Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Global stocks fall after US debt downgrade

Mon Aug 8, 2011 4:55 AM EDT
world-news, business, world, markets, european-central-bank
Pan Pylas, AP Business Writer
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 7 photos
<p>Rudolf Oultz watches the display board at the Australia Stock Exchange in Sydney, Monday, Aug. 8, 2011. Australian and New Zealand markets have opened lower in reaction to ratings agency Standard and Poor's downgrading of the United States government credit rating from AAA to AA+. (AP Photo/Rick Rycroft)</p>

Rudolf Oultz watches the display board at the Australia Stock Exchange in Sydney, Monday, Aug. 8, 2011. Australian and New Zealand markets have opened lower in reaction to ratings agency Standard and Poor's downgrading of the United States government credit rating from AAA to AA+. (AP Photo/Rick Rycroft)

Advertise | AdChoices

LONDON — Global stock markets sank again Monday as worries over the downgrade of U.S. debt outweighed relief at a European Central Bank pledge to buy up Italian and Spanish bonds to help the two countries avoid devastating defaults.

European markets shed their early momentum and losses were heavy in Asia. Most stocks were trading sharply lower amid mounting fears over the opening of U.S. markets, when traders will have their first chance to respond to Standard & Poor's momentous decision to lower its triple A rating for the U.S.

"The reverberations from S&P's downgrade are still being felt across the globe," said David Jones, chief market strategist at IG Index.

For a brief while Monday, it seemed that the risky decision by the European Central Bank to buy the bonds of Italy and Spain in order to help them pay their way had helped ease the selling pressure, at least in Europe, but that soon changed.

Monday's trading came after one of the worst market weeks since the collapse of U.S. investment bank Lehman Brothers in 2008 — around $2.5 trillion was wiped off global stocks last week.

In Europe, Britain's FTSE 100 index of leading British shares was down 1.7 percent at 5,157 while France's CAC-40 fell 1.6 percent to 3,227. Germany's DAX was 2.3 percent lower at 6,091.

Sentiment in Europe was hurt by an expected sell-off at the U.S. open — Dow futures were down 1.8 percent at 11,196 while the broader Standard & Poor's 500 futures fell 2.1 percent to 1,173.

So far, the S&P downgrade doesn't seem to be having too much of an impact on U.S. government bonds, known as Treasuries. The worry has been that the downgrade would prompt investors to demand more, but the yield on ten-year Treasuries has actually fallen.

"Early market reactions suggest that the treasury market will remain well supported," said Jane Foley, an analyst at Rabobank International. "Even though there may be no sharp sell-off in treasuries this week, S&P's decision should at least provide a signal to the U.S. government that it may be foolhardy to continue to take its creditors for granted indefinitely."

In Europe, a particular focus has also been on the bond markets and the ECB's statement late Sunday that it would "actively implement" its bond-buying program to calm investor concerns that Italy and Spain won't be able to pay their debts. Last week, worries over the two countries' ability to keep tapping bond markets contributed to the turmoil in global markets.

Traders say the European Central Bank has spent around euro2 billion already Monday and that's really had a marked impact on the cost of borrowing for both countries. The yield on Italy's ten-year bonds fell 0.62 percentage point to 5.38 percent while Spain's tumbled 0.83 percentage point to 5.21 percent.

Seeking to avert panic spreading across financial markets, the finance ministers and central bankers of the Group of 20 industrial and developing nations issued a joint statement Monday saying they were committed to taking all necessary measures to support financial stability and growth.

"We will remain in close contact throughout the coming weeks and cooperate as appropriate, ready to take action to ensure financial stability and liquidity in financial markets," they said.

However, many analysts think that the international efforts may not be enough to calm jittery markets.

"Investors are concerned about a rising risk of global recession, credit downgrades especially now in the eurozone, such as France, the threat of a major bank bust and a global liquidity trap as investors stay in cash," said Neil MacKinnon, global macro strategist at VTB Capital.

Earlier in Asia, the repercussions of S&P's downgrade weighed on stock markets.

Among the major markets, Japan's Nikkei 225 stock average closed down 2.2 percent 9,097.56, while Hong Kong's Hang Seng fell the same rate to 20,490.50. South Korea's Kospi ended 3.8 percent lower as did China's main exchange in Shanghai.

