Investors lose a trillion dollars in one day
 

Investors lose a trillion dollars in one day
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Investors lost a trillion dollars in the in the stock market Monday as the debt crisis in Europe, lackluster

economic news and a downgrade to the U.S. credit rating spark fears of a double-dip recession.
The Wilshire 5000 Total Market Index, the broadest index of U.S. stocks, lost 891.93 points, or just over 7%, Monday. This represents a

paper loss for the day of approximately $1.0 trillion.
Monday is the largest percentage drop for the Index since December 1, 2008 when it fell over 9%.
Since July 22, when Republicans abandoned debt negotiations with the White House for the third time that month, the index has lost $2.9

trillion in value.
Cynical investors, which could include any of the millions of Americans with pension plans, mutual funds or other retirement accounts,

might be tempted to blame squabbling politicians in Washington for much of their ill fate. But experts say it's more complicated than

that.U.S. Treasuries are still safe! Sorta
"The downgrade has people spooked, but it's not that big of a deal," said Harry Clark, chief executive of Clark Capitol Management.
Clark said the prospect of Italy or Spain defaulting on their debt, scant consumer spending and concern about the overall economy are

causing the sell off in stocks.
"It's just fear, everything together," he said. "It's not just Washington."
Clark believes the market is way oversold.
"I think it's about had it," he said of the decline. "I'm expecting a big rally out of this."
0:00 / 4:17 S&P: Tax rich to stabilize U.S. rating
Stocks did rally after the last big sell off following the financial crisis of 2008. The Wilshire Index remains 84%, or $6.9 trillion

higher than it was in March 2009. But it's still $4 trillion lower than the market's pre-crisis high in 2007.
Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at Harris Private Bank, also said it's unfair to blame the current crop of politicians.
"This is the culmination of 60 years of have-it-now policies," he said, referring the deficits Washington has been running for so long.

"[The downgrade] would have happened one way or another."
Ablin wasn't quite as upbeat as Clark in predicting the next rally, noting that his bank moved 10% of its $60 billion in assets under

management into cash last week.
"Values are cheap and expectations are low," he said. "But I don't see a catalyst just yet." To top of page

Only those that didn't see this coming from 10 miles away.

Gee - if only our Social Security funds were privatized in the stock market, like the Republicans want.

Losing 10-15% would be far better than losing 100% though, no?

We haven't lost anything. We've paid 100% of our social security debt on time, always, and always will. Social Security is fully solvent through 2037, and everyone knows it.

Wall Street has always had lobbyists complaining about Social Security, in an attempt to get it out of the governments hands, and into private hands so they can steal what they can from those billions. Screaming that there isn't a pile of actual physical cash sitting there - and that somehow that is wrong?! - is an old, old scam from the Reagan years.

Peoples private retirement funds have been decimated on Wall Street in the past 10 years. Thank god for Social Security as the government fail safe fallback for them. That's exactly what it's there for.

That's today. Wait until our creditors do cut us off and then there is no way to pay the "unfunded mandates" (what an oxymoron).

That's apparently what the liberal Democrats want since they won't agree to cut spending - and taxes are already way too high.

I am 36, have paid over 100K in my 20 years of working and paying taxes. Do you think that solvent through 2037 means anything at all to me?
It means I get to continue paying for another 26 years (est 150K) and get nothing for it.
Stop with the 2037 already. Find a new rationale.

This is what liberals consider to be fairness. You work your ass off, and instead of getting principal plus interest, you get a modest payment per month until you croak, assuming it's solvent. However, the good news is that someone else who didn't work as long, as hard, or earn as much gets supplemented from your funds. In fact, if they're illegal aliens or a lifelong welfare recipient, they get infinite yield since they invested nothing.

Yes, that. :wf

Baloney. You are not entitled to make up crap out of thin air. Facts matter.

First: we have no trouble paying our bills, We have no anticipation of trouble paying our bills in the future.

