BREAKING: S&P downgrades US credit rating from AAA to AA+, first time in history

[Little-Acorn]

So much for the great job on the Debt Deal. Remind me of what it accomplished, besides higher debt, more spending, and yet another Congressional committee?

---------------------------------

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_US_DEBT_RATING?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=

S&P downgrades US credit rating from AAA

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER
AP Economics Writer
Aug 5, 8:42 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Credit rating agency Standard & Poor's says it has downgraded the United States' credit rating for the first time in the history of the ratings.

The credit rating agency says that it is cutting the country's top AAA rating by one notch to AA-plus. The credit agency said late Friday that it is making the move because the deficit reduction plan passed by Congress on Tuesday did not go far enough to stabilize the country's debt situation.

A source familiar with the discussions said that the Obama administration believes S&P's analysis contained "deep and fundamental flaws."

 

[Pandora]

Yeah, I just heard that on the news. So what do you think that means for us?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

So much for the great job on the Debt Deal. Remind me of what it accomplished, besides higher debt, more spending, and yet another Congressional committee?

---------------------------------

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_US_DEBT_RATING?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=

S&P downgrades US credit rating from AAA

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER
AP Economics Writer
Aug 5, 8:42 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Credit rating agency Standard & Poor's says it has downgraded the United States' credit rating for the first time in the history of the ratings.

The credit rating agency says that it is cutting the country's top AAA rating by one notch to AA-plus. The credit agency said late Friday that it is making the move because the deficit reduction plan passed by Congress on Tuesday did not go far enough to stabilize the country's debt situation.

A source familiar with the discussions said that the Obama administration believes S&P's analysis contained "deep and fundamental flaws."

it prevented a default...thats it...
and it had more reductions in spending then any Debt ceiling increase Under Bush Bush Clinton Reagan........

 

[Openmind]

Yeah, I just heard that on the news. So what do you think that means for us?

What Obama warned us off: higher interest rates, which basically be the equivalent for everyone to "higher taxes," except that these "higher taxes" will NOT help increase the revenue, and will NOT help to reduce the deficit.

It also means people will have less money to spend (as Obama and economists predicted), which means the demand for product and services will go down (again, as explained by all reasonable economists), therefore the "job creators" will have NO REASON to hire more people. . . .therefore unemployment will stay high, maybe even go higher.

Now. . . Aren't you proud of the "great deal" that Boehner managed to obtain? After all, he got "98% of what he wanted!"

 

[BigRob]

What Obama warned us off: higher interest rates, which basically be the equivalent for everyone to "higher taxes," except that these "higher taxes" will NOT help increase the revenue, and will NOT help to reduce the deficit.

It also means people will have less money to spend (as Obama and economists predicted), which means the demand for product and services will go down (again, as explained by all reasonable economists), therefore the "job creators" will have NO REASON to hire more people. . . .therefore unemployment will stay high, maybe even go higher.

Now. . . Aren't you proud of the "great deal" that Boehner managed to obtain? After all, he got "98% of what he wanted!"

Before we make a partisan issue, let us remember that Moody's and others said NONE of the plans out there went far enough.

Here is the S&P report on the matter.

 

[Openmind]

Before we make a partisan issue, let us remember that Moody's and others said NONE of the plans out there went far enough.

Here is the S&P report on the matter.

YEP. . .but you must admit if you have any fairness at all, that a plan that would have cut spending (as this one does) AND added the same amount of revenue increase would have gone twice as far. . .and would have demonstrated that EVERY ONE in America, on BOTH sides of the aisle was willing to participate in reducing the deficit, not just a partisan reduction!

By the way, one of the items the economists do not like is that THEY KNOW that this "cut spending only" way will only drive our economy further in the tank by making the recovery and an increase in jobs almost impossible!

So. . .it is the attitude of our politics that the economists didn't like. . .the "let's do the cuts only" way we handled this that doesn't demonstrate that we are serious about reducing the deficit or getting out of the recession!

By the way, it says so in so many word right in the report you provided, Big Rob:

In its report Friday, S&P ruled that the U.S. fell short: "The downgrade reflects our opinion that the ... plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics."

S&P also cited dysfunctional policymaking in Washington as a factor in the downgrade. "The effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges."

..........The source also said S&P didn't give enough credit for the debt-ceiling compromise, which paved the way for more than $2 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years.

However, one of S&P's explicit criticisms of the compromise was that it didn't address the biggest drivers of the nation's debt -- Social Security and Medicare -- and didn't allow for additional tax revenue.

