Thu, May 24, 2012, 8:38 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 52 mins.

Discover Yahoo! With Your Friends

Explore news, videos, and much more based on what your friends are reading and watching. Publish your own activity and retain full control.

To get started, first

YOUR FRIENDS' ACTIVITY

    Sonders: Debt-Ceiling Solution Is Sitting There, But Nobody Is Talking About It

    You can now follow The Daily Ticker on Facebook here!

    U.S. stocks are trading higher Thursday morning after their worst daily loss in eight weeks Wednesday. Still, the ongoing debt-ceiling debate in Washington is casting a pall of uncertainty over the market.

    With just days to go until the August 2 deadline, the debate does not seem to be going anywhere fast. Later today the House will vote on Speaker John Boehner's revised plan to cut $917 billon over the next 10 years. Even if the bill passes, it will die in the upper chamber after all 51 Senate democrats — and two independents — vowed to oppose the measure.

    Schwab's chief investment strategist Liz Ann Sonders is optimistic that some semblance of agreement between Republicans and Democrats will be reached by next Tuesday, and believes markets have been right not to heed panic of a default thus far. (See: Relax About The Stock Market Already, Liz Ann Sonders Says — The Outlook Is Good)

    "I don't think either side will allow a default to happen and the reality is that there is still money coming in to pay interest on the debt," Sonders says. "The ratings downgrade, of course, is another story and that is something that I think most investors and business leaders are grappling with now."

    But as we tread into the uncharted territory of losing our triple-A debt rating, The Daily Ticker's Aaron Task wonders if the markets shouldn't be more concerned.

    Sonders says investors are not totally unprepared and that there is definitely caution amongst investors who have made subtle adjustments to investments like gold, credit default swaps and even Treasuries because even if we lose an 'A' the U.S. will the safe-haven of the world. (See: Thinking the Unthinkable: Investors Start Hedging Against U.S. Debt Default)

    The reality is the U.S. is at great risk of losing our AAA status because S&P has threatened to downgrade U.S. debt unless $4 trillion in budget cuts are enacted; neither the Boehner plan or Senate Majority Leader's Reid plan even comes close to cutting that much.

    If it were up to Sonders, there is one plan floating out there she'd vote for, but no one is talking about.

    "I was quite impressed with the Simpson-Bowles recommendations," says Sonders, who sat on a bipartisan committee herself in 2005. "I thought it was an incredibly bold plan, but for a whole hosts of reasons it is not the plan now, but I think a plan like that would be cheered."

    You can read more about Democrat Erskine Bowles' and Republican Alan Simpson's plan put forth last year as part of President Obama's bipartisan fiscal commission here.

    Tell us what you think in the comments below or on our new Facebook page: Have you made any adjustments to prepare for a downgrade America's AAA debt rating?

    Yahoo! Poll

    Will Congress get anything accomplished before the November elections?

    Loading...
    Poll Choice Options
    • Yes
    • No
     

    165 comments

    • Quincy Magoo  •  10 months ago
      This is an ideal opportunity for both sides, and the American public, to debate the future of the country. What do we do about manufacturing jobs lost to other countries? How about our role as the world's lone Sheriff? Energy and infrastructure?
      Nope, we are going to argue over how the chairs ought to be arranged while the ship sinks. Of course, in this age of political acrimony, it is to be expected. Unfortunate, really, that history is going to repeat itself, only this time the US will follow England into has-been land.
      • liveoilfree 10 months ago
        Yup. The jobs are already gone, the formerly skilled workers too old to work and no new skilled workers. It'll take decades to work out of this morass cause by RICH REPUBLICANS and their BANKSTER BUDDIES.
      • Calico Crow 10 months ago
        Dear liveoilfree: our current young workforce is a probably between 10 and 20 times more skilled than the one leaving office now. how do you claim that teh workforce was skilled when we had the auto debacle of the 70s and 80s? remember the cadillac cimarron? do you remember the ford pinto? or maybe the early ford exporers and their crappy windows and incorrectly installed timing chains... or the early 80's fords that caught on fire? do you remember why was Japan and Taiwan able to compete? why people liked german households instead? or do you remember the authetic Zenith TV's that took 10 minutes to warm up only to short out? (this was in teh late 80's by the way, these "skilled workers" are still in the market BTW)...
      • Thats Nonsense 10 months ago
        "Yup. The jobs are already gone, the formerly skilled workers too old to work and no new skilled workers. It'll take decades to work out of this morass cause by RICH REPUBLICANS and their BANKSTER BUDDIES."

