S&P downgrades U.S. credit rating for first time!!!

Gunner

Potential Star
Registered
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...redit-rating/2011/08/05/gIQAqKeIxI_print.html

Obama has no clue. Hell now he can't even buy one. A fricken embarrassment. Defend this crap!!! :angry::angry::angry::angry:


http://www.standardandpoors.com/ser...lobwhere=1243942957443&blobheadervalue3=UTF-8 PDF file




S&P downgrades U.S. credit rating for first time

By Zachary A. Goldfarb, Updated: Friday, August 5, 9:50 PM

Standard & Poor’s announced Friday night that it has downgraded the United States credit rating for the first time, dealing a huge symbolic blow to the world’s economic superpower in what was a sharply worded critique of the American political system.

Lowering the nation’s rating one-notch below AAA, the credit rating company said “political brinkmanship” in the debate over the debt had made the U.S. government’s ability to manage its finances “less stable, less effective and less predictable.” It said the bi-partisan agreement reached this week to find at least $2.1 trillion in budget savings “fell short” of what was necessary to tame the nation’s debt over time and predicted that leaders would not be likely to achieve more savings later on.

The decision came after a day of furious back-and-forth between the Obama administration and S&P. Government officials fought back hard, arguing that S&P made a flawed analysis of the potential for political agreement and had mathematical errors in its initial report, which was submitted to the Treasury earlier in the day. The company had overstated the U.S. deficit over 10 years by $2 trillion, officials said.

“A judgment flawed by a $2 trillion error speaks for itself,” a Treasury spokesperson said Friday.

The downgrade will push the global financial markets into uncharted territory after a volatile week fueled by concerns over a worsening debt crisis in Europe and a faltering economy in the United States.

The AAA rating has made the U.S. Treasury bond one of the world’s safest investments — and has helped the nation borrow at extraordinarily cheap rates to finance its government operations, including two wars and an expensive social safety net for retirees.

Treasury bonds have also been a stalwart of stability amid the economic upheaval of the past few years. The nation has had a AAA rating for 70 years.

Analysts say that, over time, the downgrade could push up borrowing costs for the U.S. government, costing taxpayers tens of billions of dollars a year. It could also drive up interest rates for consumers and companies seeking mortgages, credit cards and business loans.

A downgrade could also have a cascading series of effects on states and localities, including nearly all of those in the Washington metro area. These governments could lose their AAA credit ratings as well, potentially raising the cost of borrowing for schools, roads and parks.

But the exact impact of the downgrade won’t be known until at least Sunday night, when Asian markets open, and perhaps not fully grasped for months. Analysts say the initial effect on the markets may be modest because they have been anticipating an S&P downgrade for weeks.

Federal officials are also examining the impact of a downgrade in large but esoteric financial markets where U.S. government bonds serve an extremely important function. They were generally confident that markets would hold up, but were closely monitoring the situation. Regulators said that the downgrade would not affect how banking rules treat Treasury bonds — as risk-free assets.

The ratings action immediately fueled partisan wrangling Friday night. Allies to Obama said it underscored his call for a “grand bargain” that would trim $4 trillion from the federal budget involving a mix of tax revenues and spending cuts.

Republicans criticized Obama’s handling of the economy.

“Standard & Poor’s rating downgrade is a deeply troubling indicator of our country’s decline under President Obama,” said Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

S&P has angered government officials with aggressive warnings over the past few months of a potential downgrade. Those warnings, so far, have not worried government bond markets.

What’s more, the two other major credit rating companies, Moody’s Investors Service and Fitch Ratings, have said they would preserve the nation’s AAA rating for now.

S&P’s downgrade was as much a political critique as a financial conclusion. It is based on a view that American political leaders would be unable to come up with at least $4 trillion in savings, which is needed to bring the nation’s debt to a manageable level over the next decade.

