Archive

S&P Downgrades U.S. to AA+

  • I Wear Pants
    believer;854031 wrote:Yes. You simply include clear-cut clauses in the balanced budget amendment to consider such contingencies but it would take - say - a 70% majority vote in both houses of Congress to implement such emergency measures.

    You want to have emergency measures need a 70% majority approval from both houses? Hopefully the emergencies you're thinking of aren't ones that require expediency.
  • FatHobbit
    http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/08/08/why-congress-and-sp-deserve-each-other/?hpt=hp_t2
  • QuakerOats
    Another 600 point meltdown; with the losses tripling after obama spoke.

    I don't know how much more socialism and marxism our capitalist economy can take.

    Change we can believe in ..........
  • I Wear Pants
    God damn it.
  • FatHobbit
    I Wear Pants;855269 wrote:God damn it.

    When I posted that link i felt like I should comment, but I wasn't quite sure how. You summed up my feelings nicely.
  • believer
    I Wear Pants;855139 wrote:You want to have emergency measures need a 70% majority approval from both houses? Hopefully the emergencies you're thinking of aren't ones that require expediency.
    If it's a real emergency I trust that common sense will rule the day under a balanced budget scenario.
  • I Wear Pants
    believer;855288 wrote:If it's a real emergency I trust that common sense will rule the day under a balanced budget scenario.
    I barely trust those guys to be able to brush their teeth let alone think rationally or with a shred of moral understanding.
  • queencitybuckeye
    I Wear Pants;855294 wrote:I don't.

    I do, but for a very short time period.
  • believer
    I Wear Pants;855294 wrote:I barely trust those guys to be able to brush their teeth let alone think rationally or with a shred of moral understanding.
    We can agree on that.
  • majorspark
    The Senate Banking Committee is gathering information surrounding the S&P downgrade for a possible investigation. There are some senators who are anxious to show the malcontents at S&P just who they are dealing with. Oh boy a Senate show trial where we get to watch an arrogant panel of pompous asses dress down the poor schmucks sitting at the table below them. This case S&P execs. Moody and Finch don't think about it or you will be next.

    Committee chairman Tim Johnson Democrat-SD
    “In the minds of serious, reasonable, and informed individuals there is no doubt that the U.S. will meet its debt obligations and we are seeing even more proof of that today. As the financial markets stumble, investors continue to regard Treasury debt as a safe haven in times of economic uncertainty. This irresponsible move by S&P may, however, have spillover effects that tax the American people by increasing interest rates on home loans, credit cards, and car loans, and by increasing the cost of finance for some state and local governments. I am deeply disappointed in S&P’s decision to enter into the game of political punditry.”
    http://www.businessinsider.com/report-senate-banking-committee-probing-sp-downgrade-of-us-credit-rating-2011-8
  • gut
    majorspark;855468 wrote:The Senate Banking Committee is gathering information surrounding the S&P downgrade for a possible investigation.

    Exactly the reaction to be expected from a bunch of lawyers. No one really needed the S&P to tell them US debt is less than 100% safe, and reality is rates should be being driven higher by the continued decline of the dollar, that is if treasury prices were truly driven by fundamentals rather than FX manipulation by China and Japan.
  • believer
    majorspark;855468 wrote:Oh boy a Senate show trial where we get to watch an arrogant panel of pompous asses dress down the poor schmucks sitting at the table below them.
    I can hardly wait for that dog & pony show. The politicians in DC are definitely in meltdown mode and eager to point fingers at everyone but themselves for getting us into this mess.

    I'm a firm believer in the adage, "what goes around, comes around."

    This dog & pony show includes a merry-go-round. The carousel has come full cycle and our illustrious Senators now want to grab the brass ring. The problem is the Chinese have already bought the brass ring.
  • FatHobbit
    majorspark;855468 wrote:The Senate Banking Committee is gathering information surrounding the S&P downgrade for a possible investigation.

