Confirmed: US Gov officials bracing for S&P downgrade as soon as today.

[PeshakJang]

Some select excerpts from the rationale, for those here that have a hard time with words and shit...

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.

In addition, 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.

Our revised upside scenario--which, other things being equal, we view as
consistent with the outlook on the 'AA+' long-term rating being revised to
stable--retains these same macroeconomic assumptions. 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.

*** The above, for our Democrats in the room, means that even if the tax cuts expire, bringing in that additional ~$1 trillion over 10 years, it would not change the rating.

When comparing the U.S. to sovereigns with 'AAA' long-term ratings that
we view as relevant peers--Canada, France, Germany, and the U.K.--we also
observe, based on our base case scenarios for each, that the trajectory of the
U.S.'s net public debt is diverging from the others. Including the U.S., we
estimate that these five sovereigns will have net general government debt to
GDP ratios this year ranging from 34% (Canada) to 80% (the U.K.), with the
U.S. debt burden at 74%. By 2015, we project that their net public debt to GDP
ratios will range between 30% (lowest, Canada) and 83% (highest, France), with
the U.S. debt burden at 79%. However, in contrast with the U.S., we project
that the net public debt burdens of these other sovereigns will begin to
decline, either before or by 2015.

if the recommendations of the Congressional
Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction--independently or coupled with
other initiatives, such as the lapsing of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high
earners--lead to fiscal consolidation measures beyond the minimum mandated,
and we believe they are likely to slow the deterioration of the government's
debt dynamics, the long-term rating could stabilize at 'AA+'.

---

In other words, we spend too much, aren't serious about fixing it, and we aren't expected to even cut what was agreed to. Those are the facts.

 

[spidey07]

Yeah, because McSame would have cut so much in 2008. Really, you fucking R's are so hilarious. You hid for 8 years while Bush doubled our debt after Clinton cut spending and raised taxes and almost got us balanced. Now you come out of the woodwork and bitch about Obama.

Do you really think that being such a partisan hack gets you anywhere?

Obama said spend a trillion or more and unemployment would stay below 8 percent.

Obama said we MUST raise debt limit to avoid crisis, we did, crisis ensues

Are you seeing a pattern here? It's like Carter, but much, much worse. I still say he's doing it on purpose, it's who he is, it's what he does, that's ALL he does. The only good thing to come from it is there is no way in hell he'll be re-elected.

He's doing this shit ON PURPOSE. He said as much in his campaign, folks just weren't paying attention to what he said. Well, they're paying attention now.

 

[Zorkorist]

Instead, your fine if government money is funneled into your own bank account. Fucking hypocrite.

You're not your.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

Obama said spend a trillion or more and unemployment would stay below 8 percent.

Obama said we MUST raise debt limit to avoid crisis, we did, crisis ensues

Are you seeing a pattern here? It's like Carter, but much, much worse. I still say he's doing it on purpose, it's who he is, it's what he does, that's ALL he does. The only good thing to come from it is there is no way in hell he'll be re-elected.

He's doing this shit ON PURPOSE. He said as much in his campaign, folks just weren't paying attention to what he said. Well, they're paying attention now.

Don't forget he passed National Health Care (or whatever it is called.)

Everyone, run to the Government Tit!

-John

 

[0roo0roo]

Obama said spend a trillion or more and unemployment would stay below 8 percent.

Obama said we MUST raise debt limit to avoid crisis, we did, crisis ensues

Are you seeing a pattern here? It's like Carter, but much, much worse. I still say he's doing it on purpose, it's who he is, it's what he does, that's ALL he does. The only good thing to come from it is there is no way in hell he'll be re-elected.

He's doing this shit ON PURPOSE. He said as much in his campaign, folks just weren't paying attention to what he said. Well, they're paying attention now.

Lol delusion. Tea party republicans made sure there would be no additional revenue, mentioned by the s&p in their decision. You blaming obama when clearly the s&p places the blame on the tea party folks like you is hilarious. Good job, your position shot down the countries credit rating by creating an artificial crisis. You couldn't even let go of the bush tax cuts which had not been working for the last decade. You should be proud of yourself.

Either you are rich spidey, or you are an unpaid masochistic stooge.