In the currency markets, the euro was down 0.3 percent at $1.4265 while the dollar was down 0.6 percent at 77.80 yen. The U.S. dollar also hit another record low against the Swiss franc.

Fears over the global economy are having a major impact on oil markets, with the main New York rate down another $2.99 to $83.91 a barrel.

___

Pamela Sampson in Bangkok contributed to this report.

© 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Pan Pylas's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: United States , Italy , United Kingdom , Spain , London
  • Public Discussion (57)
DUDE-875416

Should have gone with the cap, cut, and balance bill that passed the House. Our credit may not have been down graded then.

  • 7 votes
#1 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 7:19 AM EDT
Free Mason-1490678Deleted
gillanator

This would never have happened if the repubes would have not held the debt ceiling hostage.

And everyone knows this. This is a result of right wing politics. So keep shoveling your right wing poop. No one is buying it this time. And it will be the leading topic of the 2012 election campaign, along with the right wing attempts to kill, SS, Medicare, minimum wage, outsourcing of jobs. Yea...You guys are the American nightmare.

  • 6 votes
#1.2 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 7:41 AM EDT
HappyToSeeYa

Open Comment to Unrepentant Teapublicans and their supporters

Some of you still do not want to eat your peas.

Your huffing and puffing has destroyed US credit. Your actions did not cause President Obama to fail. Your actions caused harm to our country.

Standard & Poors admits its computing error while refusing to take back the downgrade. Its findings stand as presented. Its message is overtly political and that political message explicitly names teapublicans as the cause for the downgrade in several instances in its downgrade report.

Teapublicans: you broke it, now, you own it.

I take no joy in pushing your teapublican faces into the mess that you made that has the focus of making our president fail. You are not big picture people. You are tiny-minded, vindictive people who only care about your allegiance to the Norquist pledge while doing corporate bidding. Standard & Poors respresents corporations and the downgrade report clearly shows that corporations are not amused that your teapublican contrived debt ceiling drama presents a negative result of your teapublican efforts on behalf of corporations thus far.

Teapublicans: it's OK to work for the betterment of our country. Our president's focus is on jobs, jobs, jobs. That's why you were elected. Now, honor your jobs, jobs, jobs campaign promise. Make yourselves succeed at being positive for the country instead of focusing on negativity to cause President Obama failure.

  • 4 votes
#1.3 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 8:05 AM EDT
DUDE-875416

gillanator

This would never have happened if the repubes would have not held the debt ceiling hostage.

LOL, quite amusing when you consider the Republicans passed two bills through the House and the Democratically controlled Senate wouldn't even take them up for debate, let alone, vote on them. Even Obama claimed he would VETO any bill that didn't include additional revenues.

EVERYONE were aware of the required 4 Trillion in spending cuts the credit rating companies required "as a good down payment" to show spending would in fact be cut. ALL of Washington ignored that little detail including Obama when he was focused on increasing revenue when both sides had already agreed on no additional revenue.

You can hardly blame only the Republicans even if you had one eye closed.

  • 4 votes
#1.4 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 8:18 AM EDT
HappyToSeeYa

<

DUDE-875416

You can hardly blame only the Republicans even if you had one eye closed.

p>

The Standard & Poors downgrade report blames both parties with explicit mentions of specific teapublican actions/behaviors.

  • 4 votes
#1.5 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 8:58 AM EDT
jawill11

consider the Republicans passed two bills through the House

Two bills that they knew would never pass the Senate and would be vetoed by the POTUS. That is not compromising with the other party to pass a deal, that is what toddlers do to get their way.

Like it or not, the GOP in the House are not the sole leaders of the country. The POTUS and the Democrats in the Senate recognized that a compromise deal would be necessary to get something through a divided Congress. The only thing that gummed up the works was the childish behavior of the House GOP.

the required 4 Trillion in spending cuts the credit rating companies required

You must not have read S&P's report. They did not require $4t in "cuts." They specifically addressed the lack of revenue increases in the deal and even specifically mentioned that letting the Bush tax cuts expire in 2013 would go a long way towards improving the rating in the future. The only people furiously fighting against those revenue increases are the GOP.

  • 6 votes
#1.6 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 8:59 AM EDT
gillanator

LOL, quite amusing when you consider the Republicans passed two bills through the House and the Democratically controlled Senate wouldn't even take them up for debate, let alone, vote on them

Any different than the Republican Filibuster? No. The two bills were lopsided. This is why I said held the debt ceiling hostage. It was either pass everything we want or default. Nice try but pretty lame right wing excuse. Too bad it doesn't fly.