The debt deal swung earlier this week proposed spending cuts in two phases. Democrats and Republicans agreed to the first round, worth nearly $1 trillion. But a Congressional committee must decide the remaining $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion — and S&P questioned whether that would ever happen.

S&P added that it expects that the upper income Bush-era tax cuts will continue, despite vows from Obama to end the breaks next year.

“The majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues,” the firm said.

S&P’s downgrade served as an indictment of the gridlock that sent the nation to the edge of defaulting on its debt obligations. It is also striking in part because it reflects the tremendous power of a small group of financial analysts employed by a New York company — part of McGraw-Hill. In Europe, political leaders have taken aim at credit rating companies when they cut the ratings of governments struggling with heavy debt burdens.

S&P said the nation could suffer additional downgrades later on if the nation’s debt burden grows worse. “A new political consensus might (or might not) emerge after the 2012 election, but we believe that by then, the government debt burden will likely be higher,” the firm said.

The company said the United States’ financial position was diverging from that of other AAA countries, including Canada, France, Germany and the United Kingdom. The firm made clear there is little likelihood of the United States regaining its AAA rating in coming years.

Countries with a AA+ rating include New Zealand and Belgium. Among those countries with a AA rating, one notch lower, are Bermuda, Spain, and Qatar.

Staff writers Neil Irwin and Cezary Podkul contributed to this report
 
Dear Friend -

As President Obama celebrates his 50th birthday this week, it is a time to reflect.

Reflecting on the last few years, we remember when the President took over our health care system against the clear wishes of the American people…made us more dependent on foreign oil … passed a stimulus bill that was enormously expensive and didn’t create jobs … grew the national debt from nine Trillion to 14 Trillion and counting … and brought the greatest country in the history of the world to the point of flirting with bankruptcy.

You couldn’t make this up.

Thankfully, in Louisiana we have taken a different approach than President Obama. Instead of the strategy of “Borrow, Spend and Repeat,” we made government spend less money when government had less money to spend. Radical, huh?

We are seeing real results. In just the past few days we’ve announced an $8 million investment in Denham Springs by CAP Technologies that will create 100 new jobs, a $16.8 million investment in Shreveport by Ronpak that will create 700 new jobs, and a $19 million investment in Lafayette by the Schumacher Group that will produce 1,400 new jobs.

President Obama could sure learn a lesson from Louisiana. We balance our budget. We make tough choices. We focus on jobs.

Today, we celebrate the fact that because of our economic growth we can proudly say to the country that, in Louisiana, WE’RE HIRING.




Governor Bobby Jindal
suicidio_emoticono.gif
 
"If the US Government was a family, they would be making $58,000 a year, they spend $75,000 a year, & are $327,000 in credit card debt. They are currently proposing BIG spending cuts to reduce their spending to $72,000 a year. These are the actual proportions of the federal budget & debt, reduced to a level that we can understand." - Dave Ramsey
 
S&P analysis doesn't factor in that the tax rates are low for the upper income and have been undertaxed. I can see a high tax country having debt problems getting downgraded. A couple of months ago, there a huge tax break that was given.

Cutting government is a middle class tax increase.

All that needs to be done is increase taxes, not slash the services or entitlement provided by government.
 
Obama Makes History (of Our AAA Credit)

I challenge the liberal posters on the board to refute the contents of this article.

Obama Makes History (of Our AAA Credit)

http://www.nationalreview.com/


The Obama administration and congressional Democrats are betting their political futures on the hope that the American electorate is ignorant and forgetful, and hence the memo has gone out to functionaries hither and yon, from David Axelrod to John Kerry: This is to be called the “tea-party downgrade.” That this is said with straight faces bespeaks either an unshakable contempt for the mind of the American voter or an as-yet unplumbed capacity for Democratic self-delusion.


