« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

In All Seriousness, What If Barack Obama Is Right?

Seriously. All you people on left and right, suspend your disbelief for one minute. Seriously.

What if Barack Obama was right and S&P just got it wrong.

Here’s what I’m hearing and it gives credence to this theory.

S&P, I’m told, began telling some of its clients about the downgrade on Friday morning. That’s why the market was so screwed up on Friday.

By Friday afternoon, the Treasury Department told S&P it had made a $2 trillion math mistake.

But S&P had already told its clients about the downgrade. So it couldn’t walk it back now without a major loss of confidence in its credibility. Could you imagine that conversation? “Hey . . . um . . . Joe. Yeah, Charlie here from S&P. So . . .um . . . we made a $2 trillion math mistake in our downgrade analysis. . . . What’s that? You just lost $500 million in the market because of it? Oh . . . um . . . sorry Joe. Better luck next time.”

So it had to come up with a different reason.

It’s reason? Acrimony in Washington — in other words, nothing to do with the U.S.A.’s ability to pay its debts or financial issues, just typical Washington politics. And it couched its statement in such a way that the tea party movement could say, “see, see, we told you Washington needed more cuts,” and the left could say, “see, see, we told you we needed tax increases.”

Acrimony in Washington is nothing new. Despite a lot of rhetoric about compromise this past week, it is a feature, not a bug, of the American system of government. And major debt and growing deficits are nothing new. And they are bipartisan, pre-existing, long term, and long existing problems.

In other words, nothing new.

But S&P did the downgrade. And by any objective measure, it would need to downgrade France for the very same reasons it gave, but it has not done so yet — though that may change.

So maybe the White House is right and S&P figured it needed to save face, do the downgrade, and come up with a loosey-goosey reason that both sides could seize on to fight it out while ignoring that S&P just made a major mistake and the country took it on the chin because of that mistake.

Now, to put my partisan hat back on — if the White House is right and this is what happened, why the hell is David Axelrod out blaming the Tea Party Movement, a movement that at best has the support of a few dozen members of the United States House of Representatives and has only seen those members in office for six months?

That’s as irresponsible as S&P, and it also does not compute if S&P is the one that screwed up.

* By the way, to lend further credence to the idea that maybe the White House economic team is right and S&P screwed up, where did investor cash flee to during the market collapse of Friday and now, it seems, again today? Why U.S. Treasuries of course.

COMMENTS

  • http://www.FranBaker.com frankieb

    How low can you go?

    And how many fingers can you point?

  • ccwelsh

    S&P made a math error overstating the projected debt in 2021 by $2 trillion (from $24.3 trillion to $22.3 trillion). The government immediately pounced on this error bringing the entire downgrade into question? Wow, that’s $2 trillion out of $223 trillion whole debt problem.

  • bk

    Every set of predictions they’ve ever posted was way off base (always in the same direction it seems), so if S&P was wrong then the Obama folks are the world’s greatest experts at determining today’s numbers and the world’s worst dufuses at predicting tomorrow’s.

    And if S&P messed up, you’d think that Fitch and Moody’s would have been more than happy to point it out.

    I hope it all gets sorted out fast, because Obama is going public today and needs to know whom to blame other than himself.

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    Because, while competitors, they are in a very small oligopoly of credit ratings agencies and one of them screwing up that bad could raise questions about the whole credit ratings racket.

  • veritaseequitas

    You asked and answered your own question. If Obama and his liberal posse had nothing to hide, they would not be flogging “the Tea Party is at fault” mantra. Some thoughts that roam around in our heads are better left there.

  • snowshooze

    Well, you may select between a packa Brueaecrats with an interest in looking good or the S&P which is a packa professional accountants I suppose, who’s services are valued strictly on the grounds of accuracy…at first glance, accusing S&P of a problem with their arithmetic just cracks me up.
    I am absolutely certain that when S&P boiled down the numbers and saw the outcome…the first thing they did was cross check themselves, probably several times. So I tend to believe them.
    But as the Debt ceiling agreement is so full of ambiguity, it is difficult to pin down on anything other than the simple fact that the President was allowed another 2,5 tril to play with to get him through the election. Possibly a misinterpretation?
    Well.. Obama is the only guy I know of that can argue with his credit card when it is declined…and win.
    But his rating? Good luck. Looks like he is taking a run at it though.