  • 3 votes
#1.7 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 9:16 AM EDT
lamdaguy

Yep. The key word words here, DUDE-875416 is "May not have". There is no way to tell considering the downgrade has nothing to do with our budget or deficit. S&P made it very clear that the downgrade was due to congresses inability to come up with a comprise quickly and swiftly. Too much bickering and turmoil over the solutions. The final bill had nothing to do with their decision.

  • 1 vote
#1.8 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 9:17 AM EDT
DUDE-875416

The fact of the matter is, this crisis could have been avoided if the Democrats chose to deal with it directly when they had a super majority, but instead, spent Trillions that America doesn't have. This brought us to the debt ceiling much faster than anyone expected making it an emergency right before the 2012 elections. Just what neither sided wanted including Obama.

America knows first hand what to expect from the Democratic party after experiencing their leadership for the past several years. Heck, the Republicans outperformed the Democrats for the past 30 years when you compare Congressional terms.

    #1.9 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 9:17 AM EDT
    Davy-755715

    In all this back-and-forth it is interesting that so many see themselves as lily white and free from any responsibility. The bewildering variety of programs we wanted (especially our government checks), connected with our whining about taxes, couldn't have a thing to do with the situation, huh. Naw, it's all because of THEM, over THERE!

    • 4 votes
    #1.10 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 9:47 AM EDT
    ozzwald

    DUDE-875416
    The fact of the matter is, this crisis could have been avoided if the Democrats chose to deal with it directly when they had a super majority

    I keep hearing this over and over again. Let's set things straight and please try to get it through your "blame the other guy" teapublican mindset.

    THE DEMOCRATS NEVER HAD A SUPER MAJORITY!!!

    Anybody that can count knows this. It takes 60 in the senate to own a super majority, the most the Democrats ever had was 58. Understand?? 58 is less than 60, so no super majority!! How do you think the republicans were able to get away with HUNDREDS of filibusters?

    • 5 votes
    #1.11 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 9:54 AM EDT
    HappyToSeeYa

    ozzwald

    THE DEMOCRATS NEVER HAD A SUPER MAJORITY!!!

    Add to that the fact that conservative democrats routinely vote with the all conservative re/teapublicans. Apparently, it is ideology not party that matters. Conservatives spew negative commentary about the democratic party super majority though they haven't had democratic politicians voting with them.

    • 1 vote
    #1.12 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 11:24 AM EDT
    gillanator

    Anybody that can count knows this. It takes 60 in the senate to own a super majority, the most the Democrats ever had was 58. Understand?? 58 is less than 60, so no super majority!! How do you think the republicans were able to get away with HUNDREDS of filibusters?

    Ozwald...... LOL. Thanks for making me laugh. I know it is sad that you have to explain this to the right, but you also showed everyone why the right wing wants to kill education in America.

    • 2 votes
    #1.13 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 12:42 PM EDT
    DUDE-875416

    ozzwald

    I keep hearing this over and over again. Let's set things straight and please try to get it through your "blame the other guy" teapublican mindset.

    LOL, labels are typically used by the Democrites that blame Bush for all of our problems and now blame the tea party folks. PRICELESS

    THE DEMOCRATS NEVER HAD A SUPER MAJORITY!!!

    Anybody that can count knows this. It takes 60 in the senate to own a super majority, the most the Democrats ever had was 58. Understand?? 58 is less than 60, so no super majority!! How do you think the republicans were able to get away with HUNDREDS of filibusters?

    Oh, that explains why Obamacare passed WITHOUT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTE!! Dems had their chance, they SPENT IT AND THEN SOME. (HappyToSeeYa: Nope, not a single "blue dog" Democrat voted with the Republicans either).

      #1.14 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 2:38 PM EDT
      gillanator

      Oh, that explains why Obamacare passed WITHOUT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTE!! Dems had their chance, they SPENT IT AND THEN SOME.

      If there was 2/3 super majority in congress I don't believe the republicans even needed to show up.

      Otherwise they were just outvoted.

      • 2 votes
      #1.15 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 2:45 PM EDT
      DUDE-875416

      gillanator

      Ozwald...... LOL. Thanks for making me laugh. I know it is sad that you have to explain this to the right, but you also showed everyone why the right wing wants to kill education in America.