    Seems like somebody bit the hand that was feeding them.
  • QuakerOats
    The people being investigated should be the senate banking committee and the federal reserve and the secretary of the treasury, because the U.S. will indeed default, it just won't be a default in standard lingo; it will be a default because bond holders will be repaid, but with dollars that are worth about half of what they were when loaned to the goverment..... all thanks to the fiscal and monetary policies of those in charge of the systems. The most penal of taxes is on the way -- inflation.

    Change we can believe in ...........
  • sleeper
    I was watching MSNBC last night, and whoever the host of the show was went all out on bashing S&P and trying to strip any credibility the company had left. There's no doubt in my mind, if Bush was president, we'd be hearing how much of a failure he is for letting it happen.
  • LJ
    sleeper;856139 wrote:I was watching MSNBC last night, and whoever the host of the show was went all out on bashing S&P and trying to strip any credibility the company had left

    I dunno how you can disagree with this? S&P rated horrid junk MBS's as AAA
  • sleeper
    LJ;856140 wrote:I dunno how you can disagree with this? S&P rated horrid junk MBS's as AAA

    Yeah. I don't think S&P was right to do that either, but hindsight is 20/20. There's no way the US deserves to be AAA.
  • Cleveland Buck
    If a person:

    Earns $50,000 a year
    Spends $82,000 a year
    Already owes $330,000 in debt
    And has committed future obligations totaling $2,600,000

    What would their credit rating be?
  • sleeper
    Cleveland Buck;856158 wrote:If a person:

    Earns $50,000 a year
    Spends $82,000 a year
    Already owes $330,000 in debt
    And has committed future obligations totaling $2,600,000

    What would their credit rating be?
    CCC
  • QuakerOats
    sleeper;856147 wrote:Yeah. I don't think S&P was right to do that either, but hindsight is 20/20. There's no way the US deserves to be AAA.

    If the federal government was a private entity it would be rated CCC, if not R. That is the reality of the situation. The sooner the feds bring in restructuring and turnaround pros, the better.
  • jhay78
    In 2001, here's where the CBO predicted we'd be today:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/speaking-credibility-here-cbos-2001-forecast-which-predicted-negative-25-trillion-net-debt-2011
    While we reserve judgment for S&P's effectiveness at being accurate in anything they do (they are, after all a rating agency and as such they goal seek results to comply with what their paying groupthink seeking customers demand), we would like to redirect to the modest topic of CBO predictive efficiency (the organization that is at the basis of the current credibility spat between Treasury and S&P, and which, incidentally has created the baseline forecast against which the debt ceiling compromise plan is supposed to cut $2.1 trillion over the next decade), by pointing out according to the same CBO back in 2001, net US indebtedness in 2011 would be negative $2.436 trillion, the ratio of debt held by the public to GDP would be 4.8%, total budget surplus would be $889 billion, and GDP would be $16.9 trillion. We won't comment on the error interval in CBO forecasts when compared to actual 2011 results, and we most certainly won't comment on the idiocy of the Treasury chastising someone, anyone, for erring, or disputing, forecasts
  • derek bomar

    how nice would that've been?
  • gut
    As if the CBO can forecast the stupidity and irresponsibility of Congress. If that was back in 2001, before 9/11 and the wars, I'm not sure that forecast is all that far off. 9/11 created some economic loss, then of course the financial disaster or I'm not sure how far off GDP would have been. Certainly $400-$500B, or $1.4T, deficits was not something that had ever happened year after year after year.

    Not that the CBO commentary is wrong - it is clearly a politicized organization that bends its forecasts to support an agenda.
  • QuakerOats

    At the time it was a far-fetched notion that the socialist triumvirate of obama/pelosi/reid could come to power.
  • gut
    QuakerOats;856247 wrote:At the time it was a far-fetched notion that the socialist triumvirate of obama/pelosi/reid could come to power.
    Ahhhh, yes, the "Axis of Deficit"