  • Spartan4Life

    …is what kind of economic growth rates are they using to make their revenue projections? Whatever growth rates they are using certainly are not likely to be achieved under this regime driving actual deficits even higher than projected. Ugh.

    We need new leadership.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    This is about numbers. Period. And the numbers for US government sovereign debt vs. other sovereigns who are AAA, based on the same template S&P applies across the board, merit an AA+ rating and negative outlook.

    Obama and Democrats can, and will attack the messengers because the facts are not in their favor. They have spent this government into a ratings downgrade and ignored the nuclear bomb that is about to go off in entitlement spending by creating another we can not afford on top of others which they do not have the political will to fix.

    Relish this thought; France, our regular laughingstock, actually reformed their retirement system at great political cost to avoid a downgrade. They still retain a AAA rating.

    Oh and the “Tea Party”is responsible for the downgrade?

    Bwahahahahaha.

    Somebody please tell me Democrats, who haven’t passed a budget in over two years, tabled CCB, will not adopt Ryan’s budget plan and the President- whose budget was unanimously defeated really didn’t say or even think that?

  • http://www.baseballcrank.com Dan McLaughlin

    …since the error is for 2021, it’s all fuzzy math anyway.

  • dilligas

    Even if there is $2 trillion in error, what really is the difference between $22 trillion and $24 trillion, when you only make $2.4 trillion a year? The 536 in DC can’t even figure out how to start paying any of the current $14 trillion amount – why should I beleive they intend to pay any back whether it’s $22 or $24 trillion? A extremely high percentage of the 536, only want to cut the rate of spending, not the spending itself – and a good plurality of those think that any minor cut will kill the elderly and force children to be uneducated, go without medical care, and slowly starve to death. [It truly honestly seems to me like only a handful that truly have even talked about cutting spending to be in line with historical revenue rates.]
    ….
    From a different standpoint – if S&P was telling any of it’s clients (anybody for that matter) on Friday during market hours that they were going to downgrade the credit rating at the end of day on Friday – doesn’t that amount to insider information / trading?

  • acat

    Clearly Boehner and the rest of the gutless D.C. wing of the GOP can be trusted to fold on command, so it’s the Tea Party that must be made the villain.

    If only they had a crisis.. oh! (grin)

    In all seriousness, the Heritage chart that was floating around here a day or two ago pinpoints the problem; spending on entitlements including Obamacare, Social Security, and Medicare will exceed 18% of GDP in a short time.

    Even if the S&P kerfluffle is over a maths error (and I am willing to believe it is because they should have downgraded us back in 2007) all that does is move the “DOOM” date out a bit.

    (Ace of Spades on DOOM) .. it’s Ace so has not even a passing aquaintance with Political Corectness and a penchant for harsh language.. but the DOOM series is on my “must read” list…

    Mew

  • bobojake

    NT

  • reggie1

    The pattern has been pointing to a crash since last Wednesday http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/market-crash-crash-template-technical-analysis/8/4/2011/id/36118

  • bgintn

    Erick, is this not closer to the truth?
    Weiss Ratings downgraded U.S. to C-
    (approximately equivalent to a BBB- at S&P). (NOT AA+)

  • hungarianfalcon

    One of the debt agencies responsible from rubber stamping credit ratings tied to the Democrat’s housing scam via Freddie and Fannie leading to the housing debacle are now the ones responsible for sticking it to the Democrats a few years later.

    IF it was a math error, that would:

    1. be beautiful
    2. and proof that someone above has a mother of a sense of humor.

    HF

  • snowshooze

    Very short article.

    http://www.moneyandmarkets.com/weiss-ratings-united-states-receives-sovereign-debt-rating-of-c-44360

  • anjinconsulting

    This aint rocket science; Congress spends more than the government takes in, and has to borrow money to sustain its growth. Heaven forbid someone should suggest something like curtailing that growth, let alone the wholely unreasonable suggestion that we should actually reduce the size of government.

