S&P Slashes Outlook on U.S. to 'Negative' Amid Soaring Debt

[werepossum]

FYI having read the entire report, the supplements for the Q & A and listened to the S & P call, where the question was asked "Does this have anything to do with the debt ceiling?" to which the answer was "No, this represents our long-term view of the deficit and public debt." I think you should probably just admit that you are wrong. S & P I believe tried explicitly hard not to make this about the debt ceiling and went out of their way to not mention it.

Outlooks are also long-term >2 years. If the debt ceiling were to look like it would not be passed, I believe the US would go on creditwatch, as that is a downgrade possibility in the short-term <6 months because of a changing material situation.

Well said.

Some folks apparently have difficulty reading and understanding what S&P is saying... *cough* JSt0rm *cough*. It had NOTHING to do with the debt ceiling or the petty squabbles about that. What they are saying is, the US is approaching the point where, absent changes to put us on the right track, we're going to be in position that puts our ability to honor our debts at risk compared to other AAA borrowers.

The debt ceiling is irrelevant, they're essentially saying "There's two sides that fight over everything and can't come to any meaningful agreements to take the steps needed to put the financial health of the country back on track. That puts the future ability to pay in jeopardy." I can't say that I disagree with that assessment.

It's not so much democrat / republican issue, it's a simple financial assessment based on the existing governing process. Until the two parties are forced to work together and take steps needed to get on the right track, our financial picture will keep getting bleaker.

Also well said. If Democrats and Republicans were in lockstep with Obama's position, S&P's concerns would actually be worse, as it is our staggering debt that is their concern. Failing to raise the debt limit will tip us off a cliff, but continuing on our present path will merely tip us off the cliff later on at a higher point.

 

[Craig234]

But since those tax cuts will increase revenue, you are actually saying they do make sense.

-KeithP

Test for you:

Federal income tax revenue since 2001, following the Bush tax cuts, is:

A) down 31% per capita

B) unchanged

C) up 31% per capita

Hint: A. You are a sucker for a lie by those who simply don't want to pay a fair share.

 

[Jhhnn]

But since those tax cuts will increase revenue, you are actually saying they do make sense.

-KeithP

Nothing like a little voodoo economics, huh?

 

[manimal]

Nothing like a little voodoo economics, huh?

we can scream the truth in a vacuum as loud as we want to but it will still fall on dead ears...

 

[ChunkiMunki]

maybe we can pressure S&P and Moody's to rate government bonds AAA, like goldman sachs did with their "mortgage backed securities" scheme. Nice rating there S&P. Now you have some integrity?

 

[blackangst1]

The problem isnt the debt as much as it is uncertainty. We have massive deficits because tax receipts are down. When the economy recovers tax recipes will go up again.

Of course we could just do the teaparty thing and blow everything up. Its sad. I'm going to have a great april and a great may this thing better not fuck up me making lots of money.

Just as FYI...2009 receipts were down from 2008 by 17%, and 2010 receipts were up from 2009 2.5%. But the largest tax receipts in our history came in 2007.

 

[blackangst1]

Our tax receipts dropped. This is why deficit spending went up.

And, again, our tax receipts did NOT drop from FY2009 to 2010.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/HistoricalTables[1].pdf

 

[Puffnstuff]

People don't want to hear the truth if it conflicts with the illusion of life they're living. Just wait until the dollar is replaced as the world reserve currency and then see just how bad things get.

 

[Darwin333]

Test for you:

Federal income tax revenue since 2001, following the Bush tax cuts, is:

A) down 31% per capita

B) unchanged

C) up 31% per capita

Hint: A. You are a sucker for a lie by those who simply don't want to pay a fair share.

Are you really suggesting that taxes paid per capita is actually a relevant number? All the poor, lower middle class, middle class, etc.. fit into that number and unless you are advocating (or suggesting others advocate) raising their taxes significantly (damn near a 1/3) I simply don't see why that number is relevant.

Much more important is the amount of revenue as a percentage of GDP.

P.S. Although I can rarely make it though a book with an obvious political slant, I did order that book you suggested and will give it a shot. I am really hoping that it isn't more BS excuses about why we seem to have ran out of handcuffs in this country.

 

[bfdd]

so how long until we can't see the top of the flames?

 

[xj0hnx]

I cant comment to your quote as I have no idea where it is from so lulz indeed.

It then Senator Obama just before voting to not raise the debt ceiling, or in your words, some retard that won't raise the debt ceiling. Of course that was when it was republicans, now that it's democrats of course he is regretful of having done that

 

[Craig234]

Are you really suggesting that taxes paid per capita is actually a relevant number? All the poor, lower middle class, middle class, etc.. fit into that number and unless you are advocating (or suggesting others advocate) raising their taxes significantly (damn near a 1/3) I simply don't see why that number is relevant.

Much more important is the amount of revenue as a percentage of GDP.

P.S. Although I can rarely make it though a book with an obvious political slant, I did order that book you suggested and will give it a shot. I am really hoping that it isn't more BS excuses about why we seem to have ran out of handcuffs in this country.

Taxes per capita are quite relevant as an apples to apples comparison over time.

The only reason for 'per capita' really is to adjust for population growth. Income taxes were down about 27&#37; NOT 'per capita', not accounting for population growth.

No real difference.

I'm glad to hear you are going to read that book. Typically when I read a book, I've read a good amount to all of it; sometimes not, as in this case, where my recommendation is based on the subject matter's being right on the issue at hand, with what I infer from reviews is some solid information I think provides some good answers, and having read the author before.

The basic thesis seems to be one that seems good to understand to me, the extent to which 'entrenched powers' make so much reform today very difficult.

There's a lot to answer about the 'Obama Gap' between his sometimes liberal rhetoric and his frankly moderate right-wing policies.

This book, by a good author, attempts to answer a lot of that question. I hope you find it useful and am interested in your feedback.

I appreciate your effort on it.

 

[dmcowen674]

4-21-2011

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110421/pl_nm/us_usa_ratings

Political rift was tipping point for S&P


History does not favor the United States keeping its prized rating.

Of the four AAA-rated countries that S&P has placed on negative outlook between 1989 and this March, three were downgraded within 15 months on average.

That would put July 26, 2012, as the date to watch for whether the United States loses the star credit status it has held since 1941.

 

[The-Noid]

4-21-2011

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110421/pl_nm/us_usa_ratings

Political rift was tipping point for S&P


History does not favor the United States keeping its prized rating.

Of the four AAA-rated countries that S&P has placed on negative outlook between 1989 and this March, three were downgraded within 15 months on average.

That would put July 26, 2012, as the date to watch for whether the United States loses the star credit status it has held since 1941.

The whole point with the S and P downgrade is it is nothing that the market does not know. The CDS for the US already prices at a AA rating not a AAA rating.

 

[JockoJohnson]

It then Senator Obama just before voting to not raise the debt ceiling, or in your words, some retard that won't raise the debt ceiling. Of course that was when it was republicans, now that it's democrats of course he is regretful of having done that

Hey, you can't talk that way about Pres. Obama. He had a good reason for his symbolic vote against raising the debt ceiling back then. Now that he is president, if it doesn't get raised, there will be a global recession, the earth will open up and swallow all old people and poor people. He's great at scare tactics--Paul Ryan's budget proposal will kill all old people and throw all poor people into the streets. Obama must secretly be a Republican because they are the only ones that use scare tactics.