S & P Downgraded U.S.

[Teatownclown]

Precisely what I've warned about for some time that our debt was eventually going to be down-graded.  You can't simply keep borrowing without a plan to eventually pare that down and formulating a plan to re-pay it.  No, I'm not gloating either, I'm pissed off that Washington doesn't seem to care.

Next prediction: The downgrade doesn't stop here.  Just wait another 12-24 months as Congress keeps playing it's games and does nothing about spending or reducing the debt.

Jeeebuss Conan, it's not about reducing debt it's about dysfunctional government run by yahoos who link mutually exclusive issues to extort the status quo. Watch, abortion will be your next red herrings bargaining chips ransom.

BTW, PRINT MORE MONEY! JOBS JOBS JOBS.....just ask the Bohner.

Don't blame us for downgrade, says rating agency chief who has a master's in English Lit

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023420/Standard--Poors-chief-John-Chambers-Dont-blame-US-credit-rating-downgrade.html#ixzz1UOSgovtw

"Mr Axelrod called the action 'a tea party downgrade' and says it's clearly on the backs of lawmakers who were willing to see the country default to get their way."


"Gene Sperling, the director of the White House national economic council, called the difference, totalling over $2 trillion, “breathtaking” and said that “the amateurism it displayed” suggested “an institution starting with a conclusion and shaping any arguments to fit it.”

"In the Treasury John Bellows, an acting assistant secretary, raised a concern over S&P’s methodology.
In its analysis, S&P had projected the nation’s debt as a share of gross domestic product to reach 93 per cent by 2021.
That was around 8 percentage points higher than the figure administration officials believed the rating agency should have used — what they're now calling a $2.1 trillion error."


And there's this (see Conan, I at least site where my talking points come from and do not pretend to be an originator of ideas dogma) :ANALYSIS
Why S&P’s Downgrade is No Joke
The real impact of S&P’s downgrade is political, not economic.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/economy/why-s-p-s-downgrade-is-no-joke-20110806

From the source article: "It’s also true that S&P is hardly some kind of Delphic Oracle. It and the other rating agencies were almost criminally negligent about the risks of subprime mortgages during the housing bubble. And it’s not as if S&P told investors anything about U.S. fiscal problems on Friday that they didn’t already know.
So what’s new?

No meltdown here....just Guido et al engaged in their fear driven Kabuchism....why can't you geeks toss down some employment ideas?

[Conan71]

I love this, Dimocrats are using the Tea Party for cover.  They refuse to own up to the truth that they, along with enabler Repugnicans, have bought $14 trillion worth of votes over the years and have now dumped this load on the backs of Americans.

They have literally looted the treasury for the last 10 years.

And now Timmay "TurboTax effed me" Geithner says S & P foobared up.  Adding even more bad news, he's now committed to stay with the administration beyond the 2012 election.

Republicans said Obama bore responsibility for the crisis over the nation’s long-term debt because he had failed to offer a plan to lead the country out of unsustainable budget deficits.

“He’s had a chance,” Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said on “Face the Nation.” “We’re three years into this. And he’s failing. And it’s not the Tea Party’s fault.”

Obama received a briefing from Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling when he returned to the White House yesterday from Camp David, the presidential retreat, according to an administration official who wasn’t authorized to speak publicly.

Still, there were no plans so far for Obama to address the S&P action himself, something his aides said would bolster the credibility of the ratings company, which the administration and its allies were trying to diminish throughout the weekend.


Of course not.  Why would he demonstrate any leadership at this point?  It's obviously not in his genes.

The Treasury Department said S&P made a $2 trillion error in calculating the government’s debt in the initial analysis it presented the government.

‘Wrong Conclusion’

Geithner said S&P “drew exactly the wrong conclusion” from the budget agreement reached between the administration and Congress.

“S&P has shown really terrible judgment and they’ve handled themselves very poorly,” Geithner said in the transcript of an interview with CNBC broadcast last night. “And they’ve shown a stunning lack of knowledge about basic U.S. fiscal budget math.”

Look Mr. Secretary, you can't even figure out TurboTax.  Your fiscal policy has been a complete disaster.  Pot/Kettle?

Axelrod said S&P made “an egregious analytical error” in coming up with the rating and “ theirs was largely a political analysis.”

He and Geithner said there should be no concern on the part of investors. The U.S. “is still the safest place to put your money,” Axelrod said.

“There’s no risk the U.S. would never meet its obligations,” Geithner said. “We’ve got some challenges ahead of us, but we’ll be able to work with those challenges.”

[Cats Cats Cats]

I love this, Dimocrats are using the Tea Party for cover.  They refuse to own up to the truth that they, along with enabler Repugnicans, have bought $14 trillion worth of votes over the years and have now dumped this load on the backs of Americans.

They have literally looted the treasury for the last 10 years.

And now Timmay "TurboTax effed me" Geithner says S & P foobared up.  Adding even more bad news, he's now committed to stay with the administration beyond the 2012 election.

While the root cause of the downgrade should have been avoided since 2000.  We had the opportunity to avoid the downgrade.  I believe we wouldn't have been downgraded had Obama's original plan been passed.  

"We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act."  From S&P rationale.  now this isn't just that they wouldn't increase revenue.  Its that their projections included the expiring of the tax cuts.  Which if not done would require more cuts in spending to offset.  Which they didn't do.

"Boehner: I do. When you look at this final agreement that we came to with the white House, I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I'm pretty happy."  -Boehner

So he got 98% of what he wanted, which was about half of what Obama suggested in cuts with no revenue increases.  Which then got us downgraded.  This was what the republican leadership wanted and this is what they got.

