Enough Democrats and Republicans reluctantly joined forces to see the proposed legislation through by 269 to 161 The weeks-long confrontation over the US debt has finally ended after the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly in favour of a deal to prevent the economic catastrophe of America defaulting for the first time in its history. The vote came only hours before the Treasury deadline that potentially would have seen the US run out of cash and no longer able to pay its bills. Enough Democrats and Republicans reluctantly joined forces to see the proposed legislation through, 269 votes to 161. But there were significant revolts by both Democrats and Republicans. If the House had failed to vote in favour, markets would likely have gone into freefall. With so much at stake, the Democrats and Republicans called in all members. In an emotional moment, even the Democrat Gabrielle Giffords returned to vote for the first time since being shot in the head in Tucson, Arizona, in January. She received a standing ovation from both sides of the House. The Senate is scheduled to vote on the bill at noon but that is largely a formality, because the Democrats have a majority and the Republican leadership has promised support. The Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, said there were enough votes in the Senate to pass the bill. The House of Representatives, with a large number of Republicans aligned to the Tea Party movement, had been the main obstacle. The deal looks mainly like a victory for the Republicans, with the Democrats emerging with little to show for all the weeks of strife. Barack Obama, who negotiated the deal with Republican and Democratic leaders at the weekend, hopes to sign the bill into law after the Senate vote and before midnight on Tuesday. Many Democrats expressed unhappiness with the legislation, rushed through at the last minute without the normal scrutiny in order to meet the deadline, because it contains more than $2tn in spending cuts over the next decade. They fear the poor will be the main casualties and feel that Obama caved in to the Tea Party Republicans. Just before the vote, the Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, though she herself had serious misgivings about the bill, urged her colleagues to vote in favour. “Please think of what could happen if we defaulted,” she said. “Please, please, please come down in favour of preventing the collateral damage.” The Democrats divided evenly in the vote, with 95 voting in favour and 95 against. It is a sizeable Democratic vote on a compromise that Obama had been desperately seeking and who had, on Sunday night, hailed it in a television statement. There was also a revolt by Republicans aligned to the Tea Party movement who argued the cuts are not deep enough. About 66 Republicans voted no. The bill will raise the US debt ceiling by $900bn over the next few months and by another $1.5tn early next year. Without the rise, Obama would have had to divert money from other federal spending to pay the interest on American loans and, as a consequence, he had warned that 80 million people in receipt of federal cheques, mainly benefits, might have ended up as the casualties. Obama sent vice-president Joe Biden to Congress to try to sway disgruntled Democrats. In a closed meeting, Biden heard concern from his party colleagues that too much ground had been conceded to the Republicans in order to prevent the default. In a sign of the polarisation of politics in Washington, Biden agreed with a Democratic colleague who objected to what he felt were extortion tactics by Tea Party Republicans. Biden, in words that will enrage many in the Tea Party, described hardline conservatives as having “acted like terrorists”. In comments typical of the Democratic mood, Congressman Eliot Engel told the Politico website: “If you had told me that this was the package a month ago, I would’ve asked you what you had been smoking.” The Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan body, reported that the deal would cut federal spending by $2.1tn over 10 years. The Republicans had demanded the cuts in return for raising the debt ceiling. The White House spokesman, Jay Carney, called the deal “a victory for the American people”, and denied Obama and the Democrats had got nothing from it. The Democratic leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, after a meeting of the Democratic caucus in the Senate attended by Biden, acknowledged the unhappiness of at least some of his Democratic colleagues. He said: “There was some enthusiasm for the legislation. Some others had no such enthusiasm,” Reid said. Although some people were unhappy, he said it was a typical piece of compromise legislation. Left-leaning Democrats fear that the spending cuts, to be looked at in detail by a bipartisan committee that will report in November, will hit the most vulnerable in society. Others questioned the value of spending cuts at a time when the economy is struggling to get out of recession. In the House, the Republican Speaker, John Boehner, received a standing ovation at a gathering of House Republicans, before the vote. US politics Obama administration US economic growth and recession United States Barack Obama US economy Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Anyone who characterizes the deal between the president, Democratic, and Republican leaders as a victory for the American people over partisanship understands neither economics nor politics. The deal does not raise taxes on America’s wealthy and most fortunate — who are now taking home a larger share of total income and wealth, and whose tax rates are already lower than they have been in eighty years. Yet it puts the nation’s most important safety nets and public investments on the chopping block. It also hobbles the capacity of the government to respond to the jobs and growth