      So Obama wanted to cut funding to graduate-level education in his budget proposal but it's the right wants to kill education in America. Not so funny when your own party and President is doing exactly what you blame the other party for.

      "WASHINGTON -- Less than two months after signing tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans into law, President Barack Obama proposed a spending plan to Congress that cuts funding to programs that assist the working poor, help the needy heat their homes, and expand access to graduate-level education, undermining the kind of community-based organizations that helped Obama launch his political career in Chicago."

        #1.16 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 2:55 PM EDT
        jawill11

        Oh, that explains why Obamacare passed WITHOUT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTE!!

        HR 3590 (the Affordable Care Act) passed the senate with 58 dems and 2 independents voting "aye". Note that the Senate had a Dem caucus of 58 +2 independents for only a few months and Lieberman was a constant thorn in their side the whole time.

        The bill passed the House with 34 Dem "nay" votes, many of them from the Blue Dog caucus. As the blue dog caucus is only a House caucus, it would be impossible for a blue dog to vote for the bill in the Senate.

          #1.17 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 2:57 PM EDT
          DUDE-875416

          gillanator

          If there was 2/3 super majority in congress I don't believe the republicans even needed to show up.

          Otherwise they were just outvoted.

          Out voted? If EVERY Democrat voted for the bill, and EVERY Republican voted against the bill but yet the bill passed, I would say the Democrats had TOTAL control of the bill passing. If they could do it with Obamacare, why not do it to cut spending and prevent a lowering of our credit rating?

            #1.18 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 3:00 PM EDT
            DUDE-875416

            jawill11

            HR 3590 (the Affordable Care Act) passed the senate with 58 dems and 2 independents voting "aye". Note that the Senate had a Dem caucus of 58 +2 independents for only a few months and Lieberman was a constant thorn in their side the whole time.

            The bill passed the House with 34 Dem "nay" votes, many of them from the Blue Dog caucus. As the blue dog caucus is only a House caucus, it would be impossible for a blue dog to vote for the bill in the Senate.

            Like I said, NOT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR OBAMACARE. NOT ONE! Obamacare is OWNED by the Democrats for better or for worse. They should have taken ownership of our economy but they chose not to.

              #1.19 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 3:02 PM EDT
              gillanator

              Out voted? If EVERY Democrat voted for the bill, and EVERY Republican voted against the bill but yet the bill passed, I would say the Democrats had TOTAL control of the bill passing. If they could do it with Obamacare, why not do it to cut spending and prevent a lowering of our credit rating?

              You aren't serious? First of all the dems had more votes (in 2009), that means if they voted along party lines the Dems would win by having more numbers. But that doesn't equal super majority. Second. The health care bill was signed by Obama on March 23, 2010. That was before the house was taken over by a Republican majority. Which is the answer to the last part of your question:

              If they could do it with Obamacare, why not do it to cut spending and prevent a lowering of our credit rating?

              But you knew that right? Please tell me you were joking and you knew this. Here is a little reading piece for you on Super Majority. You seem to be struggling with it a little bit.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority

              • 2 votes
              #1.20 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 3:11 PM EDT
              DUDE-875416

              gillanator

              You aren't serious? First of all the dems had more votes, that means if they voted along party lines the Dems would win by more numbers. That doesn't equal super majority. Second. The health care bill was signed by Obama on March 23, 2010. That was before the house was taken over by a Republican majority. Which is the answer to the last part of your question:

              So, you are saying that medical reform is more important than saving our credit rating and economy "before the house was taken over by a Republican majority"? I understand the need for 60 votes to have a super majority in the Senate. But I wasn't referring to the Senate. I was referring to the fact the Democrats had total control of our government during 2009 and had their chance to show real leadership, but failed. The Democrats ignored ALL of the economic warnings while they went on their spending kick which ultimately was a major contributor to our credit rating being lowered. Yes, I do blame the Republicans as well, but you seem to not blame the Democrats for any of it.

                #1.21 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 3:21 PM EDT
                jawill11

                I was referring to the fact the Democrats had total control of our government during 2009 and had their chance to show real leadership, but failed.

                That's the point you are missing from my comment. The Dems only had a 60 vote caucus for a few months and they hardly ever achieved consensus, especially among one of the independents in the caucus, Joe Lieberman. Hence, as was already pointed out, the record shattering amount of filibusters in the Senate during 2009.