        Typical partisan tripe. Folks like you are part of the problem.
    • J  •  10 months ago
      If we simply held spending at current level we would save 9T in 10 years.
      • Green-Footprints 10 months ago
        If you stop spending you save it ALL !
      • Former Roommate 10 months ago
        If we'd let the Bush tax cuts expire that would save 4 or 5 trillion over ten years.
      • Tom Kipp 10 months ago
        Keep drinking the kool aid FR. This administration has no intention of "saving" anything except his opportunity to campaign unfettered.
    • Jim  •  10 months ago
      Politicians shied away from Simpson-Bowles because it touched the "third rail". It suggested that changes in medicare and social security were needed to meet projected future outlays.

      That pretty much put a fork in it by the "party like its 2012" crowd.
      • Ed_B 10 months ago
        Well, that IS the heck of it, isn't it, Jim? Long term changes to Medicare, SS, and Medicaid ARE needed. It's really a very simple matter of demographics. For a very long time, young workers outnumbered retirees and the system was self-sustaining. Now, the balance has shifted in favor of the retirees and there simply aren't enough younger workers (who still have jobs) to pay all the bills. Something WILL change or these program will go bankrupt. If they do go bankrupt, we will then be faced with either allowing them to end or allowing them to drag the nation into bankruptcy with them. Neither is a very good choice, IMO. It really isn't a question of making unpleasant changes or continuing with business as usual. It is a question of, "Will we do what is necessary to save these programs from themselves or simply let them collapse of their own weight?"... and, if the latter, how much damage are we willing to let them do to the nation before their final demise?

        Oddly enough, the solution to funding these programs adequately is not quantum mechanics or even something as simple as rocket science. Two simple steps would resolve the SS issues. Just add 1 year to the retirement age for every decade that a person's age is below age 65. Next, eliminate the cap on SS wages. Similar measures could be implemented for Medicare. Medicaid is basically a welfare program, so other measures would likely be needed.
      • A Yahoo! User 10 months ago
        I think we can agree both parties are stuck with incorrect views of reality, perpetuated by their own political strategists on how to win votes. For example, just released analysis project Health Care costs to rise at a 5.8% rate (this is with the Health Care reform added in .. it did nothing to change the rate which was 5.7% in past yearly analysis). Due to Health Care Reform the US Govt will be picking up 50% of the overall health care tab for the country (up from 44%). So while costs in total will increase from $2.6 Trillion to $4.6 Trillion by 2020, the bill for all us Taxpayers will increase from $1.14 Trillion to $2.3 Trillion. Revenue growth for the government will be far lower percentage wise. So if nothing is done, this will increase the deficit by at least $500 Billion per year (perhaps more if the economy remains sluggish). The system is clearly broken. Yet the Democrats refuse to touch this and the Republican plans often call for pushing costs off back to taxpayers or the free market (well at least they are suggesting something, even if it does nothing to curtail cost growth).
      • sooku 10 months ago
        I have no clue how politicians think, I've never been one. But rational people can put 2 and 2 together and decide that B-S just won't do what its proponents say; in fact, it will hurt the economy even more. No "third rail" there, is it ?
    • Donald N  •  10 months ago
      It's mind boggling to me that all the "experts" are talking about is cutting benefits at home, raising taxes, etc. But what about the boat loads of money this government is sending over
      seas that is going down a rat hole. Like the 60 billion dollars sent to Iraq that no one knows how it was used.knows how it was used.
      • liveoilfree 10 months ago
        Uh, we know where the money disappeared to -- HALLIBURTON and allied companies via no-bid contracts. HAL was and is a Bush family ally.
    • sooku  •  10 months ago
      HERE'S A BETTER PLAN; Cut Congressmen's pay by 1/3rd, take away their health insurance, terminate their pension plan and force them to hire assistants who don't speak English. Then step back and watch them, haha
      • AZND 10 months ago
        That would be a great start.
      • Carly 9 months ago
        Lets add we need to make them temporary employees....take their vacation....take their retirement.....and triple their work load!
      • RICHARD 9 months ago
        Why is this not mentioned even just a percentage of the Federal payrol, pensions., etc. Post office in red because of high salaries.
    • Jim  •  10 months ago
      The two "deals" being offered reduce the DEFICIT by less than 10%, and GROW the debt $1T a year for a decade.

      We're like a guy going to his bank and saying "Look, my credit card's maxed out, because I'm spending $1.40 for every dollar I earn... So I need you to raise my credit limit so I can keep spending.

      But, I'll tell you what... I promise I'll only spend $1.35 for every dollar I earn in the future, OK?"

      You think your bank would consider THAT responsible?

