measuring prospective ventures, someone will be the arbiter of that rating.

The statement was made that the US would lose its AAA rating. You don't have to use Moody's if you find them distasteful, provide a more optimistic US monetary forecast to rebut the claim that the US will lose its AAA rating.

The AAA rating is bought and sold, buddy. That was clearly pointed out. The whole system is fraud-ridden. Who cares what our rating really is? Its meaningless. Let's just buy a good one. It's the capitalist way. I love this free market economy....