                The Democrats ignored ALL of the economic warnings while they went on their spending kick which ultimately was a major contributor to our credit rating being lowered.

                There is not one factual aspect of that sentence. There were virtually no economic warnings telling the gov't not to spend during an economic crisis, that is what is done according to established and time tested economic theory. There was no big spending kick that the Dems initiated leading to our big deficits and debt. And finally, our credit rating has not been lowered. Two of the three agencies still have us at AAA, therefore our rating is still officially AAA.

                  #1.22 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 3:45 PM EDT
                  DUDE-875416

                  jawill11

                  That's the point you are missing from my comment. The Dems only had a 60 vote caucus for a few months and they hardly ever achieved consensus, especially among one of the independents in the caucus, Joe Lieberman. Hence, as was already pointed out, the record shattering amount of filibusters in the Senate during 2009.

                  Yes, I know they had a super majority even though it was for only a few months. However, they still had a majority and could have done more if the Democrats had a leader that could bring them together. Lack of leadership is the problem even today.

                  There is not one factual aspect of that sentence. There were virtually no economic warnings telling the gov't not to spend during an economic crisis, that is what is done according to established and time tested economic theory.

                  So, spending until you reach the debt ceiling, raising it, then (the day after) spend more than ever had been spent in a single day in the history of America is responsible? The fact that we were about to reach a 100% ratio between the total debt vs total GDP isn't an indicator? Sheesh..

                  There was no big spending kick that the Dems initiated leading to our big deficits and debt.

                  How much have the Democrats spent in the past 2.5 years? You really don't know do you?

                  And finally, our credit rating has not been lowered. Two of the three agencies still have us at AAA, therefore our rating is still officially AAA.

                  I see, you're saying by only one rating company dropping our credit score, won't impact Americans at all? Try again, look at the markets and tell me that it didn't impact ANYTHING. The World just lost 2.5 TRILLION over night because of it! Give me a break.

                    #1.23 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 4:09 PM EDT
                    ozzwald

                    DUDE-875416

                    So, you are saying that medical reform is more important than saving our credit rating and economy "before the house was taken over by a Republican majority"?

                    Are you saying that money is more important than human life? Thousands of people were/are dying every year due to the health insurance industry.

                    Study links 45,000 U.S. deaths to lack of insurance

                    Link: goo.gl/6Mfpz

                    I understand the need for 60 votes to have a super majority in the Senate. But I wasn't referring to the Senate. I was referring to the fact the Democrats had total control of our government during 2009 and had their chance to show real leadership, but failed.

                    Apparently you DON'T understand the need for 60 votes. The Democrats never did have "total control of our government". As pointed out earlier, they did not have a super majority at any time! That is how the republicans were able to filibuster over 100 bills.

                    The Democrats ignored ALL of the economic warnings while they went on their spending kick which ultimately was a major contributor to our credit rating being lowered.

                    Listening to too much FoxNews. The only economic warning were the economists saying that the stimulus package was not big enough.

                    Economist: Obama Stimulus Not Enough

                    Link: www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/28/ftn/main4688594.shtml

                    As to the credit rating, why don't you go by what S&P actually said instead of what Fox News said? The drop was due to them not enacting a long term solution (like Obama wanted) that included increasing revenues (like Obama wanted).

                    Yes, I do blame the Republicans as well, but you seem to not blame the Democrats for any of it.

                    What exactly did you want to blame the Democrats for? Specifically. The debt increase that Fox News likes blaming Obama for mainly consisted of the Bush tax cuts, the 2 Bush wars, and Bush's Medicare part D. All of these which were left off of Bush's budget were correctly placed on Obama's budget making it look (falsely) like he doubled the spending as under Bush.

                    • 1 vote
                    #1.24 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 4:22 PM EDT
                    ozzwald

                    jawill11

                    So, spending until you reach the debt ceiling, raising it, then (the day after) spend more than ever had been spent in a single day in the history of America is responsible? The fact that we were about to reach a 100% ratio between the total debt vs total GDP isn't an indicator? Sheesh.

                    Not only is your claim incorrect, it is amazingly, staggeringly, unbelievably WRONG!

                    Understand that the debt ceiling is used to pay existing bills only, it has absolutely nothing to do with increasing spending. Those same existing bills had already passed congress (yes Democrat and Republican approved) and been voted on. Not raising the debt ceiling is more like what happens if you don't pay your credit card bill after you have made purchases with it. That is why they still had to raise it even after the trillions in cutting.

