US Credit Rating Downgraded To AA+

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

Bush tried, got trashed by people in his own party and most of the old farts he couldn't sell his idea to are now part of the tea party talking about "I paid into it." And these same Tea Party Republicans got into office by telling their constituents Obama is going to cut your social security, Obama is going to gut Medicare, Obama is going to kill you.

I thought it was the tea party that said we need to reform and cut SS and when I type in tea party and SS thats all I see. I could be wrong.

I'm personally divided on SS. I have so much invested in SS I hate to just give it up but if given the choice I might. I'd have to do the math. I could easly go with some form of buy out program. Where the Feds offer me a small % lump sum if I drop SS.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

FRPLG, I'm not dismissive of the events or the downgrade for that matter. It's a huge deal. We've lost billions in market cap in less than two weeks. But I wholeheartedly stand by my criticism, rating agencies have no business dictating policy. Especially S&P. They are three years too late and a dollar short downgrading anything. Had they downgraded the failed banks and unscrupulous mortgage lenders that led to the financial meltdown, had they issued the proper warnings when conditions were right, the politics of this current debate would have been far less difficult and much more achievable, in my opinion. We'd probably be looking at a completely different chain of events with a different menu of options to address them. But that's all water under the bridge now.

If lawmakers want to take their cue from economic forecasts to shape policy, fine. It shouldn't be the other away around. In some twisted way, I feel like our democracy has been undermined.

Let's not confuse raising the debt ceiling and deficit reduction. Raising the debt ceiling isn't about dispensing a blank check to the president and giving him more spending authority. The federal debt limit is about how much revenue we can raise, not about how well we budget. We raise the debt to cover pass expenditures that have already passed through Congress like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that we're still paying for, TARP, Medicare Part D, and the Bush tax cuts. So the notion that the Tea Party was sent to Washington to gum up Congress in order to not pay our bills? I'm not buying it. Yes, they were sent to Washington with a stern message about future spending, but they were also sent to Washington to govern and keep the country functioning. I will give them credit, they've been extremely successful and effective in changing the terms of the debate and getting Washington to focus on deficit reduction and getting our house in order. Bravo to them in that regard.

Hello, go back to post number 46 and listen to the dems defending the lenders telling the American people they were in good financial shape as other warned of the problems.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

FRPLG, I'm not dismissive of the events or the downgrade for that matter. It's a huge deal. We've lost billions in market cap in less than two weeks. But I wholeheartedly stand by my criticism, rating agencies have no business dictating policy. Especially S&P. They are three years too late and a dollar short downgrading anything. Had they downgraded the failed banks and unscrupulous mortgage lenders that led to the financial meltdown, had they issued the proper warnings when conditions were right, the politics of this current debate would have been far less difficult and much more achievable, in my opinion. We'd probably be looking at a completely different chain of events with a different menu of options to address them. But that's all water under the bridge now.

If lawmakers want to take their cue from economic forecasts to shape policy, fine. It shouldn't be the other away around. In some twisted way, I feel like our democracy has been undermined.

Let's not confuse raising the debt ceiling and deficit reduction. Raising the debt ceiling isn't about dispensing a blank check to the president and giving him more spending authority. The federal debt limit is about how much revenue we can raise, not about how well we budget. We raise the debt to cover pass expenditures that have already passed through Congress like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that we're still paying for, TARP, Medicare Part D, and the Bush tax cuts. So the notion that the Tea Party was sent to Washington to gum up Congress in order to not pay our bills? I'm not buying it. Yes, they were sent to Washington with a stern message about future spending, but they were also sent to Washington to govern and keep the country functioning. I will give them credit, they've been extremely successful and effective in changing the terms of the debate and getting Washington to focus on deficit reduction and getting our house in order. Bravo to them in that regard.

Really Obama just Saturday started talking about new spending. You know the new spending for roads and bridges that some how the 800 billion for those programs never made it there.


Obama Calls for More Federal Money for Roads, Bridges and Airports to Create Jobs.
Obama Calls for More Federal Money for Roads, Bridges and Airports to Create Jobs | CNSnews.com

Now go back to 2009 when he was saying the stimulas money would go to rebuilding the roads. What the hell happened to all that money?

Obama's stimulus plan promises jobs - Business - Personal finance - Careers - msnbc.com

[Alvin Walton]

We got a bunch of new roads in my town.
Many of us wondered why they tore up a decent road and rebuilt it.
Instead of dicking around with building roads that only create temporary jobs how about we do something to get manufacturing back into this country?

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

We got a bunch of new roads in my town.
Many of us wondered why they tore up a decent road and rebuilt it.
Instead of dicking around with building roads that only create temporary jobs how about we do something to get manufacturing back into this country?