 

[BigRob]

YEP. . .but you must admit if you have any fairness at all, that a plan that would have cut spending (as this one does) AND added the same amount of revenue increase would have gone twice as far. . .and would have demonstrated that EVERY ONE in America, on BOTH sides of the aisle was willing to participate in reducing the deficit, not just a partisan reduction!

I don't remember any from Democrats that saw $4 trillion plus in actual savings..I think one came close? Do you remember?

By the way, one of the items the economists do not like is that THEY KNOW that this "cut spending only" way will only drive our economy further in the tank by making the recovery and an increase in jobs almost impossible!

So. . .it is the attitude of our politics that the economists didn't like. . .the "let's do the cuts only" way we handled this that doesn't demonstrate that we are serious about reducing the deficit or getting out of the recession!

From the report as well:
In addition, it incorporates $950 billion of new revenues on the assumption that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners lapse from 2013 onwards, as the Administration is advocating. In this scenario, we project that the net general government debt would rise from an estimated 74% of GDP by the end of 2011 to 77% in 2015 and to 78% by 2021.

So, a trillion dollars in new revenue, and debt continues rising.

By the way, it says so in so many word right in the report you provided, Big Rob:

Yes it does...it goes on to say that that simply highlights the seeming unwillingness (from either side) to tackle the structural issues that cause our debt problems. That is not the same as downgraded simply because of partisan bickering.

 

[Openmind]

I don't remember any from Democrats that saw $4 trillion plus in actual savings..I think one came close? Do you remember?



From the report as well:
In addition, it incorporates $950 billion of new revenues on the assumption that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners lapse from 2013 onwards, as the Administration is advocating. In this scenario, we project that the net general government debt would rise from an estimated 74% of GDP by the end of 2011 to 77% in 2015 and to 78% by 2021.

So, a trillion dollars in new revenue, and debt continues rising.



Yes it does...it goes on to say that that simply highlights the seeming unwillingness (from either side) to tackle the structural issues that cause our debt problems. That is not the same as downgraded simply because of partisan bickering.

The fact is that it is the bickering, and the failure to address both spending cuts AND revenue increases that is taking away the confidence of the markets.
And, maybe thoes $3 trillions "additional" revenues from the end of Bush tax cuts won't be able on their own to keep the spending from increasing, but it sure would increase MORE if those $3 trillions in revenue were not coming in after 2013.

And in the mean time, if the GOP hadn't held the country hostage in December to keep Bush's tax cut going for another 2 years. . .that would have been another $2 or more trillions that would have gone to helping AND to show our good will to tackle our budget deficit as a nation.

Can't you at least recognize that most of the tea party imbeciles didn't have any idea of what they were REALLY doing to the economy! I am certain that some of them knew, but most were railroaded by the partisan war and by the obsession that O'Connell and Boehner (and many more GOP) have to MAKE OBAMA FAIL, no matter what, no matter if it pushes the country down the precipice!

 

[BigRob]

The fact is that it is the bickering, and the failure to address both spending cuts AND revenue increases that is taking away the confidence of the markets.

I think the market's confidence problem comes more from horrible (barring today's report) job numbers, bad manufacturing data, some poor earnings, and a general bearish sentiment and gradual acceptance of a double dip. Plus of course the systemic problems in Europe etc etc.

And, maybe thoes $3 trillions "additional" revenues from the end of Bush tax cuts won't be able on their own to keep the spending from increasing, but it sure would increase MORE if those $3 trillions in revenue were not coming in after 2013.

Government having more money is not going to mean spending will increase...and if it did, then nothing would have been done to address the debt anyway, and we would still deserve the downgrade we got.

And in the mean time, if the GOP hadn't held the country hostage in December to keep Bush's tax cut going for another 2 years. . .that would have been another $2 or more trillions that would have gone to helping AND to show our good will to tackle our budget deficit as a nation.

I have said all along...if you want to end them, end them for everyone.

Can't you at least recognize that most of the tea party imbeciles didn't have any idea of what they were REALLY doing to the economy!

I think even with an economics degree, most people (maybe I am being generous) can understand that spending 14 trillion more than you have is an issue.

I said from the start to anyone who asked me that the debt ceiling would be raised...but I am not sure that (at least politically) it was a bad move to try to get something for it.

I am certain that some of them knew, but most were railroaded by the partisan war and by the obsession that O'Connell and Boehner (and many more GOP) have to MAKE OBAMA FAIL, no matter what, no matter if it pushes the country down the precipice!