                    Also, could you please explain why EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN voted for the Ryan budget plan, even though it would have increased the debt by billions AND increased the debt ceiling with no budgetary cuts? Not only that but what few cuts it did offer, in senior "entitlement" programs were immediately offset by an increase to the billionaire tax cuts for another 1/3 off? But, to emphasize, EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR IT!!!

                    • 1 vote
                    #1.25 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 4:32 PM EDT
                    DUDE-875416

                    ozzwald

                    Are you saying that money is more important than human life? Thousands of people were/are dying every year due to the health insurance industry.

                    Nope, but you can't pan this off as an emergency since the new law doesn't go into effect until 2014. Good thing too since the new law doesn't do anything for the average American but to increase their insurance costs. We need to reform the reform.

                    Apparently you DON'T understand the need for 60 votes. The Democrats never did have "total control of our government". As pointed out earlier, they did not have a super majority at any time! That is how the republicans were able to filibuster over 100 bills.

                    Again, you are wrong. The Democrats had a super majority for two months.

                    What exactly did you want to blame the Democrats for? Specifically. The debt increase that Fox News likes blaming Obama for mainly consisted of the Bush tax cuts, the 2 Bush wars, and Bush's Medicare part D. All of these which were left off of Bush's budget were correctly placed on Obama's budget making it look (falsely) like he doubled the spending as under Bush.

                    I figured as much. Even if I posted a list of failures by this administration, you would only pass the blame anyways. But I would be interested in knowing why GE didn't pay a dime in taxes for the billions in profits they had last year or the mining industry in Harry's back yard doesn't pay royalties for mining on OUR land. I'm sure that was the Republicans fault right?

                    Seriously, get off the cool aid!

                      #1.26 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 4:36 PM EDT
                      DUDE-875416

                      ozzwald

                      Also, could you please explain why EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN voted for the Ryan budget plan, even though it would have increased the debt by billions AND increased the debt ceiling with no budgetary cuts? Not only that but what few cuts it did offer, in senior "entitlement" programs were immediately offset by an increase to the billionaire tax cuts for another 1/3 off? But, to emphasize, EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR IT!!!

                      LOL, nope.. you should ask a Republican. I'm an Independent so I wouldn't know. But I have to admit, the Republicans are acting much more like a party than the Democrats are. Obama had to bribe his own party just to get his Obamacare passed.

                        #1.27 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 4:43 PM EDT
                        ozzwald

                        DUDE-875416
                        Nope, but you can't pan this off as an emergency since the new law doesn't go into effect until 2014. Good thing too since the new law doesn't do anything for the average American but to increase their insurance costs. We need to reform the reform.

                        45,000 preventable deaths per years is not an emergency? Really??? The new law has already gone into effect. The final parts of it will not start until 2014, but many parts already have.

                        Again, you are wrong. The Democrats had a super majority for two months.

                        No they didn't! Look it up for yourself. The most the Democrats had were 58, that's it, no more. Only a Republican mindset thinks, "if you're not with us, you're against us", 58 Democrats voted for the healthcare law + 2 independents. Understand, they weren't Democratic or Republican, they were INDEPENDENTS! Yes they caucus with Democrats, but that is meaningless since they are not a part of the Democratic party. If there are ever enough of them they will get their own caucus.

                        • 1 vote
                        #1.28 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 4:55 PM EDT
                        ozzwald

                        DUDE-875416

                        LOL, nope.. you should ask a Republican. I'm an Independent so I wouldn't know. But I have to admit, the Republicans are acting much more like a party than the Democrats are. Obama had to bribe his own party just to get his Obamacare passed.

                        This I can agree with. Democrats do not march lock step like the Republicans, they each have to be convinced separately. The republicans are the exact opposite, they vote as one when told, no independent thought, no independent action, you will be assimilated into the GOP collective and will lose the entire concept of "I". Duty is only to the party and the party is their GOD!

                        • 1 vote
                        #1.29 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 4:59 PM EDT
                        mstanley2265

                        I might add that the US is rated 49th for deaths out of 196....guessing the US health system isn't as good as it's touted to be.

                        • 1 vote
                        #1.30 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 5:01 PM EDT
                        ozzwald

                        mstanley2265
                        I might add that the US is rated 49th for deaths out of 196....guessing the US health system isn't as good as it's touted to be.