    Imagine yourself calling the credit agency and explaining that you werent really in debt over your head, you were only in debt up to your eyes and therefore those mean ole credit card companies only needed to give you a credit extension of half the amount you originallly asked for.

    The whole rationale is just laughable.

  • Ausonius

    Hence, the downgrade is reasonable, especially given that the Dems see the future with an infinity of debt and with a slow strangulation of the economy through high taxation.

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    This is the same S&P that rated MBS full of subprime as AAA (ie the same payback probability as treasury debt). These guys are hacks and should have been put out of business in 2008/09, but weren’t because they are a government protected entity and thus no competition (other than from equal delinquents Fitch and Moody’s).

  • snowshooze

    I am a borderline conspiracy believer though.. I cannot dismiss market manipulation. But on the other hand…I don’t give Turbo Timmy and Bam-bam any credibility at all.

  • okpensfan

    I don’t think so… re-read what S&P has had to say. I think the notion that it is an error is all spin. It boils down to a difference of opinion in the economic assumptions used by S&P versus those used by CBO. So whose assumptions do you trust more?

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    shows just how many tons of salt this firm should be taken with.

  • snowshooze

    But they are a bunch of Communist’s right? A slave nation as we would think here…. So I see where they might make the rating.

  • Ausonius

    From the Wall Street Journal today:

    “But even adjusting for that $2 trillion would only reduce U.S. publicly held debt to 85% or so of GDP?still dangerously high. And that assumes that recently agreed upon spending caps are sustained over a decade, something which rarely happens…

    The real reason for White House fury at S&P is that it realizes how symbolically damaging this downgrade is to President Obama’s economic record. Democrats can rail all they want about the tea party, but Republicans have controlled the House for a mere seven months. The entire GOP emphasis in those seven months?backed by the tea party?has been on reversing the historic spending damage of Mr. Obama’s first two years.

    The Bush Presidency and previous GOP Congresses contributed to the current problem …but as recently as 2008 spending was still only 20.7%, and debt held by the public was only 40.3%, of GDP.

    In the name of saving the economy from panic, the White House and the Pelosi Congress then blew out the American government balance sheet. They compounded the problem of excessive private debt by adding unsustainable public debt.

    They boosted federal spending to 25% of GDP in 2009, 23.8% in 2010 (as TARP repayments provided a temporary reduction in overall spending), and back nearly to 25% this fiscal year. Meanwhile, debt to GDP climbed to 53.5% in 2009, 62.2% in 2010, and is estimated to hit 72% this year?and to keep rising. These are all figures from Mr. Obama’s own budget office.

    (My emphasis)

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903454504576493173381179508.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

  • Viator

    “S&P finally got it right. They spoke to a dysfunctional political system and deficits as far as the eye can see. They are enforcing some discipline. My hat is off to them.”

    Bill Gross, PIMCO, world’s largest bond fund

  • chbroussard

    pigs are flying, and dogs and cats are living together.

  • Goldwater_Conservative

    The fact of the matter is Obama just shot the American economy. Now he is going to say the fault lies it two places even though the gun was in his hand when it went off, he is saying that it first lies with the tea partiers because they were trying to shoot the economy and they forced Obama to hold the gun in order to keep them from getting hold of it. The other fault lies with the gun manufacturer who obviously made a faulty firing trigger that went off without cause.

    Well we will have a year long trial starting next year, Obama is going to try the old smoke and mirrors trick of “its not my fault” but we need to focus on the fact that he was holding the gun when it went off, and make sure the jury has that in their mind when they go to the polls to render their verdict.

  • keysconservative

    him to address the rhetoric and vitriol aimed at the Tea Party and urge his fellow Democrats, some in his own administration, to stop laying the blame on the Tea Party.
    Crickets.

  • drivlikejehu

    The downgrade really is a total crock. Obama’s disastrous policies have plenty of negative consequences but there is no chance of default and never was (even without a debt deal).

    The real problem though is that the rating downgrade makes no sense in the larger scheme of things. If the US goes bankrupt, pretty much everyone else would have already gone under. If the US is AA+ or whatever, then there is no longer such thing as AAA.

  • JSobieski

    I agree that the S&P downgrade is bunk. I am not however going to try and stop anyone from using it as a political football.