      EITHER WAY, we deserve a downgrade.
    • Jared  •  10 months ago
      I'm really getting sick of these games Pliticians are playing. It's getting really old and I'm sick and tired of the doom and gloom. People really need to open their eyes and stop keeping people in office for more then 10 years.
    • BearlyNM  •  10 months ago
      AAA rating! We can't even balance our budget!!
    • Brain Teaser  •  10 months ago
      Let's see, what if we close the loop holes in taxes. what is wrong with this idea? I don't understand why republicans don't want to agree with this idea. You can save Billions. Everyone knows how these loop holes are helping GE and other big companies to not pay any taxes.
      Get rid of these loopholes for big corporates and extra rich! It may not be enough, but atleast a good start, which makes sense to most people.
    • NathanG  •  10 months ago
      If our country tried to get a home loan it would be denied. The bank would see us burried in debt and say thanks but no thanks.
    • Jose Dias  •  10 months ago
      People are feed up with the 100% corrupt government
      The system is obsolete and no longer functional.
    • Proud Democrat from Kansa  •  10 months ago
      The only solution to the problemn is outflow must match in-flow. Why every year has the spending not been tallied and then revenues raised to meet the spending. It is not rocket science. How did our country become ignorant? Free lunch after free lunch. How come the people in charge allow this situation to happen?
    • Roberta  •  10 months ago
      Best solution is to do nothing. On Aug 3rd we'll only be able to spend the amount of money we take in. Instant balanced budget. Then use the 2012 election to determine how much of this spending is really needed and whether taxes should be raised to pay for add'l stuff. I'm guessing we'd get without most of it quite nicely.
    • Rahjta  •  9 months ago
      When corporations earning hundreds of billions of dollars such as ExxonMobil and GE etc pay 0 taxes, what do you expect?? You can blame everything under the sun, but you're looking in the wrong direction.
    • Dick  •  10 months ago
      Solution everyone can follow to solve this problem. Study hard, don't break any laws, never spend more than you make, work as many jobs as you need to to support your lifestyle, don't buy a house or have children unless you can afford them, exercise every day, eat no more than 2000 calories per day, turn off your ipods, ipads, and TV's, read 50 books a year, give 10% of your income to charity, learn at least 4-5 languages, listen 25 times more than you speak, speak kindly of everyone, even those you dispise, send people to Washington that are not your representative, but are representave of you, don't ask this government or any govenment for anything you should be able to provide for yourself, never lease a car, never buy a new car, never buy a car that has anything more than power steering and air conditioning, and most of all give fate a fighting chance.
    • Sarah  •  10 months ago
      A bipartisan plan that makes sense? And the politicians are not talking about it?
    • John  •  10 months ago
      I loved the proposal that would freeze "most" federal employees pay for three years. How about a cut for all government employees. A report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics says the average cost per government employee is $40.54 per hour, while the average cost of a private sector employee is $28.10. Government pensions are unrealistic and need to be tied to social security. Or better yet, all government employees should be required to pay into social security, including the idiots in Washington.
    • jennifer  •  10 months ago
      If we implemented Simpson-Bowles, both sides would be unhappy, so it would have been a great compromise . . . you know, that dirty word.
    • mh balali  •  10 months ago
      how abut taxing the super rich
    • Don  •  10 months ago
      Obama appointed a debt commission so he wouldn't have to face the tough issues before the mid-term elections. Didn't quite work out as well as he planned.
      When the recommendations from HIS commission were put forth, he promptly ignored them. Now there is more talk of another panel to look into the deficit. What is the point? Go with Simpson Bowles recommendations and move on.

    FOLLOW THE DAILY TICKER

    The Daily Ticker covers the most important business stories of the day -- the economy, investing, corporate leadership and politics. The Daily Ticker picks up where Tech Ticker left off and is hosted by Aaron Task, Henry Blodget and Daniel Gross. Often serious, sometimes irreverent and always interesting, The Daily Ticker gives viewers a unique take on the business world's most crucial stories.

    Subscribe and RSS

    [X]

    How to subscribe

    Roll over each section to subscribe using Add to My Yahoo! or RSS Feed feeds.

    Yahoo! News offers dozens of RSS feeds you can read in My Yahoo! or using third-party RSS news reader software. Click here to find out more about RSS and how you can use it with Yahoo! News.
     
    Recent Quotes
    Symbol Price Change % Chg 
    Your most recently viewed tickers will automatically show up here if you type a ticker in the "Enter symbol/company" at the bottom of this module.
    You need to enable your browser cookies to view your most recent quotes.
     
    Sign-in to view quotes in your portfolios.