crisis. Added to the cuts already underway by state and local governments, the deal’s spending cuts increase the odds of a double-dip recession. And the deal strengthens the political hand of the radical right. Yes, the deal is preferable to the unfolding economic catastrophe of a default on the debt of the U.S. government. The outrage and the shame is it has come to this choice. More than a year ago, the president could have conditioned his agreement to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond 2010 on Republicans’ agreement not to link a vote on the debt ceiling to the budget deficit. But he did not. Many months ago, when Republicans first demanded spending cuts and no tax increases as a condition for raising the debt ceiling, the president could have blown their cover. He could have shown the American people why this demand had nothing to do with deficit reduction but everything to do with the GOP’s ideological fixation on shrinking the size of the government — thereby imperiling Medicare, Social Security, education, infrastructure, and everything else Americans depend on. But he did not. And through it all the president could have explained to Americans that the biggest economic challenge we face is restoring jobs and wages and economic growth, that spending cuts in the next few years will slow the economy even further, and therefore that the Republicans’ demands threaten us all. Again, he did not. The radical right has now won a huge tactical and strategic victory. Democrats and the White House have proven they have little by way of tactics or strategy. By putting Medicare and Social Security on the block, they have made it more difficult for Democrats in the upcoming 2012 election cycle to blame Republicans for doing so. By embracing deficit reduction as their apparent goal — claiming only that they’d seek to do it differently than the GOP — Democrats and the White House now seemingly agree with the GOP that the budget deficit is the biggest obstacle to the nation’s future prosperity. The budget deficit is not the biggest obstacle to our prosperity. Lack of jobs and growth is. And the largest threat to our democracy is the emergence of a radical right capable of getting most of the ransom it demands. Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future, now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org.
Continue reading …Will The Media Ban Pam Geller After Trying to Justify Anders Breivik Shooting
August 1, 2011 No Comment
Check out the above video to see Pam Geller getting grilled about her anti-Muslim views. Republicans always get away with it. ( Pam Geller insists she “loves” Muslims. Too bad they’re also the enemies of America ) You’ve probably heard all about Ground Zero Pam and her anti-Muslim rants and behavior. She’s as radical as they come. Her brand of extremism is the kind we covered in our book, Over The Cliff and it’s the type of extremism that attracts her to FOX News, the Birthers and the Norway shooter. As soon as the NY Times linked her to Breivik, she’s been trying to scrub her site as fast as she can. Charles Johnson has been all over this story. Get a load of her latest unconscionable defense of herself and Anders Breivik : Popular hate blogger Pam Geller has received scrutiny in recent days as the public became aware that the right-wing terrorist in Norway, Anders Behring Breivik, had praised her blog and thoroughly cited her writing in his political manifesto. After a number of blogs made the connection, as well as the New York Times , the Atlantic , and other major outlets , Geller became incensed and began lashing out at her critics. In a post defending herself yesterday, Geller — who has called Obama “ President Jihad ” and claimed that Arab language classes are a plot to subvert the United States — reached a new low. Geller justifies Breivik’s attack on the Norwegian Labour Party summer youth camp because she says the camp is part of an anti-Israel “indoctrination training center.” She says the victims would have grown up to become “future leaders of the party responsible for flooding Norway with Muslims who refuse to assimilate, who commit major violence against Norwegian natives including violent gang rapes, with impunity, and who live on the dole.” To get her point across, Geller posts a picture of the youth camp children Breivik targeted. The picture was taken on the Utøya island camp about 24 hours before Breivik killed over 30 children, so it is likely Geller is mocking many of the victims. Under the picture, Geller writes: “ Note the faces which are more MIddle [sic] Eastern or mixed than pure Norwegian .” View a screen shot (click to enlarge) of Geller’s blog post below: enlarge Credit: AP Norway shooter victims Could Geller’s outburst of smears be a distraction against mounting evidence that she might have communicated with Breivik in the past? A post from Geller in 2007 reprints a reader-submitted letter in which an anonymous Norwegian complains of Muslim immigration and boasts that he is “ stockpiling and caching weapons , ammunition and equipment.” In the comment section, Geller claims that she provided anonymity to the reader to protect him from being prosecuted. Although Geller recently deleted the ammunition line from her post, a cached version is available. As Glenn Greenwald notes, “If this were an attack by a Muslim group, and a Muslim had something like this on his/her website, the FBI and multiple other groups would be swarming.” Doesn’t that picture look like a normal gathering of youths? Will the media start acting responsibly and stop transmitting extremist kooks like Pam Geller once and for all on our TV’s? I’ve been reading an excellent Noregian crime fiction writer, Jo Nesbo ‘s book, The Redbreast , about neo-Nazis. Eerie that I was reading it just as the shootings in Oslo happened. Nesbo posted an op-ed in the NY Times about the shooting.