Let us revisit the facts. The original debt-ceiling deal put forward by the Democrats totaled $0.00 in debt reduction. This would have fallen approximately $4 trillion short of the $4 trillion in debt reduction the credit-rating agencies suggested would constitute a “credible” step toward maintaining our AAA rating and avoiding a downgrade. This $0.00 program was the so-called “clean” debt-ceiling bill — the one that contained not a farthing of debt reduction. Bad as it was, Republicans agreed to give Democrats a vote on it. Some 82 Democrats and every Republican voted against it, and for good reason: Doing nothing at all is hardly a “credible” program.
The Democrats have suggested that Republicans’ refusal to accede to tax hikes is the main reason Standard & Poor’s felt it necessary to issue a downgrade, the first in American history, last Friday evening. In their assessment of Standard & Poor’s reasoning, the Democrats are acutely at odds with Standard & Poor’s. The credit-rating agency did not call for tax hikes in its assessment: “Standard & Poor’s takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.’s finances on a sustainable footing.” No position on tax hikes. But S&P, along with the other credit-rating agencies, has long taken a position on one aspect of our fiscal troubles: entitlement reform. From S&P again: “The plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.”

As anybody who has looked at our long-term deficit projections knows, entitlement spending is the major driver of our future deficits. With unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare already running into trillions of dollars — many multiples of our GDP — it is implausible that taxes would be raised sufficiently to meet those obligations. Sustaining present spending levels over coming decades while maintaining current levels of debt would mean nearly doubling every federal tax: income, payroll, inheritance, excises, etc. To repeat: That’s to maintain current debt levels, not to reduce them. Even if the political will existed to inflict such tax increases on the American people, doing so would prove economically ruinous. Entitlement reform, then — not taxes, not President Obama’s fictitious “balanced approach” — is rightly understood, as S&P argues, as the “key to long-term fiscal sustainability.” Tea-party leaders, far from being a barrier to entitlement reform, have demanded it.

The main obstacle to reform is the gentleman who lives at at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and his legislative enablers down the street. Recall: Though Democrats controlled the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives from 2008–10, and therefore could have forced through any budget they saw fit, they left the nation with no budget at all — much less a reformed or balanced one — never bothering to pass one in the year before they lost their House majority. Though congressional Democrats could not be bothered, President Obama did submit a 2011 budget. It contained $0.00 toward entitlement reform. He soon disavowed his own budget proposal. The president later gave a speech in which he said he’d like to see $4 trillion in deficit-reduction, but submitted no budget or other legislation to accompany that rhetoric. The head of the Congressional Budget Office, a Democrat, was moved to observe dryly that his agency “does not score speeches.” :lol:

But the CBO does score legislative proposals, and gave good marks to a bipartisan proposal offered by the president’s own hand-picked deficit-reduction panel. The presidential commission offered a credible plan, one that even included the tax increases so beloved of this administration. Naturally, the president disavowed his own commission’s proposal, just as he would disavow his own budget proposal. Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi declared it “dead on arrival” in the House. The plan was angrily rejected by congressional Democrats precisely and specifically because it contained modest entitlement-reform proposals. Likewise, Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget proposal, which would have brought health-care entitlement spending down to sustainable levels while making key reforms to improve the performance of those programs, passed the House only to be rejected out of hand by Sen. Harry Reid and his Democratic colleagues, precisely because it contained entitlement reforms. It would have cut some $4.4 trillion off of the deficits over a decade, well beyond the $4 trillion mark suggested by the credit-rating agencies. But Democrats would have none of it.

The deal that finally did pass would have contained significantly more in deficit-reduction, except for the fact that Democrats categorically refused to consider — is this sounding familiar? — entitlement reform, the most important issue.
Content to offer blind opposition, the Obama administration never put forward a detailed plan of its own, though it insisted it had one, a fact that resulted in a moment of unintentional comedy when White House press secretary Jay Carney irritatedly asked unconvinced reporters: “You need it written down?” When it comes to the Obama administration and spending restraint, the American people have every reason to demand that the president put it in writing.

