US Credit Rating Downgraded To AA+

[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.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

HAHAHA! So they S&P runs our political environment through the ringer and the those responsible for it are now gonna haul them in to answer for their crimes. That's rich! A bunch of thin-skinned thugs.

Well its a little more rich then busting down their doors and raiding them....

Police raid Milan offices of Moody's and Standard & Poor's | World news | The Guardian

[FRPLG]

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.

I guess to them, I am not a tea partier by any stretch but I do agree with some fundamental philosophy, the debt ceiling was representative of what they feel the issue has been--the willingness to continue spending money into the future that we don't have now and likely won't have then. Ultimately it was a tool for them to start twisting the Washington establishment away from the destructive policies of the past and present. The culture of our governing few is busted and it is going to take cracking that culture in half to start making the right decisions for this country. It isn't something that can be effectively changed over a long and slow process. It is going to need a shock to make it happen most likely. Until the system is changed so that the hard decisions are actually made instead of them PRETENDING to make hard decisions (but really just masking the same old same old) I applaud anyone who goes to Washington and holds it hostage.

Example number 1. Social Security. We can't afford it. We can't afford it now and we can't afford in the future. At least not without it changing so much that it isn't even the same thing any more. Yet no one in Washington does a damn thing about really CHANGING it or simply getting rid of it. Why? Because instead of making a hard but correct decision they all engage in group think to stay elected. I don't know about anyone else but when it comes down to it I pay for food, water, electricity and a host of other necessities before I start dropping a bunch of money into my retirement. But our gov't has been saying for decades "Screw that! We can pay for everything all at once even without the cash to do it! Future generations be damned!". Well guess what, the "future generation" is here and a lot of us are f*cking pissed about it.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I guess to them, I am not a tea partier by any stretch but I do agree with some fundamental philosophy, the debt ceiling was representative of what they feel the issue has been--the willingness to continue spending money into the future that we don't have now and likely won't have then. Ultimately it was a tool for them to start twisting the Washington establishment away from the destructive policies of the past and present. The culture of our governing few is busted and it is going to take cracking that culture in half to start making the right decisions for this country. It isn't something that can be effectively changed over a long and slow process. It is going to need a shock to make it happen most likely. Until the system is changed so that the hard decisions are actually made instead of them PRETENDING to make hard decisions (but really just masking the same old same old) I applaud anyone who goes to Washington and holds it hostage.

Example number 1. Social Security. We can't afford it. We can't afford it now and we can't afford in the future. At least not without it changing so much that it isn't even the same thing any more. Yet no one in Washington does a damn thing about really CHANGING it or simply getting rid of it. Why? Because instead of making a hard but correct decision they all engage in group think to stay elected. I don't know about anyone else but when it comes down to it I pay for food, water, electricity and a host of other necessities before I start dropping a bunch of money into my retirement. But our gov't has been saying for decades "Screw that! We can pay for everything all at once even without the cash to do it! Future generations be damned!". Well guess what, the "future generation" is here and a lot of us are f*cking pissed about it.

Best post in the thread.

[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.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I guess to them, I am not a tea partier by any stretch but I do agree with some fundamental philosophy, the debt ceiling was representative of what they feel the issue has been--the willingness to continue spending money into the future that we don't have now and likely won't have then. Ultimately it was a tool for them to start twisting the Washington establishment away from the destructive policies of the past and present. The culture of our governing few is busted and it is going to take cracking that culture in half to start making the right decisions for this country. It isn't something that can be effectively changed over a long and slow process. It is going to need a shock to make it happen most likely. Until the system is changed so that the hard decisions are actually made instead of them PRETENDING to make hard decisions (but really just masking the same old same old) I applaud anyone who goes to Washington and holds it hostage.

Example number 1. Social Security. We can't afford it. We can't afford it now and we can't afford in the future. At least not without it changing so much that it isn't even the same thing any more. Yet no one in Washington does a damn thing about really CHANGING it or simply getting rid of it. Why? Because instead of making a hard but correct decision they all engage in group think to stay elected. I don't know about anyone else but when it comes down to it I pay for food, water, electricity and a host of other necessities before I start dropping a bunch of money into my retirement. But our gov't has been saying for decades "Screw that! We can pay for everything all at once even without the cash to do it! Future generations be damned!". Well guess what, the "future generation" is here and a lot of us are f*cking pissed about it.

Same page. Totally agree.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I guess to them, I am not a tea partier by any stretch but I do agree with some fundamental philosophy, the debt ceiling was representative of what they feel the issue has been--the willingness to continue spending money into the future that we don't have now and likely won't have then. Ultimately it was a tool for them to start twisting the Washington establishment away from the destructive policies of the past and present. The culture of our governing few is busted and it is going to take cracking that culture in half to start making the right decisions for this country. It isn't something that can be effectively changed over a long and slow process. It is going to need a shock to make it happen most likely. Until the system is changed so that the hard decisions are actually made instead of them PRETENDING to make hard decisions (but really just masking the same old same old) I applaud anyone who goes to Washington and holds it hostage.

Example number 1. Social Security. We can't afford it. We can't afford it now and we can't afford in the future. At least not without it changing so much that it isn't even the same thing any more. Yet no one in Washington does a damn thing about really CHANGING it or simply getting rid of it. Why? Because instead of making a hard but correct decision they all engage in group think to stay elected. I don't know about anyone else but when it comes down to it I pay for food, water, electricity and a host of other necessities before I start dropping a bunch of money into my retirement. But our gov't has been saying for decades "Screw that! We can pay for everything all at once even without the cash to do it! Future generations be damned!". Well guess what, the "future generation" is here and a lot of us are f*cking pissed about it.

The only problem with SS is that they expanded it for more then retirements and then they stole the money from SS to buy more votes. If the money intended for SS was left in its account we would have more then enough to cover its cost.

[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?

[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.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by firstdown

The only problem with SS is that they expanded it for more then retirements and then they stole the money from SS to buy more votes. If the money intended for SS was left in its account we would have more then enough to cover its cost.

I think there are way more problems than that. That's just the easy to debate issue.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?