 

[PeshakJang]

Money flows straight to the top, & stays there,

Austerity is what they want, because it enhances the power of liquidity, enforces the burden of debt...

There's that massive debt overhang of something called the "Ownership Society" and the only way they'll collect anywhere near full value on it is for money to be worth more, not less.

You destroy your own argument before you even finish a paragraph.

The more the government spends, the more money flows to the top.

Why would the rich invest their own money when they can just sit back and let the government deficit spend them into profits?

The more the government spends, and prints, the more inflation exists.

You argue that the rich want the government to spend less, while simultaneously making the case for why they want the government to spend more.

IdiotIdiot+ for you as well. Outlook negative.

 

[PeshakJang]

Lol delusion. Tea party republicans made sure there would be no additional revenue, mentioned by the s&p in their decision. You blaming obama when clearly the s&p places the blame on the tea party folks like you is hilarious. Good job, your position shot down the countries credit rating by creating an artificial crisis. You couldn't even let go of the bush tax cuts which had not been working for the last decade. You should be proud of yourself.

Either you are rich spidey, or you are an unpaid stooge for what?

You should read more before you make an ass out of yourself...

 

[sandorski]

Nice job! Reality check friend: you voted for a failure of an administration and want to blame others for your problems that you brought on yourself (and the rest of us to boot). Just like you do when you blame tax cuts that only account for 98 billion dollars for the current problem.

Good going!

Not a US Citizen or Resident. Didn't vote for anyone in the US Government.

The uncertainty here was whether the US Government would default or not. Exacerbated by the Political Drama that just took place. The part of that Drama was the threat of doing just that, Defaulting, and dragging it to the last minute. How can there be confidence when such a powerful part of the Government has no fear of throwing a monkey-wrench into the whole thing?

 

[Jhhnn]

And I'd be absolutely fine if government money (my money) was used wisely to support such projects. I've got zero problems with real infrastructure spending if there is value in it and not bloated. Shovel ready jobs my ass.

Sorry, off topic from the thread, I know. Just wanted to be clear.

A country's greatest asset is its people, Spidey. If we don't support opportunity and economic fair play for our citizens, then none of the rest of it really matters. Great roads & bridges don't matter if the population is too poor to utilize them, like this-

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mytripsmypics/2467321340/

Economic repression isn't just for the far left, it works for the far right, too... which is something we'll find out about rather shortly, I suspect.

 

[JSt0rm]

You destroy your own argument before you even finish a paragraph.

The more the government spends, the more money flows to the top.

Why would the rich invest their own money when they can just sit back and let the government deficit spend them into profits?

The more the government spends, and prints, the more inflation exists.

You argue that the rich want the government to spend less, while simultaneously making the case for why they want the government to spend more.

IdiotIdiot+ for you as well. Outlook negative.

the less inflation the less reason to invest you dumb shit.

 

[Zorkorist]

Lol delusion. Tea party republicans made sure there would be no additional revenue, mentioned by the s&p in their decision. You blaming obama when clearly the s&p places the blame on the tea party folks like you is hilarious. Good job, your position shot down the countries credit rating by creating an artificial crisis. You couldn't even let go of the bush tax cuts which had not been working for the last decade. You should be proud of yourself.

Either you are rich spidey, or you are an unpaid masochistic stooge.

What other Revenue do you want, Oro?

People are already being taxed to hell and back, regulated to hell and back, and they must buy insurance, whether they like it or not.

What MORE do you want the Government to take from us, so that we can buy...

What exactly are we buying?

-John

 

[JSt0rm]

What other Revenue do you want, Oro?

People are already being taxed to hell and back, regulated to hell and back, and they must buy insurance.

What MORE do you want the Government to take from us, so that we can buy...

What exactly are we buying?

-John

So you want more tax cuts and no insurance?

 

[matt0611]

the less inflation the less reason to invest you dumb shit.

Investment comes from savings. Why would you save when your money when its value gets eaten away by inflation?
Americans have a very low savings rate, why would anyone save money with negative interest rates from inflation?

 

[LegendKiller]

You're not your.

-John

Wow, that's low.

 

[PeshakJang]

the less inflation the less reason to invest you dumb shit.