  • snowshooze

    This is so bad it is global. I have wondered for years how they could keep so many balls in the air.
    There were strings.
    Just like Fanny and Freddy, it is artificially supported.
    Everyone is in on the game. ( Every one of them thought they were pulling the wool on the other guy…)
    I think we are in for a global correction, I have no idea where that will end up. Perhaps we will come out in pretty good shape, but I am not betting.

  • skorrent1

    S&P is perfectly reasonable to conclude that an additional $10T in debt can be floated only by a combination of increasing interest rates (that’s what a downgrade suggests) and inflation (which calls for increased interest rates). Lacking an alternative like CC&B, S&P made a reasonable call.

  • Ausonius

    The comments on Yahoo News and elsewhere are brutal: 20 or 30 to 1 against BIG BRObama.Very few defenders or true believers bothering to write anything.

    See the comments here:

    http://news.yahoo.com/obama-calls-us-aaa-nation-despite-aa-rating-180828644.html

  • victrola

    It’s not just about paying your debt, but what those dollars that “pay” the debt are actually worth.

    The fiscal situation for the US is clearly going off a cliff, and all the major credit rating agencies had a “negative” outlook regarding our AAA status, so S&P is hardly out on a limb with their downgrade. PIMCO (the largest bond fund) had already liquidated their treasury holding and were shorting them. Bill Gross also stated S&P was absolutely right on their decision.

    What I find absurd about the S&P statement was their ridiculous attempt to appear bipartisan, they try to lay some of the blame on Republicans by not agreeing to tax increases. The tax increases that were being talked about were not even a rounding error at addressing the problem (far less than 1%) It was like blaming the Post Office for not being able to pay your bills because postage stamps are too expensive.

  • drivlikejehu

    Well again, the problem is that everyone else is even worse off. Plenty of “AAA” rated sovereigns carry huge debt loads, backed up by much smaller economies and worse demographics.

    Most other industrial countries are demographic time-bombs. How is a 30-year bond a good investment in a country like Japan or Germany with no young people? They will have a less talented workforce and a broken welfare state with no possible way out. China has a huge problem on the horizon thanks to their 1-child policy.

    The US has some demographic issues since the birth rate is propped up a bit by lower income groups, but the middle-class rate is still far higher than most places. We are in bad shape, no question, but what country is a safer investment? There simply isn’t one, end of story.

  • acat

    The ^DJI had finally clawed its’ way back to the 11,000 range in late 2010, following the disaster of TARP and the 2008 elections and held on – some used the term “levitating”, i.e. defying gravity – despite Obamacare and the deficit and Libya etc. etc.

    Here’s a chart.

    Perhaps the market has looked down?

    gravity lessons

    Mew

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    for entirely different reasons.

    I happen to agree that there was no chance of a default last week. Please note that the operative words are “was” and “last week”.

    The problem is spending, pure and simple. Not “revenue”, spending. Umm, did I mention we spend to f*ing much money we don’t have and are no longer going to get from the Chinese? Look for QE3 to go out an buy a couple of more printing presses.

    Is the US AAA? Hell no. They’re not even remotely AA+. They should probably be rated just barely better than Italian or Spanish debt. Oh, and if things don’t change on a worldwide scale in a big way, everybody else will be gone too. Lord knows we certainly are on a high speed rail path toward the nearest cliff.

  • acat

    My guess is the S&P didn’t look *just* at how much debt we’re carrying, but also at culturally whether it’s sustainable (hint: no) and at what we could do about it (hint: inflation) short of a default.

    Inflation kills value, but isn’t itself a default, and historically, there’s no reason to believe the government is able – regardless of tax scheme – of fleecing more than 18% of GDP. It’s been done, on rare occasions, but the critical point to look at is the 1970s… Taxes went up – way up, top rate was insane – and .. revenues fell because everyone sheltered money rather than trying to grow it.

    Other countries (France) may be demographic time bombs, but they’re structured differently – culturally, not just fiscally – to absorb those expenses and then collapse.

    Won’t happen that way here. Perhaps S&P is smart enough to realize it.