Plenty of countries have a worse debt to GDP ratio than we do (and have retained their AAA rating - oh, and all remaining current AAA rated countries have national health care, btw)

The only reason our creditors would cut us off is if the Tea Party got it's way, and we agreed to not pay our bills by not raising the debt ceiling. That nonsensical temper tantrum by the Tea Party is what caused S & P to downgrade us. It's not the financial facts (S & P was off by $2 trillion on our debt! Treasury correct them and they still downrated us, which is bs) - S & P downrated us because the Republican party is acting like irresponsible idiots.

More baloney.

Facts: the Democrats cut spending in every single deal on the table during the debt negotiations, it is the GOP Tea Party faction that refused the deals for $4 trillion, making us take the lesser deal for $2 trillion.

And your taxes have literally never been lower, and Obama has helped lower them.

Stop repeating the false right-wing lies. It's beyond absurd.

Facts matter : Social security is solvent at 100% of payouts to 2037, and after that can pay out of 78% of current benefits if we do nothing at all.

If you are worried, then why are you supporting the political party that is tearing Social Security apart? Why don't you support the political party that wants to do the usual tweeks we do every few years to Social Security, to keep it the reliable, 100% successful retirement safety net it has always been? One of the most successful programs in the world.

exactly, Riot acts like 2037 is the distant future. its right around the freaking corner! it affects basically everyone under the age of 40. to believe its "okay" is one of the most selfish things i've ever heard.

Yeah, lets just throw all the burden on the younger generations. who gives a rats ass about them as long as I get mine.

It's not "selfish", that's just a ridiculous unwarranted personal attack by you against me.

It's just the measurable facts. The financial facts are what they are, and your snark doesn't change them.

You guys are worried about social security, yet you support the party trying to tear it apart and make it go away. It's astounding, to watch you not support your own best interests.

Social Security will be there for you well after 2037. If you want 100% of the benefits given out now, rather than 78%, it just needs a few tweeks. That's what we have done for the past many, many decades. Everyone pays into the system,and it's a safety net for the old. The most successful in the world, with 100% payouts. We've tweeked it many times before, and we will again, as populations change.

The Republicans have been screaming "the sky is falling!" in an attempt to privatize social security since Reagan. That's false.

I do want it to go away. I'd be better off taking that 6-12% of my paycheck and putting the money in a fire proof safe than I do with Social Security.

Bull Riot. I am not one of the 47% of people in the country who don't pay income taxes. I'm getting creamed.

We can currently pay the interest on the loans. Is that what you mean by "no trouble paying our bills"? When is the principal going to be reduced? It has not been reduced in 51 years! THAT is why the rating went down. And I have news for you - we don't deserve AA+ either.

We have to SPEND LESS THAN WE TAKE IN. Literally, not rhetorically: do the math!

Actually, no. You wouldn't get the same return at all.

:tro: Hell - in this market, just buy gold with it until things (eventually) settle down.

And it's about 16%. 8% from you, 8% "from your employer" (which is still from you).

You know - if you had a $100k job, you'd be left with $92k paid to you less other taxes, but the cost of employing was $108k and without those taxes and SS, you'd have it all - makes no difference to your boss who gets the money.

I'd be a hell of a lot better off. especially considering I would only be getting 78% or whatever. Plus 12% is a ton if you work for yourself, which I plan on, in my career.

simple math

What is your tax bracket? The facts are, your taxes have never been lower.

If you want to pay zero, and are angry you think other people are getting something you are not, I suggest you move to another country. This is a society where we all contribute to our common good through income tax.

Alot of that 47% btw, as opposed to the Faux News screaming about welfare queens (left over from the Reagan years) are very, very wealthy people, who pay far less a percentage than you.

Why are you not mad at them? It makes no sense to me.

Yes, Joey, we have no trouble paying our bills. Yes, we have to curb spending.

But this has been two months of false, ginned-up Republican electoral rage about nothing. It's pure political theatre, meant to harm Obama.