Try to keep up, kiddo... You're a little behind the curve on this one.

 

[LegendKiller]

Obama said spend a trillion or more and unemployment would stay below 8 percent.

Obama said we MUST raise debt limit to avoid crisis, we did, crisis ensues

Are you seeing a pattern here? It's like Carter, but much, much worse. I still say he's doing it on purpose, it's who he is, it's what he does, that's ALL he does. The only good thing to come from it is there is no way in hell he'll be re-elected.

He's doing this shit ON PURPOSE. He said as much in his campaign, folks just weren't paying attention to what he said. Well, they're paying attention now.

As said above, they wanted more revenue, not just cuts. We didn't cut or raise enough.

What's sad is that people like you are what caused this. Instead of meeting in the middle you'd rather just maintain your partisan hackery.

 

[JSt0rm]

Investment comes from savings. Why would you save when your money when its value gets eaten away by inflation?
Americans have a very low savings rate, why would anyone save money with negative interest rates from inflation?

Investments of peasants come from that. Investments of the top 1% come from them actively making capital investment. Please, you must understand this.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Some select excerpts from the rationale, for those here that have a hard time with words and shit...



*** The above, for our Democrats in the room, means that even if the tax cuts expire, bringing in that additional ~$1 trillion over 10 years, it would not change the rating.

---

In other words, we spend too much, aren't serious about fixing it, and we aren't expected to even cut what was agreed to. Those are the facts.

Those are VERY selective indeed. I particularly like this one.

Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.

What do you think S&P means by that?

 

[Engineer]

People are already being taxed to hell and back

Wait, I thought that 50% of the people weren't paying taxes?

Wait, aren't we paying the lowest rates in over 60 years?

Wait, isn't the top 0.1% paying lower rates than the middle class?

What more do you want? 75% to not pay taxes?

Surely, after your little speech, you wouldn't advocate raising taxes on those 50% that don't pay taxes (or so says everyone) now would you?

 

[Nemesis 1]

Fuck you shithead. You know less than nothing. Carter passed legislation against oil companies who wanted to raise prices to increase profits so they could rob shithead lemmings like you. For that they vilified him any way they could because they control everything. Of course these pussy presidents since then allow oil companies to do whatever they want hence the record profits of those oil companies today at your expense. But you go right ahead projecting your idiocy on me if it will make you feel better.

You need to Look closer at the Carter years . As far as presidents go there are 2 that you can pinpoint as the cause of the Housing Bubble and bust . It All started with Carter the preceeding presidents didn't help . Than the final nail in the coffin came in the 8th year of Clinton . History if there is a future will show this clearly.

 

[Zorkorist]

So you want more tax cuts and no insurance?

No Government mandated Insurance, for sure. If Government wants to mandate insurance, then go ahead, and call it a tax.

(I guess this goes to National Health Care Tax, too.)

The Tax Laws are in need of overhaul, obviously. I support a Fair Tax system, without Government getting involved, other than collecting their winnings.

-John

 

[JSt0rm]

You need to Look closer at the Carter years . As far as presidents go there are 2 that you can pinpoint as the cause of the Housing Bubble and bust . It All started with Carter the preceeding presidents didn't help . Than the final nail in the coffin came in the 8th year of Clinton . History if there is a future will show this clearly.

I see. so all the problems of the last 40 years are because democrats

 

[the DRIZZLE]

As said above, they wanted more revenue, not just cuts. We didn't cut or raise enough.

What's sad is that people like you are what caused this. Instead of meeting in the middle you'd rather just maintain your partisan hackery.

That's not how I read the report. I'd say they wanted more revenue OR greater cuts.

 

[silverpig]

Don't know if this has been posted yet but I am a fairly regular Paul Krugman reader.

S&P and the USA nyti.ms/pnmCRL

He has a point that the ratings agencies shouldn't be the ones to talk, but what is the alternative? For them to continue to spit polish turds? Maybe he should be applauding a ratings agency actually downgrading some debt instrument.

 

[Jaskalas]

We moved a step closer to reality tonight. It's not enough, but it doesn't have to be. Slide into ruin, step by step, one downgrade at a time.