    Mew

  • toothpick

    1. The downgrade is actually the result of Geithner & Obama’s irresponsible comments that they might not pay bondholders if the debt deal wasn’t done by some deadline, irrespective of cash flow to the US Gov’t. If the Executive Branch chooses not to pay, it’s a default. By telegraphing a willingness to make that choice, they reduced the previously rock-solid confidence investors previously had that US Gov’t bonds would always, always be paid in full and on-time.

    2. The explanation for the downgrade had to be phrased in such a way that both parties could save face and claim it wasn’t exclusively their fault. Especially since the Dems are in power and have shown a willingness to take vengeance via the regulatory apparatus of the all-powerful State. Otherwise S&P was at-risk of significant reprisals by the Obama administration.

    Just my theories…

  • drivlikejehu

    Yeah well if a country collapses before your bond matures, then you get nothing. Would you rather have a bond partially or even largely devalued by inflation, or zero?

    Even that misses the point because everything is connected. The US government will be the last domino to fall and that makes US bonds the safest. That’s why investors won’t really change their behavior regardless of the S&P rating.

    The inflation threat is really all about timing. High rates are not on the immediate horizon. Future inflation is dicey to predict because failures elsewhere in the world could lead the dollar to rise without the US doing anything. Moderate levels are a certainty- but that leads back to the fact even a poor return is better than nothing.

  • Risky

    S&P have to give a judgement on the whether your principalor income are at risk. Sure the principal isn’t at risk unless the fed runs out of ink, but certainty of income is clearly at risk given what happened last week. I don’t see how anyone could reread the news and think there was no risk of a default on interest payments.

    That said it shouldn’t affect the cost of funding and it was necessary for you to hold the line on spending this time. I hope that you can drive forward to offering an alternative to the liberal ostrich consensus where sacred cows such as retirement age, defined benefit pensions and the rest get in the firing line and the government if forced to put forward a budget that makes more sense than the story I read to my daughter at night!

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    I think Obama’s reckless default threats were taken by the markets as real risk that Obama is so political and incompetent that he would default on purpose, even with the cash on hand to pay int on debt to creditors, as a political tactic.

  • clintonformccain

    I’m not a particularly strong fan of the Tea Party effort, but it seems literally insane to blame the Tea Party for the United States having too much debt.

    For all their flaws, the Tea Party movement does stand above the crowd as the one group consistently screaming that the US has too much deficit spending and we should do something about it instead of twiddling our thumbs.

  • http://nerds4cain.com Brookhaven

    and everyone knows they’re lying. That’s the really sad part.

    It has gotten to the point that spinning events your way (even if it means telling a bald-faced lie) is more important that simply saying what everyone knows is true: our credit rating was downgraded, because the size of our debt has grown so large that serious people doubt we will ever be able to pay it back.

    When did it become OK to lie?

    I’m tired of being lied to. I’m just tired of it.

  • Francis Cianfrocca

    At least he has said he is in the recent past. (If he’s still net short, he got killed today.) In any case, his statements are self-serving, so discount appropriately.

    Warren Buffett said the opposite, but he’s long the stock market and he owns an insurance company (which means he’s operationally long Treasuries). Also talking his book.

    And I say this as someone who thinks Buffett is the best stock investor in the world, and Bill is the best bond investor in the world.

  • romeg

    Here’s why.

    The specter of Default was a Red Herring. The U.S. government neither would nor could default in its debt because it is Constitutionally obligated to HONOR those debts. Besides, The Federal Government has Constitutional Authority to print and coin money. Since all of our debts are denominated in Dollars, those debts and obligations would have been met.

    But Obama and company wanted to scare the living crap out of anyone who would listen in the belief that they would be able to seize the high ground and make the Republicans, especially the Tea Party Republicans look bad.

    The failed and their failure now has dire consequences for everyone.

  • doncorleone

    Much of the “stimulus” money floated out of the u.s. and into euro-union banks. Who loaned the u.s. govt. the bulk of that cash? The p.r.c.. Their 2 biggest competitors financially collapsing @ the same time. Germany will discontinue fronting the rest of the euro-union cash. Look for more strange bedfellows in the near future, if they haven’t done so already.

