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

[sandorski]

Troll much? You could always explain yourself, you know, let us know which part of reality you're removed from.

The part where Bush was out of control with the deficit, the part where Obama tripled it, or the part where I said deficit growth matters? Oh do tell.

Incorrect.

 

[JSt0rm]

this happened also in the 90's when there was a showdown over the debt ceiling.

 

[theeedude]

Ahh bullshit. There is nothing Obama cant do if he wanted. Bottom line is regardless of what our economy looks like. Obama was going to run large deficits.

Now that is the real bullshit. In case you haven't noticed we had a second great Depression to avoid, thanks to Republicans who promised us all those tax cuts they passed would stimulate the economy and create jobs.

 

[theeedude]

But he told us in 2009 he was going to cut in in half!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SaQUU2ZL6D8

You've really got to quit tossing his salad.

His first term in office isn't over last I checked. Plus GOP has to play ball and pass tax hikes for this to happen.

 

[JSt0rm]

Can we get the thread title changed. It is completely false.

 

[IGBT]

that rating is due to the obama debt. The rating is telling the world and US creditors that your obama is a disaster.

 

[JSt0rm]

that rating is due to the obama debt. The rating is telling the world and US creditors that your obama is a disaster.

No. The rating is due to the possibility that the debt ceiling wont be raised. You are trying to see something here that isn't. We have had greater debt to gdp ratio in the past and based on those numbers we are still AAA.

 

[chowderhead]

S&P and all the rest of the credit rating agencies got a pass for all those years they were in collusion with the banks and the brokerages/insurance/mortgage companies. These banks/ mortgage companies packaged garbage/risky loans and derivatives with good loans and Moodys and S&P and the rest gave them rock solid ratings until the whole thing collapsed and the the taxpayers had to foot the bill. NO ONE WENT TO JAIL. The government is bought and paid for by these large "too big to fail" companies. Now they pull this crap? Someone is making billions and the taxpayers are footing the bill again.

 

[theeedude]

GOP needs to raise the debt ceiling ASAP, the markets are too shaky to be playing games.

 

[Infohawk]

If we make reasonable cuts to social security, medicare and defense and stop all these deductions and exceptions for very rich and very poor we should be okay.

 

[sandorski]

If we make reasonable cuts to social security, medicare and defense and stop all these deductions and exceptions for very rich and very poor we should be okay.

Social Security is fully Paid until 2037. To make "Cuts" is to shirk Debt Responsibilities.

 

[boomerang]

No. The rating is due to the possibility that the debt ceiling wont be raised. You are trying to see something here that isn't. We have had greater debt to gdp ratio in the past and based on those numbers we are still AAA.

In reading the article twice, I don't see where anyone from S&P said that. This is a reflection of the incompetence of the Obama administration. Nothing more, nothing less. It's a wakeup call that should have come a long time back.

S&P explained its rationale for cutting its outlook on the U.S. to “negative” from “stable” by citing the nation’s “very large budget deficits and rising government indebtedness.”

So you're saying that contrary to this statement, they actually meant the debt ceiling should be raised? You're drinking far too much of the Kool-Aid. senseamp is mixing it up and the two of you are apparently sharing the same straw.

Another nail in the coffin of the Obama team. Ill equipped to run anything more complicated than their mouths.

 

[werepossum]

In reading the article twice, I don't see where anyone from S&P said that. This is a reflection of the incompetence of the Obama administration. Nothing more, nothing less. It's a wakeup call that should have come a long time back.



So you're saying that contrary to this statement, they actually meant the debt ceiling should be raised? You're drinking far too much of the Kool-Aid. senseamp is mixing it up and the two of you are apparently sharing the same straw.

Another nail in the coffin of the Obama team. Ill equipped to run anything more complicated than their mouths.

Clearly you are correct in your evaluation, but I doubt S&P have a lot of faith in the Republicans either. Even assuming they can actually cut spending and balance the budget, history indicates that given a few years and a Republican President, most would be indistinguishable from Democrats except during abortion or gay agenda/gay rights debates (and perhaps by the occasional "wide stance" in airport restrooms.)

Chowderhead also makes a valid point. It's hard to put a lot of faith in S&P's ability to competently diagnose the problem and honestly expound it.

 

[JSt0rm]

Now they pull this crap? Someone is making billions and the taxpayers are footing the bill again.

They have hundreds of years worth of data to go off of when rating sovereign debt. This was not the case with the housing bubble.

 

[JSt0rm]

In reading the article twice, I don't see where anyone from S&P said that. This is a reflection of the incompetence of the Obama administration. Nothing more, nothing less. It's a wakeup call that should have come a long time back.



So you're saying that contrary to this statement, they actually meant the debt ceiling should be raised? You're drinking far too much of the Kool-Aid. senseamp is mixing it up and the two of you are apparently sharing the same straw.

Another nail in the coffin of the Obama team. Ill equipped to run anything more complicated than their mouths.

Well we have conflicting information then. I'm going on this

“We believe there is a [COLOR=blue ! important][FONT=inherit ! important][COLOR=blue ! important][FONT=inherit ! important]material [/FONT][COLOR=blue ! important][FONT=inherit ! important]risk[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR] that U.S. policymakers might not reach an agreement on how to address medium- and long-term budgetary challenges by 2013; if an agreement is not reached and meaningful implementation is not begun by then, this would in our view render the U.S. fiscal profile meaningfully weaker than that of peer 'AAA' sovereigns,”

​

 

[sunzt]

this debt ceiling issue is going to be a fiasco right to the very end and then they will raise it, all the while adding uncertainty to the market and dropping it while the circus is playing.