We should have raised the debt ceiling routinely as we always do - as we have 79 times before - two months ago, then congress could have spent all the time they wanted on cutting things out of future spending. Congress didn't do that. The Republicans chose political theatre over helping this country. They are toast.

Our rating went down because the Republicans spent two months in Kabuki theatre, and that's exactly what S & P said in their press release announcing it.

Then I suggest we raise our revenues back up to where they were before Bush gave it away. Because that's when we could spend less than what we took in. Bush decimated our income - that's the fact of it, and that alone with his wars s responsible for 1/2 our current debt.

You do the math - we cannot "cut" our way to prosperity. The math doesn't work. It's impossible. We need to have the income we had before Bush gave it away. Only a small portion of that is due to the recession.

No that's the point - we don't ALL contribute. Half do nothing. The other half pays twice as much as it should. That's absurd - and it wasn't the conservatives that brought that situation into existence.

So you admit that "no trouble paying our bills" amounts to interest-only payments on a $14.5T debt. And those interest payments have and will continue to increase as a proportion of GDP. That is the mechanism for real default, real bankruptcy and ruin. Case closed.

Again with the talking points. Why can't you just say "taxes" instead of "revenues" and cease referring to the tax cuts as "giving away revenue"? It's as if you think the government has the right to all of everyone's money, and whatever pittance we're left with is due to their good graces. Your selection of words, how you use revenue, income, and give aways indicates that you are for government first and citizens a distant second.

If Riot would have been around in the 1700's I believe she would have sided with the Brits.

tax tax tax tax

No, they don't pay "twice as much as they should", they pay the regular amount, their taxes have not gone up, they have gone down.
But our income has gone down because some people pay less than others.

And I am not worried about poverty-line people paying taxes. They should not. I am worried if you are in the 28% bracket, and Warren Buffet only pays 16% (as he has said he does) due to loopholes.

Actually yes, it was.

Nope. Case closed only if one is simplistic and ignoring more than half the truth. We have no trouble paying our debt. Even yesterday, American treasuries were considered the safest haven in the world. The world is throwing money at us, at marginal low interest rates, begging us to borrow, as we are so reliable and safe.

Half the AAA rated countries by S & P have greater debt to GDP ratios than us. That is not the problem. The current problem resulting in the credit rating downgrade is due to the obstructive politicians in Washington - which is the Tea Party and the GOP who refuses to raise revenue (specifically outlined by S & P in their press release).

Bush cut our income markedly. We need that back.

If you want your taxes lowered, then I suggest you support removing loopholes from the wealthy, so everyone pays a relatively equal percentage, and the tax base is expanded.

Adults, in the financial world use the word "revenue" to describe income. We get our income, as a country, from taxes. It's not a talking point, it's just the correct word to use.

You can increase revenue without raising the tax rates, but by closing loopholes. That's only a tax increase to the dogmatic narrow-minded Grover adherants. Which is primarily 2/3 of the Republican party.

Baloney. That is no where near what I think. What I think is that we live in a cooperative society, and our Constitution said our government has the power to tax for the common good. And we do, to make all our lives better.

No. It means you stick to the strict talking points you've been told to use.

Unlike the majority of Americans, I am an adult and do not need to be told what my best interests are. I can decide that for myself and am 100% willing to deal with the consequences of my decisions.

It sounds crazy I know but that is the basic theory of being an adult.

FYI I support no political party or politician, frankly I would like to see the whole thing taken down and started over from scratched based entirely on some well written and well thought out guidelines.

I wonder if such a document exists...

Yes, it's the Constitution, where one of the first and most important tenents is that our government has the power to tax for the common good of us all. Like ensuring our elderly no longer die in poverty, without health care, on the streets like they used to before we decided to make Social Security and Medicare as safety nets.

Don't forget - those programs came out of need.