  • acat

    (nothing further)

  • asleep06

    “If the US is AA+ or whatever, then there is no longer such thing as AAA.”

    Yes, that’s the case. There no longer is AAA because our global financial system is intertwined, fragile, and under pressure. We should not act as if our credit risk is the same as it was 20 or 30 years ago (AAA). It objectively isn’t. We almost had a global financial meltdown three years ago.

    Just because we’re the safest bet doesn’t mean we’re what we used to be.

  • MOlsen6

    right. But let’s be totally honest, $4 Trillion in cuts won’t get it done … Tom Coburn is right, we need about $9-$10 Trillion in cuts. And no, not all of them can be backloaded.

  • drivlikejehu

    Food prices are killing me- I’m broke as it is- but that’s only one part of the overall picture. The Fed has cooked up a nasty combination of inflationary and deflationary pressures, which have rarely if ever existed at the same time before. The result is horrible for growth but does keep inflation mostly under control for now- with the exception of certain commodities, or goods whose prices are largely determined by them.

  • fmaidment

    …why weren’t we down-graded when the deficit hit 40% of expenditures and 11% of GDP, with the expectation that we’d only be spending even more? That’s just totally unsustainable, and S&P, Moody’s and everybody else knows it.

    Of course, we could always do like the Italians and just start investigating S&P, instead of actually dealing with the problem…

  • snowshooze

    And Schumer… maybe Dodd & Frank…

  • melbedewy

    they tell you what other country with a higher than 100% Debt-GDP ratio has, or ever had, a AAA rating.
    Hint-the answer is lower than the number of states either McGovern or Mondale won.

  • doncorleone

    Brought up a good question. What happens to the dozen states that own triple A ratings? None of them had an answer, I know someone ’round here does.

  • carolina

    The biggest maleducated elitist idiot appears to be our President. He came on the TV at 2:00 p.m. when the market was down 390 points and he proceeded to blame, then call for increased taxes, continued consumption spending and the extension of a useless keynesian pay roll tax cut. The market sold off 150 pts during and immediately after his speech. He simply poured fuel on the fire and confirmed that the push was on to force an increase in taxes by the end of this year. Of course the market continued to sell off right into the close, ending down 635. It would only have ended down 250 if he didn’t make a speech.

    Until somebody in Europe, China or the US starts to talk about growth, this will get uglier and uglier.

  • carolina

    I don’t understand the details…… but some 5 or 6 states were said to be subject to a downgrade if the fed was downgraded. The only state I remember for certain is SC. TN may have been another state on the list. It has something to do with the structure of their finances.

  • carolina

    I don’t understand the details…… but some 5 or 6 states were said to be subject to a downgrade if the fed was downgraded. The only state I remember for certain is SC. TN may have been another state on the list. It has something to do with the structure of their finances.

  • snowshooze

    The haters hate him less, and the lovers love him more.
    If he want’s to be re-elected his most obvious best strategy would just be to shut up.
    Fortunantly… there is just no way he could do that.

  • snowshooze

    OMG.. this is unreal. —link—

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/08/senate-banking-committee-probing-sp-downgrade/

    They will stop at nothing.

  • Next93

    To have a math error pointed out by Timmy the Tax Cheat Geitner has *got* to be a bit embarassing.

  • 6eorge Jetson

    Obama’s $4 Trillion unspecified speech debt reductions are outdone by Inspector Clouseau’s $2 Trillion overstatement.

    And since $2 Trillion is really a small amount given the unfunded liabilities we’re staring down, in the end, Inspector Clouseau wins the day.

  • carolina

    None of them understand anything about business to start with. They keep embarrassing themselves – often on live tv!

  • johnCV

    but I suspect it’s the photo below the fold that keeps you coming back….

  • bk

    S&P didn’t downgrade us until we had our first non-white president, so clearly it had to be a decision based on race not fact.

  • bk

    criticizing Bush for failing to “connect the dots” when it was the Clinton-Gorelick “wall” that made it impossible/illegal to connect those dots.

  • runner12

    S&P’s downgrade is bogus or not. Their assertion that we spend too much and need to tackle entitlements is accurate.