[we vs us]

During the debt ceiling negotiations, Obama and Dems were on the right track with their $4T in cuts.  Not perfect, but definitely the right track:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/07/28/sp-4-trillion-is-only-start/

the nut:

Q: “There's been a figure of $4 trillion dollars circulating as an example of the scope of  fiscal consolidation measures that could work to stabilize the U.S. debt-gdp ratios. Could you explain how that figure was arrived at since it was mentioned in S&P's reports and where it figures in S&P analysis?"

A: [S&P Director John Chambers:] “First of all, that figure comes initially from the Bowles-Simpson fiscal commission, and it was embraced by President Obama  in his April 13 speech and Paul Ryan in his counter-budget proposal. And so you had policy makers converging around the amount. Now actually the $4 trillion, depending on whether it is front-loaded or back-loaded, is not going to do the trick in terms of stabilizing U.S. government debt-to GDP ratios. But it takes you pretty far along. And I think a grand bargain of that nature would signal, you know, the seriousness of policy makers to address the fiscal issues of the United States, to actually stabilize the debt-to-GDP. The IMF says it takes  7.5% of GDP consolidation. I think we have more than that."

The U.S. annual budget deficit is now around 9% of GDP.

Chambers adds: “But $4 trillion would be a good down payment. We thought that..if policy makers could deliver the goods on that, then that would be a strong sign on our political scores and eventually on our projections on the fiscal side.”

[guido911]

Here is what laying a smackdown looks like.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1l4_nFe0tY[/youtube]

[Townsend]

Here is what laying a smackdown looks like.

Just can't watch scripted reality TV

[guido911]

It's not an Obama speech. It's a real CEO breaking her foot off on persons with ZERO business experience.

[we vs us]

It's not an Obama speech. It's a real CEO breaking her foot off on persons with ZERO business experience.

 . . . which has no bearing whatsoever on how to run the world's largest and most powerful economy.  Ya RLY.

[Gaspar]

The head of sovereign ratings at S&P is a guy by the name of David Beers.  He says that the S&P was worried about the "degree of uncertainty around the political policy process. The nature of the debate and the difficulty in framing a political consensus ... that was the key consideration."  He also warned that tax increases would be nice, but are not the key to avoiding future downgrades.  Spending decreases are.  This is because tax increases are not likely to survive future administrations, however spending decreases have a higher chance of sustainability.

With over 10 weeks of warnings ($4 Trillion must be cut) from S&P and both Republicans and Democrats unwilling to give up their little vote purchasing programs. Exactly what we were told would happen happened.  Now we will watch the blame game, but both sides only need to look in the mirror to see who is at fault. 

On the fringes you still see where the problems lie.  Conservative (Tea Party folk), and Libertarians bobble-head nod to more spending cuts and say and ultra progressives say increase spending even more.  The political environment is indeed toxic to the point that all we can do is watch ourselves fall into the abyss.

We are at over 70% debt to GDP now, and they calculate it at 85% to 95% by 2021 depending on if you listen to the S&P or the administration.  It doesn't really matter whether it's a knife wound or bullet wound.  We can argue about transfusions after we stop the bleeding.

[heironymouspasparagus]

On the fringes you still see where the problems lie.  Conservative (Tea Party folk), and Libertarians bobble-head nod to more spending cuts and say and ultra progressives say increase spending even more.  The political environment is indeed toxic to the point that all we can do is watch ourselves fall into the abyss.

We are at over 70% debt to GDP now, and they calculate it at 85% to 95% by 2021 depending on if you listen to the S&P or the administration.  It doesn't really matter whether it's a knife wound or bullet wound.  We can argue about transfusions after we stop the bleeding.

And sadly, there are only two things that will help - and it will require both; cut spending and eliminate the Bush tax cuts.  And it may take more tax hikes beyond that.

[Conan71]

. . . which has no bearing whatsoever on how to run the world's largest and most powerful economy.  Ya RLY.

Actually it does when you consider it takes productivity to generate the revenue needed to keep that economy balanced. 

I don't understand why liberals are sitting around mocking business leaders when those leaders keep stating over and over what it is they need to hire more workers.  This is not all a simple demand issue.

[JCnOwasso]

Actually it does when you consider it takes productivity to generate the revenue needed to keep that economy balanced. 

I don't understand why liberals are sitting around mocking business leaders when those leaders keep stating over and over what it is they need to hire more workers.  This is not all a simple demand issue.

Actually it doesn't when you consider that, in terms of making business decisions, the CEO of a company has far greater power than the President of the United States.  The CEO of a company can remove those people who do not conform to their desired path.  If the CEO wants to sell squishy balls, they can say "I don't care what you say, we are selling squishy balls".  The President can say he wants to do this and do that, but in reality, he can only sign and inact legislation that has been passed by the house and senate.

[nathanm]

Actually it does when you consider it takes productivity to generate the revenue needed to keep that economy balanced.

Nice, we've had quite the productivity gains since Obama was elected. Guess that means he's doing a good job?  

Guido, I should be listening to a wedding videographer about economics? One who has been in business for nearly 20 years and employees four people or less? Smack. Down? (I love the smell of astroturf) smile, by that standard you should be listening to me very attentively.

[guido911]

. . . which has no bearing whatsoever on how to run the world's largest and most powerful economy.  Ya RLY.

This from ANOTHER person with no real business experience. And while your bring that nonsense up, please list for us the skill set Obama has to run the "world's largest and powerful economy".

1.
2.
3.
.
.
Now take your list and compare it to that female CEO you are running down. Wait a minute, is that what is going on? I love it when ankle biters know more than persons with, oh, EXPERIENCE.

[nathanm]

Now take your list and compare it to that female CEO you are running down. Wait a minute, is that what is going on? I love it when ankle biters know more than persons with, oh, EXPERIENCE.

So because someone assumes the title "CEO," they are automatically authoritative on economics? Clearly I need to update my business card.