 

[boomerang]

Clearly you are correct in your evaluation, but I doubt S&P have a lot of faith in the Republicans either. Even assuming they can actually cut spending and balance the budget, history indicates that given a few years and a Republican President, most would be indistinguishable from Democrats except during abortion or gay agenda/gay rights debates (and perhaps by the occasional "wide stance" in airport restrooms.)

Chowderhead also makes a valid point. It's hard to put a lot of faith in S&P's ability to competently diagnose the problem and honestly expound it.

You know, I actually get all that. What I can't understand is this endless defending of Obama regardless of what he does. Scratch that, I do understand the defense. It's a knee-jerk reaction from simpletons.

S&P wants us to raise our debt limit to make them happy? They may understand we need to raise it, but their announcement today isn't related to a possibility of the debt limit not being raised. It's based on the fact that we're over two years into the term of a President who said he was going to do one thing but has done the exact opposite. It's way past the time of giving him a continual pass. It's time to throw his own words right back into his face. The press sure as shit not going to do it.

When you surround yourself with a bunch of tax cheats you get this kind of White House. Gamers of the system.

 

[JSt0rm]

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.

 

[JSt0rm]

You know, I actually get all that. What I can't understand is this endless defending of Obama regardless of what he does. Scratch that, I do understand the defense. It's a knee-jerk reaction from simpletons.

S&P wants us to raise our debt limit to make them happy? They may understand we need to raise it, but their announcement today isn't related to a possibility of the debt limit not being raised. It's based on the fact that we're over two years into the term of a President who said he was going to do one thing but has done the exact opposite.

Thats wrong. God damn idiots. This is because of uncertainty in how this POLITICAL issue will be resolved. It makes no mention of one side vs the other. Fuck you people are going to kill this country.

 

[boomerang]

Well we have conflicting information then. I'm going on this

“We believe there is a [COLOR=blue ! important][FONT=inherit ! important][COLOR=blue ! important][FONT=inherit ! important]material [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=inherit ! important][COLOR=blue ! important][FONT=inherit ! important]risk[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR] that U.S. policymakers might not reach an agreement on how to address medium- and long-term budgetary challenges by 2013; if an agreement is not reached and meaningful implementation is not begun by then, this would in our view render the U.S. fiscal profile meaningfully weaker than that of peer 'AAA' sovereigns,”

So your opinion of "might not reach an agreement on how to address medium- and long-term budgetary challenges by 2013" translates to concerns by S&P about not raising the debt limit? Raising the debt limit is a solution?

Seems to me raising the debt limit contributed greatly to the situation we're in right now. But, I run a surplus in my household, so hey, maybe I'm not the best person to judge.

 

[JSt0rm]

So your opinion of "might not reach an agreement on how to address medium- and long-term budgetary challenges by 2013" translates to concerns by S&P about not raising the debt limit? Raising the debt limit is a solution?

Seems to me raising the debt limit contributed greatly to the situation we're in right now. But, I run a surplus in my household, so hey, maybe I'm not the best person to judge.

Im not going to debate this with you as it doesnt matter. I learn more about these subjects driving into work listening to the radio and then I come here and see you guy off spinning things all over the place. You are morons. You think you have some idea about how these things work and you dont. Just go read up on this fucking thing for yourself.

 

[Fern]

Well we have conflicting information then. I'm going on this

“We believe there is a [COLOR=blue ! important][FONT=inherit ! important][COLOR=blue ! important][FONT=inherit ! important]material [/FONT][COLOR=blue ! important][FONT=inherit ! important]risk[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR] that U.S. policymakers might not reach an agreement on how to address medium- and long-term budgetary challenges by 2013; if an agreement is not reached and meaningful implementation is not begun by then, this would in our view render the U.S. fiscal profile meaningfully weaker than that of peer 'AAA' sovereigns,”

​

Uhhh, this doesn't sound like concern over raising the debt ceiling.

They speak of agreement by 2013, the debt ceiling issue is now, can't wait until then.

They mention "medium and LT budgetary challenges" and "meaningful implementation", looks like they are concerned with our projected budget deficits and growing national debt.

In any case, we've seen this concern over our growing debt and threats/warnings of downgraded ratings (meaning higher interest rate on our debt) for some time now.

Fern

 

[JSt0rm]

Uhhh, this doesn't sound like concerb over raising the debt ceiling.

They speak of agreement by 2013, the debt ceiling issue is now, can't wait until then.

They mention "medium and LT budgetary challenges" and "meaningful implementation", looks like they are concerned with our projected budget deficits and growing national debt.

In any case, we've seen this concern over our growing debt and threats/warnings of downgraded ratings (meaning higher interest rate on our debt) for some time now.

Fern

They are concerned with how divided the left and right are on the issue. That see this division as uncertainty and that is the reason for the downgrade. Moodys did it in the 90's over the exact same fight (raising the debt ceiling).

The reason why they said 2013 is because they think the divided view on how to tackle the debt issues will take that long to be sorted out.

 

[JSt0rm]

They also dont want us going into an election with some retard like palin coming out and saying she will not raise the debt ceiling if elected. That would really break shit.

 

[bfdd]

Now that is the real bullshit. In case you haven't noticed we had a second great Depression to avoid, thanks to Republicans who promised us all those tax cuts they passed would stimulate the economy and create jobs.

We haven't avoided shit you dumbass, we simply put it off to a later date with probably more devastating consequences.