Greenspan stated this morning that: “It’s not an issue of credit rating. The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print more money to do that. So there is zero probability of default”.
The printing of money doesn’t seem to be an issue for our Government regardless of repercussions, so does it show that the “debt crisis” and the subsequent display of ineptness of our Government was all “theatrics”? It was all ignited by a self imposed and fictitious crisis deadline date of August 2nd. After all, according to Greenspan, we can’t run out of money. So who's getting played here?
After finally admitting he was totally wrong about the housing bust and subsequent credit crisis, Alan Greenspan has no credibility whatsoever. In addition, his statement is a gross over-simplification. Sure, the Treasury can print money and the President also could have invoked the 14th Amendment, but both actions would have done an end-run around one of Congress's major prerogatives. The result would have been a Constitutional crisis and possible impeachment hearings. Does that sound like a good idea?
Causing a Constitutional crisis? No, of course I wouldn’t advocate purposely causing a crisis.
Evoking the 14th Amendment? To me that would have been a stretch.
But neither addresses the question I was posing. I was questioning the “self imposed” dead line date of August 2nd.
Posted By: inicky46
After finally admitting he was totally wrong about the housing bust and subsequent credit crisis, Alan Greenspan has no credibility whatsoever. In addition, his statement is a gross over-simplification. Sure, the Treasury can print money and the President also could have invoked the 14th Amendment, but both actions would have done an end-run around one of Congress's major prerogatives. The result would have been a Constitutional crisis and possible impeachment hearings. Does that sound like a good idea?
Why not let the system keep floating like it has been?? Because these bankers have global asperations..
Bernanke just did a press release and he said he would act till the markets correct 25% - this means infltion will be 25% - and this is just the begining, but it is CORRECT to look at inflation as a tax, put on money by the central banking cartel, for printing all the money -
is correct, but the point is even if that's true, something would have had to be done at some point and Greenspan's solution is bullshit for the reasons I stated.
True, something would have had to be done at some point. But it did not need to be under the microscope brought on by the artificial deadline date. Part of the “rational” stated by the S&P is a direct result of the “circus” we watched during the “debt debate”. The artificial deadline was “the trigger” in this case. But unfortunately this time we damaged our image in the rhetoric brought on as that “artificial deadline” loomed, and that seems to be accepted as BAU in DC. Create an artificial crisis, ramp up the rhetoric to cause the divisions and in the end, point your fingers of blame and disgust at the other side while “holding your own views and opinions” as absolute. That’s the whole “scam” I feel we are witnessing. BAU in DC does not work. This time BAU in DC caused us a loss in respect and “who knows what” in the markets. And, IMO BAU in DC certainly does not work for "we the people"!
Should we not be working toward changing how business is done in DC? Shouldn't the focus be on how to put this country back to work and not on their next re-election campaign? And I'm not just talking 2012... I'll leave the "blame game" for those who chose to "keep score" and the "finger pointing" to those who at times have trouble finding the end of their own fingers. DC is broken.
It is disgusting. Re the brinksmanship, however, when did you see a major deal not go to the 11th hour? It's human nature. This version, though, was more transparent than usual. Throw the bums out.
But where was the real 11th hour in this case? Were we at an 11th hour deadline? Not really! And I guess that would depend upon who all gets caught in that broad brush of “bums”. It certainly doesn’t warrant the rhetoric of “terrorists” or “unpatriotic”…and on and on and on. I’m sure we could go back and forth with examples of the harsh rhetoric. It was over the top in many cases. It all came down to costing us a rating score and was a huge disappointment to witness. We pay for better representation than what we are receiving.
Posted By: inicky46
It is disgusting. Re the brinksmanship, however, when did you see a major deal not go to the 11th hour? It's human nature. This version, though, was more transparent than usual. Throw the bums out.
Read my post again, then respond if you'd like to what I said.
BTW, it was a "bipartiasan agreement" that the markets are selling off to. You seem to live in this world in which the only intelligent position is to "blame both sides". Hogwash. This is a math problem and the numbers have to makes sense. That's what the world's inverstors are looking at.
BTW, Pri. I give not fuck one about polls. Poll the same people to name the 3 branches of government and you may get 25% correct. Afterall, Obama is POTUS, so there ya go.
Here's the post. Show me where it says 1 only 1 side engaged in "brinkmanship"
Take your time.
.............................................................................................................................. It would have worse had it not been for the "brinkmanship "Posted 8/7/2011 at 6:23:54 PMmr.notrouble Reviews: 8 Obama and the Dems wanted a blank check for $2.4 TRILLION with no promise to change anything.
Imagine what SP would have said then. .............................................................................................................................
It aint there.
Maybe your just creating a distraction from the real point...huh? Thank God for Tea Party.
"Obama and the Dems." If you think yours was an even-handed post, well, there's nothing more to be said. It still sounds to me like you're only labeling the Dems with brinksmanship.
I'm supposed to aspire to. Nonsense. Credit where credit is due.
It is clear both "parties" engaged in brinkmanship. That was not the question. The question is, who had to drug to the altar kicking and screaming?
When you consider the fact that Obama and the Dems have held majorities and no passed a single budget, did not introduce any tax or entilement reform for the 2.5 years they have held power, it is CLEAR to any thinking person who had to be drug to the trough.
Obama and the Dems are .like drug addicts complaining the faced the threat of jail if they did'nt enter rehab.
Obama could always do more....But during the 1st 2 years of this administration, Obama was cleaning up (and still cleaning up) the mess left behind by Bush and his neoconservative cronies. This economy was on the brink of falling into a depression and Obama and the democrats was able to pass legislation that had significant positive impact to the economy, injecting cash into the Auto Industry, the Stimulus package (though some economist said it was not large enough), and Healthcare reform, which will go a long way in reducing deficits in the long term.
It was clearly our political process, and in particular the Tea Baggers intransigence that lead the S&P to downgrade our credit rating. The Tea Baggers and the Republicans made it clear they were completely willing to allow the country to go into default. In fact the Republican Party has said this is the model going forward when dealing with future debt increases, a damn poor way of affecting change in my opinion. The republican party took our country hostage and once again demonstrated that they can't govern.
Unfortunately it looks like your attempt to purchase VIP membership has failed due to your card being declined. Good news is that we have several other payment options that you could try.
VIP MEMBER
, you are now a VIP member!
We thank you for your purchase!
VIP MEMBER
, Thank you for becoming VIP member!
Membership should be activated shortly. You'll receive notification!