Not enough people want manufacturing jobs in this country. Or more precisely can't afford to have them without there being a minimum wage that makes hiring them indefensible for publicly traded companies.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

FRPLG, I'm not dismissive of the events or the downgrade for that matter. It's a huge deal. We've lost billions in market cap in less than two weeks. But I wholeheartedly stand by my criticism, rating agencies have no business dictating policy. Especially S&P. They are three years too late and a dollar short downgrading anything. Had they downgraded the failed banks and unscrupulous mortgage lenders that led to the financial meltdown, had they issued the proper warnings when conditions were right, the politics of this current debate would have been far less difficult and much more achievable, in my opinion. We'd probably be looking at a completely different chain of events with a different menu of options to address them. But that's all water under the bridge now.

If lawmakers want to take their cue from economic forecasts to shape policy, fine. It shouldn't be the other away around. In some twisted way, I feel like our democracy has been undermined.

And ealier you said this:

FRPLG, I didn't say the credit rating wasn't important. A credit rating agency, in my opinion, should issue downgrades or upgrades based on economic data; The models and metrics they've been using since the company was founded. Not politics. If you think I believe that the credit rating is somehow trivial, then I don't know what else to tell you.

Its impossible for rating agencies to not dictate policy. When they downgrade a company that’s effectively what theyre doing. No matter the reason a company gets downgraded the rating agency is basically saying something needs to change and major change usually needs starts at top with management and policy. And rating agencies aren’t just using economic models to forecast growth, this isn’t pure science, it’s a mixture of art of science. It’s a evaluation of an entire company including qualitative factors. So for S&P to come out and put their primary concern on the management of US and question the policy of our leaders may be a stretch of what their main focus should be but it shouldn’t be something they neglect. When our 2 parties refuse to work together and play chicken with raising the debt ceiling it should be a concern of credit agencies and likewise investors who put trust in them.

I agree that you got to put less reliance in something that totally missed downgrading the failed banks and mortgage lenders that hurt us so badly 3 years ago, but what are you supposed to do ignore them? They made mistakes and now they are apparently acting more hawkish. If they didn’t downgrade US creditworthiness, like they failed to do so for the banks, should we be more concerned?

[12thMan]

First, go to the White House website. The Recovery Act | The White House There should be an accounting of all the projects funded by The Recovery Act. I'm sure you peruse the White House's site all the time.

You know, we're going to have to make some investments --spend-- whatever word you want to use. I don't think we should view any and all spending as unnecessary and burdensome. We just have to balance national priorities and be fiscally responsible at the same time. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

First, go to the White House website. The Recovery Act | The White House There should be an accounting of all the projects funded by The Recovery Act. I'm sure you peruse the White House's site all the time.

You know, we're going to have to make some investments --spend-- whatever word you want to use. I don't think we should view any and all spending as unnecessary and burdensome. We just have to balance national priorities and be fiscally responsible at the same time. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

You mean to use the site that claim to invest in districts that did not even exist.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

You mean to use the site that claim to invest in districts that did not even exist.

Yep, that's the one I'm talking about.

[Beemnseven]

Raise taxes and watch what's left of the economy really tank.

"But Beems, the economy IS in the tank" -- If the U.S. economy is a guy about to jump out the window of a tall building, increasing taxes would be like handing him a lit stick of dynamite on his way down.

[wilsowilso]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Raise taxes and watch what's left of the economy really tank.

"But Beems, the economy IS in the tank" -- If the U.S. economy is a guy about to jump out the window of a tall building, increasing taxes would be like handing him a lit stick of dynamite on his way down.

Nice try.

The Bush tax cuts are a massive factor in this awful debt mess.

Get rid of that tremendously stupid tax break for the wealthy.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by wilsowilso

Nice try.

The Bush tax cuts are a massive factor in this awful debt mess.

Get rid of that tremendously stupid tax break for the wealthy.

How anyone could still be defending the Bush tax cuts 10 years later is really beyond me.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

How anyone could still be defending the Bush tax cuts 10 years later is really beyond me.

Well if you look at the number the fed income started growing faster then spending after the tax cuts then took a nose dive after the economy went to hell. The argument can be made that the tax cuts spurd spending and by increasing taxes will make thing worse. At this point I have no clue either way.

[firstdown]

I say if the left is so hell bent on raising taxes then raise taxes on everyone and I mean everyone.

[mlmpetert]

A must watch in my opinion. I almost want Obama to win in 2012 so this guy can be president in 2016 and not have to wait till 2020. Baring a major scandle or if hes smart enough to not want to run he will be president one day:

Sen. Rubio: "Save the Whole House or It Will All Burn Down" - YouTube