I think had the debt ceiling not been raised your argument would have more validity...but that didn't occur.

And this idea of "want to make Obama fail" is somewhat stupid...Why would you want policies you don't support to succeed? We clearly disagree on abortion..and I don't think you would really be bothered by the argument of "why do you want me to fail" on that issue...it is not that you want me to personally fail, you just disagree on my ideas.

 

[ProudLefty]

S&P is quite precise in their report. We do not have to guess as to why they lowered our rating.

" ... we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the
gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us
pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be
able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal
consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any
time soon. ..."
http://tinyurl.com/44xrv4f

 

[Dude111]

No surprise at all!!!!!

If that scumbag didnt give billions of dollars away AS A GIFT,we might not be where we are now!!

 

[Gipper]

So much for the great job on the Debt Deal. Remind me of what it accomplished, besides higher debt, more spending, and yet another Congressional committee?

---------------------------------

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_US_DEBT_RATING?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=

S&P downgrades US credit rating from AAA

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER
AP Economics Writer
Aug 5, 8:42 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Credit rating agency Standard & Poor's says it has downgraded the United States' credit rating for the first time in the history of the ratings.

The credit rating agency says that it is cutting the country's top AAA rating by one notch to AA-plus. The credit agency said late Friday that it is making the move because the deficit reduction plan passed by Congress on Tuesday did not go far enough to stabilize the country's debt situation.

A source familiar with the discussions said that the Obama administration believes S&P's analysis contained "deep and fundamental flaws."

We can all thank Obama and his party for the downgrade. Their proliferate spending and refusal to accept any change in the welfare/entitlement state is the cause. Along with their constant attacks on America's business sector and wealthy. And, along with their idiotic and failed Keynesian policies. All of which amazingly they have no intention of discontinuing, when the reality is obvious to all but the most foolish partisan...

The definition of insane is???

This IS the change BO has long spoken of and endeavors to achieve...

 

[PLC1]

So much for the great job on the Debt Deal. Remind me of what it accomplished, besides higher debt, more spending, and yet another Congressional committee?

What did it accomplish? Why, it postponed any realistic action on the debt until after the election, of course. What did you think the politicians wanted to accomplish? They did exactly what I thought they would, which is what their real goal was, put it off until 2013.

As for the "crisis" started by S &P and their downgrading of the US credit, it's much ado about nothing. For one thing, it's based on faulty math, a "tiny" $2 teradolllar error. For another, there are two other credit agencies who haven't yet been heard from. Thirdly, going from AAA to AA+ isn't going to have an impact on either government or individual borrowing.

In other words, it's still business as usual, nothing to see here, folks, just move along now.

 

[Pandora]

In other words, it's still business as usual, nothing to see here, folks, just move along now.

We should just ignore it and go watch American Idol or go on a picnic?

 

[Little-Acorn]

And, maybe thoes $3 trillions "additional" revenues from the end of Bush tax cuts won't be able on their own to keep the spending from increasing, but it sure would increase MORE if those $3 trillions in revenue were not coming in after 2013.

And in the mean time, if the GOP hadn't held the country hostage in December to keep Bush's tax cut going for another 2 years. . .that would have been another $2 or more trillions that would have gone to helping AND to show our good will to tackle our budget deficit as a nation.

Can't you at least recognize that most of the tea party imbeciles didn't have any idea of what they were REALLY doing to the economy! I am certain that some of them knew, but most were railroaded by the partisan war and by the obsession that O'Connell and Boehner (and many more GOP) have to MAKE OBAMA FAIL, no matter what, no matter if it pushes the country down the precipice!

Can these leftist fanatics every post anything beside tired, long-debunked talking points?

Bush and the neocons (Neocon: a liberal who has joined the Republican party) spent like drunken sailors, almost from the beginning of their admin. Then Obama got elected, with Dem majorities in both Houses, and started a spending spree that put Bush to shame. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid racked up more debt in two years between them, than the first forty Presidents did in their first two hundred years.

To nobody's surprise, S&P cited this huge debt, and its size relative to the nation's GDP, as the main reason for their downgrade.

And who are the leftist fanatics now insisting is to blame? Not the big-govt liberals (in both parties) who racked it up. Nope, it's Republicans' fault, of course! And especially the TEA Party.

And why? For not stopping the liberals from running up the last six months of this huge debt!

And for not raising taxes in the middle of a recession - a move pretty much gauranteed to slow the economy (and govt revenues) even further and make things worse.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, the more these leftist fanatics lose, the whackier their excuses become. At least they are consistent in that!