The Great Depression is over. The day the federal government entered the charity business was the first step down a very slippery slope.
Call me callous but there are privately run charities, church run charities and families who take care of their own. My mother in law runs one for the elderly, private donations pay for it. People donate ("wealthy" people like my wife and I) to pay for the services that are provided. Nobody needs the fed telling us what to do with our money. Grow up.

[quote=joeydb;798537]This is what liberals consider to be fairness. You work your ass off, and instead of getting principal plus interest, you get a modest payment per month until you croak, assuming it's solvent.[/QUOTE

If only you bothered with facts. The truth is, that most people get more out of Social Security and Medicare than they put in.

You know, that's why you have been told to scream it's broke? :D

You can't have it both ways ;)

Really? Why? What have I ever said about taxing for no reason? What a made-up, nonsensical ad hominem attack. Stick to debating the opinions.

[quote=Riot;798575]And THAT is exactly the problem. Well put.

Social Security and Medicare are not charities. They are not "giveaways". We all contribute during our lives, and we all benefit.

Yeah, well that didn't work so well in the past, resulting in seniors starving and dying due to lack of health care and a stipend in their old age. Being a caring, charitable Christian country, who worries about our poor and our elderly, we decided that we would all contribute a bit, so all of us would have a fall-back insurance safety in our old age.

Get out. You don't like the way this country was created, and what our American values are as a society, and you don't want to contribute, but want to take all the benefits - move elsewhere.

Try creating Galt's Gulch, and see how long you last.

[quote=Clip-Clop;798579]And that just started next year. And all it needs is a little tweek, as we've done all the other times it was needed. Solvent for decades.

This attack on Social Security is nothing but ginned-up Republican attempts to destroy it and give Wall Street the funds. They've been trying to do it since Reagan created the fiction of the "welfare queen driving a Cadillac".

How did Wall Street do in 2008 with your retirement fund?
did they do Friday with your retirement fund?

Thank goodness all our citizens have the safety net of Social Security. It was a good idea started for widows and orphans, and it's good for all of us.

Anybody that doesn't like that should move to another country. The trouble is, all first-world countries, with better lifestyles than us - more vacation time, earlier retirement, better health care, better quality of living, less expensive housing and food, and better perceived happiness - tax more than us. You can be taxed less - move to a second or third world country.

A good society, a good country, isn't created in a vacuum of selfishness and independence from society.

This is pointless, the discussion began about losing money in the markets and has become a soapbox for forced donations into programs we might get to see last until we are 10 years away from being able to access them at 30-40% of our investment. Tap out.

I handle my own investments. Doing fine.

Uhhh... isn't that where debt comes from?

So much for it being successful. It's a sinkhole. It's a loser. It needs to go.

No, Joey. Social Security is not where our debt comes from.

Not the total debt. Doesn't that mean that it is always a drain and cannot carry it's own burden as a program? If most people get out more than they put in, that seems to be the case.

What it means is that now, for the first time in history - never in the past - there is slightly more coming out than going in. That is why full benefits now would extend to 2037, with only 78% benefits after that. Because 2037 is when we would first see that problem.

So we make a little tweek to fix it for decades. Hardly the disasterous failure you falsely portray it as. Very successful program. Has made 100% of it's payments for decades, and will readily do that until 2037 doing nothing else. Then 78% after that. Doing nothing else.

So it will be tweeked in the near future, so that after 1937, 100% gets paid out then, too.

Now, if you don't want to be a participatory American patriot in this society, and you don't want to contribute to our common good as a society - MOVE ELSEWHERE

If you think preventing old people from starving on the street in ill health is a bad thing - MOVE ELSEWHERE

If you want to sit on your ass and collect a check from government, originally taxed from someone else's hard work - MOVE ELSEWHERE!

So you really thing ALL the SH*IT we are in now is because of Welfare?

I'm saying it doesn't help, and by definition those on it aren't moving the economy forward. And I'm saying it's among the first things to be reduced as expenses go.

It doesn't account for ALL of our debt...just $9,000,000,000,000 up until 2004. More than that now.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2807