Continue reading …MSNBC’s Alter and Bashir Agree: ‘We’d Be in a Depression Now if There Had Been a Balanced Budget Amendment in 2009′
August 1, 2011 No Comment
On Monday's “Martin Bashir,” MSNBC analyst Jonathan Alter proclaimed that America would “be in a depression now if there had been a balanced budget amendment in 2009.” Bashir, concurring with the former Newsweek editor, added, “Indeed.” Reacting to Rep. John Boehner's (R-Ohio) press conference about the debt-ceiling deal , Alter and Bashir mocked the speaker's suggestion that a balanced budget amendment is needed to “handcuff” Congress. [Video will be posted soon] “Yeah, I mean, I'm laughing at that because let's say we'd had a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution in early 2009 when we were losing close to 800,000 jobs a month and headed for another Great Depression,” groused Alter, a former Newsweek editor. “By Speaker Boehner's terms, we wouldn't have had any government efforts to try to end that near depression.” Alter's implicit assumption that President Barack Obama's $787 billion stimulus package was successful belies a 9.2 percent unemployment rate, an anemic housing market, and public opinion polls showing Americans think the country has been, and continues to be, on the wrong track . Not only that, but a balanced budget amendment does not preclude the possibility of injecting stimulus in times of economic distress, but rather, it forces Congress to prioritize spending to live within its means. It's not surprising that Alter would employ hyperbolic language to denigrate Republican proposals. After all, Alter told MSNBC's Cenk Uygur in April that in supporting the Ryan plan, the GOP voted to ” throw granny into the snow .” A transcript of the segment can be found below: MSNBC Martin Bashir August 1, 2011 3:45 p.m. Eastern LUKE RUSSERT, NBC congressional correspondent: The most interesting thing that he said though, was when he spoke at length about a balanced budget amendment. MARTIN BASHIR: Indeed. RUSSERT: That is a direct attempt to cater to the Tea Party part of his conference, essentially saying hey look, I know this is the framework of your Cut, Cap, and Balance that we tried to pass a couple weeks ago. The idea of this balanced budget amendment, saying this is the best chance I've had for it in the 20 years I've been here to try and garner support for it, that is trying to say to these Tea Party folks, hey come on board. If we extend this plan, albeit it's not perfect, but we'll have a great opportunity to try to pass a balanced budget amendment down the line. BASHIR: Indeed. Speaker Boehner actually said we would never have gotten into this mess in the first place had we had a balanced budget amendment. (Laughter) RUSSERT: Correct. That's the code word for the Tea Party, this balanced budget amendment. BASHIR: Jonathan Alter, you were laughing at that. JONATHAN ALTER: Yeah, I mean, I'm laughing at that because let's say we'd had a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution in early 2009 when we were losing close to 800,000 jobs a month and headed for another Great Depression. By Speaker Boehner's terms, we wouldn't have had any government efforts – BASHIR: Stimulus, nothing. ALTER: To try to end that near depression. Does he really think the country would have been better off if the Congress had been handcuffed and unable to take any measures to fight a coming depression? I think we'd be in a depression now if there had been a balanced budget amendment in 2009. BASHIR: Indeed. Jonathan Alter, Luke Russert, and Joy Ann Reid, thanks so much for joining us. –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
Continue reading …Debt Ceiling Deal That Cuts Trillions, Creates ‘Super Congress’ Announced By Party Leaders
August 1, 2011 No Comment
WASHINGTON — Congressional leaders and President Obama on Sunday night announced they’ve cut a deal to avert a historic U.S. default, saying they have assembled a framework that cuts some spending immediately and uses a “super Congress” to slash more in the future. The deal calls for a first round of cuts that would total $917 billion over 10 years and allows the president to hike the debt cap — now at $14.3 trillion — by $900 billion, according to a presentation that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) made to his members. Democrats reported those first cuts at a figure closer to $1 trillion. It was unclear Sunday night why those two estimates varied. The federal government could begin to default on its obligations on Aug. 2 if the measure is not passed. The next round of $1.5 trillion in cuts would be decided by a committee of 12 lawmakers evenly divided between the two parties and two chambers. This so-called super Congress would have to present its cuts by Thanksgiving, and the rest of Congress could not amend or filibuster the recommendations. But if the super Congress somehow failed to enact savings, the measure requires automatic