                        Nope, but it is the most expensive.

                        • 1 vote
                        #1.31 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 5:03 PM EDT
                        mstanley2265

                        or the most restrictive for access to medical care, not that some people really mind because 'it was someone's else's obit in the paper, I didn't know them".

                        • 1 vote
                        #1.32 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 5:06 PM EDT
                        ozzwald

                        mstanley2265
                        or the most restrictive for access to medical care, not that some people really mind because 'it was someone's else's obit in the paper, I didn't know them".

                        Ahh, yes. The republican "not me/mine" life philosophy.

                        You can take away his insurance, but not mine.
                        Its okay for him to die, but not me.
                        You should cancel his unemployment, but not mine.
                        You can cut costs with his programs, but not mine.
                        You can put you gov't hands on his Medicare, but not mine.
                        You can put gov't in their bedroom, but not mine.
                        You can yell and scream at his town meeting, but not mine.

                        Did I miss any???

                        • 1 vote
                        #1.33 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 5:13 PM EDT
                        mstanley2265

                        oh I'm sure there are more to be found. When people allow dissatisfaction to rule the way they view the world, usually is..... :)

                          #1.34 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 7:39 PM EDT
                          Reply
                          Matthias von Odry

                          Apart from all the mistakes politicians are doing to make the crisis worse,it is time to stop the power and influence of so called "rating agencies"! They do more harm to the world economy than anything else!

                            Reply#2 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 7:36 AM EDT
                            mstanley2265

                            Shoot the messenger? not really a good idea..But a Balanced Budget would be....with tax code reform

                            • 1 vote
                            #2.1 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 9:08 AM EDT
                            Reply
                            AlphaDogReporter

                            Should have gone with the $4 trillion plan Obama proposed seven months ago. which met the criteria of the ratings agencies, instead of the crap sandwich the Tea Partiers and GOP insisted on, which very obviously did not.

                            America - snookered again by right-wing liars.

                            • 3 votes
                            Reply#3 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 7:44 AM EDT
                            HappyToSeeYa

                            In every instance where President Obama has supported republican issues/concerns, republicans, now, teapublicans abandoned their long held and cherished positions. That "make President Obama fail" thingy is a disaster.

                            Hot news flash to teapublicans: it would have been outstanding campaign talking points for you republicans/teapublicans if you had continued working on your long held, cherished positions that President Obama embraced. You could be bragging that President Obama is as conservative as you are.

                            • 2 votes
                            #3.1 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 8:15 AM EDT
                            Free Mason-1490678Deleted
                            DUDE-875416

                            Congress determines spending, not Obama. Good thing too since all Obama wanted to do was spend, spend, spend. After all, Obama's budget didn't get a single yes vote from either side of the isle which includes every Democrat in office. Besides, Obama's plan was never scored by the CBO so the 4 Trillion of so called cuts were never supported.

                            Nice spin though.

                            • 6 votes
                            #3.3 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 8:26 AM EDT
                            Free Mason-1490678Deleted
                            Jackie-355788

                            Happy now Teatards! Eric Cantor is extremely happy because today he's making a hell of alot of money . Boehner is happy because he got 98% of what he wanted..What did the American people get? You all know what to do come the mid terms and don't all of a sudden have amnesia and turn off Murdock rag channel called FOX and get yourselves educated to the FACTS before you get into the voting booth PLEASE.

                            • 2 votes
                            #3.5 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 8:34 AM EDT
                            HappyToSeeYa

                            On TV yesterday, Ryan put revenues on the table.

                            Shouldn't teapublicans form a a line to spank him?

                            • 1 vote
                            #3.6 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 9:00 AM EDT
                            mstanley2265

                            Dude, that was the Feb budget, it was a legislative procedure to give the Administration more time to work out the Agency/Department spending reductions. Not that Anyone Really Noticed the Final Budget Proposal by President Obama in March. jeez, rewriting history must be tedious.

                              #3.7 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 9:10 AM EDT
                              Davy-755715

                              Good thing too since all Obama wanted to do was spend, spend, spend.

                              How 'bout the Big Two, Social Security and Medicare? Should Obama have cut spending on them, enough to make a difference? Would you go along with that idea, Free Mason? Or is it cutting the safe alternatives, foreign aid and Endowment for the Arts, that will provide the easy solution; blah, blah, blah...