    No one is cheering S&P as the epitome of business integrity or accuracy ( can you say Fannie and Freddie?). But in this instance, their analysis of the trajectory of spending in this country is backed by fact. There is no arguing with it.

    S&P may have actually done us a favor. They say with addicts, the bottom sometimes needs to be brought up to the addict rather than waiting for the addict to hit rock bottom on their own. Maybe this will be a wake up call to the spending and big government addicts in Washington to sober up and rehabilitate themselves.

  • bk

    The drop was because Obama convinced the world that the tea party really is a bunch of racist, intransigent, terrorist, hostage-taking suicide bombers who spend 24/7 trying to dream up ways to force us to default.

  • bk

    They still feel the answer is more stimulus, “investment”, entitlements, spending, and taxes. The combo they desire is:
    - real tax hikes
    - real defense cuts
    - fake cuts (i.e. increased spending) everywhere else

  • lastgopinillinois

    Why are democrats claiming that the Republicans are trying to destroy Medicare?
    We know that it is really the democrats who are harming medicare. Who stole 500 Billion from Medicare to fund Obamacare. Who came up with additional Medicare cuts in the debt “deal” (to use as a gun at the Republicans if they dont agree to tax increases)?
    The reason for both…..So they can use those to blame and demogogue the Republicans and make themselves look good in the eyes of the public.

  • drfredc

    S & P got it right, especially for long term bond investments.

    By the time these sorts of investments bought today are cashed in, with the way federal spending, entitlements, deficits and debts are going, they’ll be paying out diddle poop in adjusted inflation because the only way the US will balance anything in their current mindset it printing more (inflated) Obama dollars. Which means these investments are crap…

    Frankly, the US is lucky they only got downgraded a tiny notch…

  • 6eorge Jetson

    from what would have been a further fall

  • JSobieski

    While the US deserved a decrease, ratings are supposed to be consist across the various rated entities.

    In the same way that it is logically incoherent for a state to have a AAA rating while the US has a lower rating, it is also incoherent for any almost any other nation to have a AAA rating while the US is not.

    The global economy presumes a US that is in decent financial shape. Look at the Greek situation and see how things have snowballed. Greece is an extremely small economy.

    The US is Greece with Kryptonian steroids. We go down, even “good” credit risks will go down.

    So the bottom line is that if the US is going to be downgraded, so should all of the other AAA countries. Canada (God bless them and their conservative reforms) cannot be definition be more financially secure than the US. Should the US default, Canada will be a photon within the debt horizon of the black hole.

    Bottom Line: The ratings are not logically consistent if another country is given a higher rating.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    What is your evidence? It seems to me that although we are in a global economy, that it is perfectly possible for some nations to be doing well while others languish.

    In fact that is happening as we speak. Or did you not know that some parts of the world, parts of Asia, are in an economic boom right now?

  • acat

    The French have been willing to burn huge (30-50 range, IIRC) percentages of GDP in government-owned furnaces, unlike the U.S. where the government getting more than 18% of GDP is highly unusual.

    France is, ironically, better *culturally* suited to pay for its’ ongoing debt service. They’ll crack up, but it’ll be due to their reduced birth rates and imported labor, not debt… and that crack-up is out past 2030.

    The U.S. will have to default unless. Couple choice.

    We could pass the debt from the government onto our citizens via either a hyperinflation or a stagflation.

    We could change our culture to be more like the high-tax-tolerant europeans.

    We could trade our government in for a much more thrifty model.

    Given that the net effect – to value investors – of hyperinflation/stagflation and a defautl are similar, S&P must downgrade. I don’t see us becoming more european. Clearly, the only thing that could have prevented this is changing government, and .. we didn’t do that in 2010.

    Mew

  • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

    First the prayer meeting, and now the center of the conservative universe.

    The man knows which core groups will carry him to victory.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    Speaking strictly, if all one uses is the metric of ability to meet obligations then the USA should not have had it?s credit rating downgraded. But if one uses the more subjective metric of direction, then we did deserve it.

    What is meant by direction? Well, just as though we were a company drowning in debt, the creditors of that company would want to know what the company executives were doing about the debt. Did they have a plan to pay it off, or were they just borrowing more? What direction were they headed?

    Anyone can see that we are headed in the wrong direction.