cuts worth at least $1.2 trillion. Those cuts would be split equally between military and domestic programs. Social Security, Medicaid and programs for the poor would be spared, but Medicare providers — not beneficiaries — would take a hit. White House officials confirmed that there would not be an extension of unemployment benefits as part of the final package. The administration had insisted that an extension be part of the grand bargain it was negotiating with Boehner. But when those discussions fell apart, so too did efforts to ensure that unemployment insurance was part of a final package. A senior administration aide added that the president would push for an extension in the months, if not weeks, ahead. Some observers scored one victory for the president — the second round of cuts do not kick in until 2013, when the Bush-era tax cuts are set to expire. Having a fresh round of deficit reduction that is all cuts with no revenues could give the White House ammunition to end the tax cuts on wealthier Americans, as it failed to do last winter. Though none of the leaders sounded pleased about the deal, they said they were relieved it may present a chance to avert default. President Obama seemed especially dissatisfied with the idea of the super committee, saying the leaders should have been able to accomplish all the cuts now. “Is this the deal I would have preferred? No,” Obama said. “I believe that we could have made the tough choices required — on entitlement reform and tax reform — right now, rather than through a special congressional committee process.” The two Senate party heads also expressed qualified support for the deal. “Leaders from both parties have come together for the sake of our economy to reach a historic, bipartisan compromise that ends this dangerous standoff,” Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said on the Senate floor Sunday night. “At this point I think I can say with a high degree of confidence that there is now a framework to review that will ensure significant cuts in Washington spending,” said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) “We can assure the American people tonight that the United States of America will not for the first time in our history default on its obligations,” McConnell added. In spite of the guarded optimism, all sides will face quite a sales job in getting enough lawmakers in the middle to accept a deal. Liberals were extremely displeased with the final result of the talks, which began with Democrats saying there should be no strings attached to a debt limit increase that would enable the country pay its bills. Then they insisted that if deficit reduction was going to be linked to the debt limit, then closing loopholes and raising taxes on the rich had to be part of the deal. They lost completely on both counts, and House Republicans managed to pull the entire deal further and further to the right, even inserting a requirement into the agreement for a vote on a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Both the Congressional Black Caucus and the Progressive Caucus in the House had called emergency meetings for Monday as details of the plan started to leak. They seemed likely to oppose the deal. One top House aide said his boss would vote against the measure, and the aide predicted Minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) would not be eager to whip her members to get on board. “This is going to be close. I think in the end, the president and Nancy are going to have to twist arms, and I’m not sure how hard she’ll work to do that,” the aide said, noting that Pelosi still remembers the infamous TARP vote where she delivered 150 of her members but Boehner did not get 100 of his. Many of Boehner’s freshman Tea Party members also are likely to find the proposal tough to swallow, since many wanted no hike in the borrowing limit to begin with. They also wanted the passage of a balanced budget amendment to be a prerequisite for increasing the debt ceiling. Both sides can afford to lose members if 217 representatives can still back the plan. Boehner’s talk to his 240 members Sunday night had the greatest note of triumph. “Now listen, this isn’t the greatest deal in the world,” he said, according to remarks his office sent out. “But it shows how much we’ve changed the terms of the debate in this town.” He also sounded a note of vindication. “There is nothing in this framework that violates our principles. It’s all spending cuts. The White House bid to raise taxes has been shut down,” Boehner crowed. “And as I vowed back in May — when everyone thought I was crazy for saying it — every dollar of debt-limit increase will be matched by more than a dollar of spending cuts.” Notably, Pelosi was the only of the four congressional leaders not to pledge support for the plan. “I look forward to reviewing the legislation with my Caucus to see what level of support we can provide,” she said in a statement.