                                #3.8 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 9:56 AM EDT
                                HappyToSeeYa

                                DUDE-875416

                                After all, Obama's budget didn't get a single yes vote from either side of the isle which includes every Democrat in office

                                This particular spewage and others like it tend to ignore the fact that the budget vote was procedural to set aside President Obama's original budget submittal for this year in order to work on the revised budget that President Obama submitted. I'd say most of the electorate do not know that our president submitted a revised budget but I can see/hear that teapublicans are not about to inform them.

                                  #3.9 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 11:29 AM EDT
                                  California Militia

                                  its bushes fault.

                                  he left this administration with growing unemployment,

                                  two wars,

                                  and a triple AAA rating...

                                  good to see this new administration could change "one" of them.

                                    #3.10 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 2:27 PM EDT
                                    mstanley2265

                                    Actually, Congress is the problem and growing worse by the day.....

                                      #3.11 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 3:08 PM EDT
                                      Reply
                                      BOLT420

                                      Ha Ha you dumb idiots you just had to ruin the last twenty years with your private sector didn cha well now that

                                      your heading into our world dont stop at my house for even a @!$%#in corn tortilla cause I'll run you off like a dog

                                      in my trash...i dont feel a bit sorry for your demise if wall street was to control my country when the first ground

                                      strike hit your kind you would be @!$%#ting and running for your life I can promise you LOOSERS that I hope we go

                                      into a depression so i can watch the suicide parade you had this coming and your time is here have a nice day .

                                      ha ha ha ha ha ROFLMAO

                                        Reply#4 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 8:04 AM EDT
                                        Free Mason-1490678Deleted
                                        canary-in-the-coal-mine

                                        wasn't "bolt" an animated movie about a dog with delusions of grandeur?

                                          #4.2 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 9:46 AM EDT
                                          Reply
                                          Borncorn

                                          The T-Bagger downgrade. You repeatedly tell the world you are going to default on your legal obligations, then come within ten votes of doing it, and you are surprised when your credit rating gets cut a half notch? We have non-one to blame other than the morons who tied fiscal policy to a debt ceiling vote. Read the S&P credit rating. Politics was a big part of the downgrade.

                                          • 4 votes
                                          Reply#5 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 8:48 AM EDT
                                          HappyToSeeYa

                                          Borncorn, teapublicans have their hands over their eyes or over their ears so that they can claim that they haven't seen or heard about the S&P downgrade report that specifically mentions them for their contrived debt ceiling drama.

                                          Teapublicans want our president to fail. Instead, their actions have caused a domino effect on global market failure. Well, they succeeded at making something fail, just not what they intended.

                                          • 4 votes
                                          #5.1 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 9:04 AM EDT
                                          Reply
                                          Carol-500283

                                          Well, newsflash to every country who has its hand out everytime it gets into trouble-my vote says don't put it out to the U.S. When we are in trouble where are they?? Nowhere, that's where. Done being the parent and cop of the world, its time to do for the home team. So when we stop paying out money for all the problems of the world, we can have money to pay our debts and run our country, that's what the other powers do. As long as the teapubs are there in "power" things with the debt and budget won't change much either. What a fine mess we're in voters!!!

                                          • 1 vote
                                          Reply#6 - Mon Aug 8, 2011 9:56 AM EDT
                                          bond15redDeleted
                                          krishna-167929

                                          Global stocks fall after US debt downgrade

                                          And rise after Fed promises to keep interest rates low!

                                          • 1 vote
                                          Reply#8 - Tue Aug 9, 2011 7:05 PM EDT
                                          mstanley2265

                                          IMO that having a Federal Reserve Bank isn't such a Bad Idea after all LOL

                                            #8.1 - Tue Aug 9, 2011 8:56 PM EDT
                                            Reply
                                            Leave a Comment:
                                            You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                            You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                            (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                            Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                            As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                            FUN STUFF:
                                            • Leaderboard |
                                            • E-Mail Alerts |
                                            • Top of the Vine |
                                            • Newsvine Live |
                                            • Newsvine Archives |
                                            • The Greenhouse
                                            COMPANY STUFF:
                                            • Code of Honor |
                                            • Company Info |
                                            • Contact Us |
                                            • Jobs |
                                            • User Agreement |
                                            • Privacy Policy |
                                            • About our ads
                                            LEGAL STUFF:
                                            • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                            • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                            • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com