  • davesinsanantonio

    Timmy I’m Too Dumb To Understand Turbo Tax Geitner.

  • davesinsanantonio

    But, of course, it’s Bush’s fault! Or, the racist TEA Party’s. Or, maybe, it’s the fault of the racist American voters. Or, maybe imperialistic Great Britain’s. Or, at least Churchill’s. Or, . . .

  • davesinsanantonio

    aren’t leaders except in the sense that the True Believers sheepily follow wherever they wander.

  • davesinsanantonio

    The Republican “leadership” aren’t really leaders either, since they are squishes and without a backbone they don’t really stand for anything except re-election.

  • davesinsanantonio

    the old “ignore that man behind the curtain” ploy. Maybe, that one will work because you have his sycophantic bootlicking, thrill up the leg, crease in his pants admiring lapdogs of the MSM to help pull the curtain closed and to silently trumpet that message by attacking everyone else on the planet instead of actually REPORTING anything close to the facts.

  • davesinsanantonio

    porcine 747s roll down the runway for takeoff.

  • davesinsanantonio

    Obummer is one of those pathologicals who would rather lie than tell the truth, even if the truth would help his cause better. This is because telling the lie makes him feel as if he is creating something, it gives him a feeling of power. And, if he can get you to believe it, that gives him even more of that feeling, because he has manipulated you. Facts don’t give him that emotional and psychological boost, but lies do.
    And, he’s not the only one!

  • davesinsanantonio

    the Constitution stand in their way. They have shown nothing but disdain for the Constitution. It was part of Obummer’s campaign talk–not in his stump speeches, but in his interviews with his drooling supporters in the media. He would dump the Constitution in a heartbeat if he thought he could get away with it, and may still try it if he gets desperate enough.

  • davesinsanantonio

    that pig look good!!!

  • gunslingr45

    problem is people like this lady at about 2:06 in this video.
    http://www.freedomtorch.com/videos/16271/7843/obama-and-facebook-the-social-i
    There are so many now that we may not recover IMHO.

    “A Nation of Sheep will beget a Government of Wolves.” — Edward R. Murrow
    I don’t think he was kidding.

  • midwest

    Egan Jones is said to be much more reputable than S&P or Moody?s, and they downgraded US debt to AA+ a couple weeks ago.

  • JSobieski

    Once Greece went down, it brought Europe to its knees. Imagine what would happen to Euirope and elsewhere is the US went down.

    It wouldn’t just be Europe either, as Japan and China (i.e. anyone who is anyone) are heavy holders of US treasuries.

    Clearly some countres can do well well others do not, but the credit rating isn’t supposed to be about general “how are you doing now”. Rather it is supposed to be about the future probability that you can’t pay your bills in the future. Contingencies like wars, political strife, etc impact a credit rating. Accordingly, the increased credit risk of the US really should impact the credit rating of every state, as well as foreign countries.

    If there is an X% of US default in the future, no major country in the world can securely vouch for a risk of default that is less than X. Everyone holds T-bills. Everyone’s big banks hold T-bills.

    The US is both indispensible as well as exceptional.

  • momofthecastle

    nt

  • stevej

    I think Erick is on to something in the sense that Obama is a poor President and S&P is a joke.

    Those are not mutually exclusive statements, so they can both be true.

    We have a lousy economy, the overarching problem in Washington is spending, and we have an unacceptable unemployment rate. These things can be laid squarely at Obama’s doorstep and it resonates with the public.

    The whole S&P thing is annoying because it muddies the waters. Whatever S&P’s rational, they made a claim that U.S. T-Bills are something other than triple A. That is absurd. There’s no other word for it.

    So I don’t think articles should use S&P as the basis for much of anything.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    In a way other nations are not tied to us. Although most hold T-Bills, the amount held varies greatly. Naturally the slow global economy hurts everyone to some extent, but the world does not revolve around us quite as much as you think it does.

  • JSobieski

    You don’t think those same European banks hold US T-bills?

    Want to bet what they hold more of, US T-bills or Greek debt?

    You underestimate the role of the US dollar as the reserve currency, and how US t-bills are the mechanism for making the US dollar the reserve currency.