Continue reading …
Type: Grocery Title: Oreo Chocolate Sandwich Cookies, 5.25-Ounce Boxes (Pack of 12) See all customer reviews Product Description: Sold as 12 each. 5.25 oz. Sleeve boxed. Manufacturer number: 00749. Buy Hardware Supplies SKU #: 9094392. Country of origin: United States. Distributed by Nabisco Biscuit Company. Features: Case of 12 5.25-ounce boxes of chocolate sandwich cookies (63 total ounces) Made with chocolate and cocoa for rich flavor; Kosher certified No trans fat; 10% RDA of iron per serving Same classic crème-filled chocolate cookie you’ve loved since you were little One of America’s most famous cookies See the details
Continue reading …NBC Hosts Fret Obama Had to ‘Give In’ to GOP With ‘Not Balanced’ Debt Deal
August 1, 2011 No Comment
In an interview with White House advisor David Plouffe on Monday's NBC Today, co-host Matt Lauer worried about liberals being unhappy with the proposal deal on the debt ceiling: “So did the President compromise here, David, or did he give in simply so that he wouldn't be labeled as the president who was on duty as the nation defaulted on its financial obligations?” Plouffe defended the plan: “Now, listen, you're obviously seeing some criticism from my party, you're seeing some criticism from the Republican Party. But what this does is first of all we get significant deficit reduction…” Lauer continued to hit from the Left: “The President clearly wanted more revenues, he wanted to raise taxes on wealthiest Americans, he wanted to get rid of some tax cuts for corporations. Those are not in there. Is the fight over taxes over and did the President lose it?” Lauer lamenting the lack of tax hikes in the initial debt deal mimicked Meet the Press host David Gregory, who interviewed Plouffe on Sunday and declared: “But it's not going to be balanced. There's no tax increases in this….You – the President said it had to have tax increases, it must – had to be balanced….That's not what's in this deal.” Plouffe explained to Gregory: “Well, listen, this committee's going to be charged with coming up with additional deficit reduction. There's no way to do it without smart entitlement reform and tax reform.” Gregory replied: “So you only get to do potential tax increases as part of a second stage of spending cuts that a committee has to agree to?” Here is a full transcript of Lauer's August 1 interview with Plouffe: 7:05AM ET MATT LAUER: David Plouffe is senior White House adviser to President Obama. David, good to see you, good morning. DAVID PLOUFFE: Good morning, Matt. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Compromise or Compromised? Debt Debate Reached With Key Decisions Delayed] LAUER: Hearing a lot of people this morning talking about a done deal, and yet it is really not a done deal until Congress votes on this. There are some unpredictable caucuses in the House, for example. What's your level of confidence? PLOUFFE: Well obviously, that's going to be up to each member of Congress, to decide how they're going to vote on this. I think the Congressional leaders in both parties ended up moving forward here based on both comfort with the substance of this, which was a compromise obviously, where both parties did not get everything they wanted, but also with some sense that it's going to be passed. But obviously, each member's going to have to evaluate this. But we think at the end of the day this is an agreement that will pass the Senate and the House, and the President will sign into law. LAUER: You're hearing a lot about compromise. I think everybody wants to be able to stand up and say, 'Hey, we got some of what we wanted and we compromised for the good of the nation.' But I want to play you something that Emanuel Cleaver, the Democratic Congressman from Missouri, had to say about the nuts and bolts of this. Listen to this. EMANUEL CLEAVER: If I were a Republican, I would be dancing in the streets. I don't have any idea what the Republicans wanted that they didn't get. LAUER: So did the President compromise here, David, or did he give in simply so that he wouldn't be labeled as the president who was on duty as the nation defaulted on its financial obligations? PLOUFFE: Now, listen, you're obviously seeing some criticism from my party, you're seeing some criticism from the Republican Party. But what this does is first of all we get significant deficit reduction, about $1 trillion on the front end. As the President said last night, those spending cuts are phased in carefully over time to not affect the economy too adversely. Secondly, we have an opportunity this fall, Congress does, to do a next stage of deficit reduction. And in that stage, things like entitlement reform, tax reform are going to be looked at. And as has been reported, there's a enforcement mechanism, so that if Congress doesn't act, there's additional spending reductions, but those are done carefully. 50% of those savings would come from defense and programs like Medicaid, college loans, children's health care would be protected. LAUER: One of the things you left off that laundry list though is taxes. And the President clearly wanted more revenues, he wanted to raise taxes on wealthiest Americans, he wanted to get rid of some tax cuts for corporations. Those are not in there. Is the fight over taxes over and did the President lose it? PLOUFFE: Absolutely not. This congressional committee is going to look at tax reform, entitlement form. So this first stage of deficit reduction is deficit cuts, largely identified through a process the President and the Vice President led. And our point was things like Social Security, cuts to Medicare beneficiaries, Medicaid, we did not think those should be part of the deficit