And so we are led to this sorry pass. We are sympathetic to protests that S&P may have reacted more strongly to the political drama surrounding the debt-ceiling debate than was justified by the underlying economics: Despite the troubles in the eurozone, which are quite severe, Germany and France currently boast of higher credit ratings than that of the United States, a nation that accounts for nearly a quarter of the world’s economic output. But even those who believe S&P has overreacted must concede that the finances of the United States have been considerably weakened since 2008. Obama’s deficits have been unprecedented in peacetime, and this downgrade is unprecedented for our nation, at war or at peace. Its effects remain unknown at this time, but its causes do not: S&P spelled out its reasoning quite clearly.

Entitlement reform is the “key issue.” The Tea Party is not standing in the way of entitlement reform. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are. Democrats believe that they have discovered a cartoon villain in the Tea Party, and they are hoping that American voters are gullible enough to be distracted by the political theatrics. Come November 2012, Americans should keep in mind both the insult and the injury — to the nation and its credit. President Obama has indeed “made history,” as he promised, but not the sort that we might have hoped for.
 
S&P is a joke, how can anyone take them seriously?

After 2005 they were handing out AAA ratings like free lunch.
 
Because Obama said so today? Funny how you never mentioned or made this observation before. So I guess all the other world markets reacted along with ours over a "joke". Really?:hmm:
 
S&P is a joke, how can anyone take them seriously?

After 2005 they were handing out AAA ratings like free lunch.

I'll agree, F*ck S&P. These cats was giving out 3A ratings on every piece of toxic derivative up until 10 seconds before the Lehman collapse. They created the f*ckin problem and now they are the authoritarian and want to dictate policy to Americans! Clearly, an act of financial terrorism

I mean........who are these cats & we need an investigation of everyone related to the decision to downgrade, as well as any relationship to anyone who 'shorted' the market the last few days (Somebody got paid!!!). Somebody needs to go to jail Mr Holder
 
Last edited:
source: Think Progress


S&P Director: GOP’s Balanced Budget Amendment Would Hurt America’s Creditworthiness


After the first round of the contentious debt limit fight, congressional Republicans are redoubling their efforts to push through a so-called Balanced Budget Amendment as a solution to the country’s financial woes. Last week, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) told GOP House members that the best thing they could do during the August recess was to sell the BBA to their constituents. Republicans have even suggested that Standard & Poor’s recent downgrade of U.S. debt from its sterling AAA rating would not have happened, or could be reversed, if a Balanced Budget Amendment were passed.

his weekend the head of S&P, John Chambers, publicly dismissed that idea as foolhardy when he said passage of a BBA would hurt, not help, America’s creditworthiness. Chambers, S&P’s managing director, told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that a balanced budget measure “would just reduce your flexibility in a crisis”:
BLITZER: Would it be important or not that important for Congress to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution?

CHAMBERS: In general, we think that fiscal rules like these just diminish the flexibility of the government to respond. Also, when Congress has a long track record of trying to bind itself with various rules…But when push comes to shove, they don’t bind very much. So even if you had a Balanced Budget Amendment, you’d have some questions about it’s credibility, and it would just reduce your flexibility in a crisis.

Watch it:

<IFRAME height=349 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/dbzhn6HueR4" frameBorder=0 width=425 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>


Chambers also said it could take as long as a decade for the U.S. to regain its AAA rating, spurning GOP suggestions that a hasty and drastic revision to the U.S. Constitution could automatically fix the downgrade. The Republican plan would require a balanced budget for each fiscal year and cap spending at 18 percent of GDP.

As Chambers said, a balanced budget amendment would tie government’s hands and render it unable to take corrective measures during a recession. By slashing spending and mandating “perverse actions in the face of recessions,” it would greatly damage America’s already weak economy — which is why five Nobel Prize-winning economists have denounced the idea.
<!-- (for webtech) Posted in Economy, General, Home Page, Justice
--><!-- googleoff: all --><!-- googleon: all -->
 
Back
Top