Continue reading …
How to slice a pineapple…or something like that Hitler-Rant-Celebrity-Chefs.wmv The Real Methbaby-Methbaby FerdTheBull says: Lol its an #Entourage thing haha RT @jonulep: @ FerdTheBull you don’t like bobby flay
Continue reading …
Type: Grocery Title: Oreo Chocolate Sandwich Cookies, 2-Ounce Packages (Pack of 48) See all customer reviews Product Description: Enjoy these Oreo cookies. Each order comes with 48 packs of 2 Ounce Packages. Features: Oreo Chocolate Sandwich Cookies, 2-Ounce Packages Pack of 48 Delicious Oreo Cookies One of America’s Favorite Cookies See the details
Continue reading …
Agreement criticised on both sides of the political divide, amid concern it may fail to be approved by Congress America has moved away from the brink of a catastrophic default after a deal was reached overnight to raise its debt ceiling. Stock markets around the world rallied on Monday, in relief that the world’s largest economy would probably avoid running out of cash this week. But the agreement, which includes around $2.5 trillion of spending cuts over the next decade, has been criticised by some on both sides of the political divide, and will probably not save America’s triple-A credit rating. There is also concern that the deal could still fail to be approved by Congress, which is due to vote on the package on Monday night. Some liberals are angry that the plan, which has been hailed as a triumph for the Tea Party movement, relies on spending reductions rather than tax rises to reduce the US budget deficit. The Democratic leader in the House, Nancy Pelosi, has already warned that some Democrats may be unwilling to support the deal. Under the plan, announced by Barack Obama late on Sunday, the US debt ceiling will be raised by about $2.4tn, in two stages. In return, the US government deficit will be reduced by a similar amount over the next decade. “This process has been messy and taken too long,” said Obama, who also admitted that the weeks of frustratingly slow negotiations in Washington had not delivered the deal he wanted . “This compromise does make a serious down-payment on the deficit reduction we need, and gives each party a strong incentive to get a balanced plan done before the end of the year,” Obama said. The Democratic leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, and his Republican counterpart, Mitch McConnell, both indicated they were optimistic that Congress will approve the deal. McConnell, who will meet with Republican senators on Monday, said: “We can assure the American people … that the United States of America will not for the first time in our history default on its obligations.” The full details of the plan have not been released. However, a fact sheet released by the White House showed that spending would be capped by $900bn over the next ten years. A bi-partisan committee will then be set up to agree a further $1.5tn of deficit reduction measures, which could include tax rises. If this committee cannot agree a deal, then an “enforcement mechanism” will trigger around $1.3tn of spending reductions beginning in 2013. Paul Krugman, the Nobel prizewinning US economist, accused Obama of surrendering to Republican opponents. “The deal itself, given the available information, is a disaster, and not just for President Obama and his party. It will damage an already depressed economy; it will probably make America’s long-term deficit problem worse, not better; and most important, by demonstrating that raw extortion works and carries no political cost, it will take America a long way down the road to banana republic status.” Markets rally, but AAA rating under threat Many economists believe that America could soon lose its triple-A credit rating, despite a deal being agreed. Standard & Poor’s, the rating agency, recently said that a credible fiscal plan would need to include $4tn of deficit reduction measures. “Avoiding the worst case scenario of a default on US Treasury obligations will not prevent a downgrade of the triple-A sovereign rating,” predicted Kevin Daly, emerging market debt portfolio manager at Aberdeen Asset Management. “So it’s time for us all to figure out just what it means when the US gets downgraded.” Stuart Gulliver, chief executive of HSBC, said the progress made over the US debt ceiling was “very welcome”, but also warned that America could see its credit rating cut. Wall Street is expected to open around 1% higher when trading begins on Monday. In London the FTSE 100 rallied by almost 1.5%, jumping 83 points to 5898, as traders welcomed the news that the US would probably not run out of cash. “Investors have breathed a collective sigh of relief that the risk of default has been avoided – albeit a few weeks ago nobody would have expected it to go down to the wire like this,” said David Jones, chief market strategist at IG Index. “It still has to be approved by Congress, so there is always the potential for a stumble here, but market reaction today seems confident that it will pass.” Most major commodities gained ground, pushing the cost of a barrel of Brent crude oil up by $2 to $119.40. Gold, which has benefited from the crisis as investors looked for safe havens, fell by 1%. Overnight, Asian stock markets rose strongly on the news. The Japanese Nikkei was up more than 2% at one stage, closing up 1.34% at 9,965 having broken through the 10,000 barrier earlier. United States Barack Obama US economy Republicans Democrats US politics Tea Party movement US economic growth and recession Ewen MacAskill Alex Hawkes guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …