S&P Downgrades US Credit Rating to AA-Plus

  • Thread starter Thread starter MugenOne
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tangible assets like gold are always good in an inflationary environment. Even high quality diamond returns better than most form of investment.
ProVobis said:
Gold (delivered not paper) has survived many governments and all their bogus currencies and bonds.
Click to expand...
 
jomoco said:
Try actually reading page 4 of the s&p downgrade report itself to answer your question.

The S&P Credit Rating Downgrade Report states on Page 4: “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.”

And anyone who says different has not read the report.

Hate to pop your little teaparty bubbles boys, but it is what it is, despite wishful thinking.

jomoco
Click to expand...
This isn’t saying it fairly, Jomoco. If you read their report, they say they take “no position” regarding the spending/revenue debate. They say the following:

“We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related
fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the
growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an
agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and
will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal
consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week
falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the
general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.”

Theirs is an “equal opportunity” critique.
 
MugenOne said:
Tangible assets like gold are always good in an inflationary environment. Even high quality diamond returns better than most form of investment.
Click to expand...
Gold IS good in an environment like this-----but it is ALSO very risky.
 
MugenOne said:
Tangible assets like gold are always good in an inflationary environment. Even high quality diamond returns better than most form of investment.
Click to expand...
Certainly true. At the same time, such assets often have a massively lower utility value than the current price. In the late 1970s, gold came within a hair of $2,000(inflation adjusted), then spiraled down to about $250. ($500 in today’s dollars). The market for jewelry and gold foil is not what has gold at $1700, it’s the lack of faith in the U.S. government, which is why it was near $2,000 back in the late 1970s.

I see plenty of reason to have little faith in the government presently. The 2012 elections could change that, drastically and suddenly, just as the 1980 election did.

So maybe it’s a good speculative move, and maybe not.
 
Ridgerunner said:
This isn’t saying it fairly, Jomoco. If you read their report, they say they take “no position” regarding the spending/revenue debate. They say the following:

“We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related
fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the
growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an
agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and
will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal
consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week
falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the
general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.”

Theirs is an “equal opportunity” critique.
Click to expand...
The report says what it says friend.

That it specifically mentions the precise cause of our debt problem, the 01&03 bush taxcuts, only serves to highlight how irresponsible it is to lower taxes during wartime, and why there was no historical precedent for such foolishness prior to it becoming a reality under a neocon administration in control of all three branches of govt.

You guys act as if history has no relevance, and being dead wrong has no consequence politically.

Well reality is catching up to the teaparty, and for very valid and real reasons in my opinion.

jomoco
 
MugenOne said:
Tangible assets like gold are always good in an inflationary environment. Even high quality diamond returns better than most form of investment.
Click to expand...
If it’s leveraged, you can lose it. (Just like real estate.) But if you take full possession, it may drop in price, but you still have the gold (or the diamond).

That said, I now stay away from anything called “high quality,” including stamps and coins and whatever. When you turn around to sell it, chances are the prospective buyer won’t think it’s as high quality as you do. That premium you paid is vanished.

Hey, just like the stuff S&P rates. 🙂
 
jomoco said:
The report says what it says friend.

That it specifically mentions the precise cause of our debt problem, the 01&03 bush taxcuts, only serves to highlight how irresponsible it is to lower taxes during wartime, and why there was no historical precedent for such foolishness prior to it becoming a reality under a neocon administration in control of all three branches of govt.

You guys act as if history has no relevance, and being dead wrong has no consequence politically.

Well reality is catching up to the teaparty, and for very valid and real reasons in my opinion.

jomoco
Click to expand...
Absolute utter nonsense. The report points to the tax cuts as a factor, but not as “the precise cause.” As Ridgerunner says, it is equally critical of both sides of the aisle.
 
No matter which snippets from the S&P report you care to quote in support of your party; the country is paying a huge price in the stock market. Everyone with a 401K or other equity fund lost a great deal 3 years ago. Since this debate over the debt ceiling started the market has continued to tumble and wipe out any recovery made in the market.

In my opinion the childishness of our leadership in Washington has enkindled a financial wild fire that they are incapable of handling.
 
President Obama is about to give another speech, so all our problems are over.:rolleyes:
 
Ridgerunner said:
According to the article, the “plan” was “vote the debt ceiling increase now, all by itself. I’ll come up with $4 billion in cuts later.” That’s not a plan. But in truth, the bill that was passed isn’t a plan either. Not really. But it’s a lot closer to the Obama “plan” than to anyone else’s.
Click to expand...
"Mr. Obama at first demanded a "clean’’ debt limit bill, but entered into negotiations with Republicans, hoping for a “grand bargain’’ that would reduce deficits by $4 trillion over 10 years through spending cuts, entitlement changes and new tax revenue…”

You apparently stopped reading much beyond the words “at first”. In any case Congress historically produced clean debt limit bills signed by even Preisdents such as that conservative icon Ronald Reagan.
 
rlg94086 said:
Absolute utter nonsense. The report points to the tax cuts as a factor, but not as “the precise cause.” As Ridgerunner says, it is equally critical of both sides of the aisle.
Click to expand...
So how do you rationalize taxcuts during wartime friend?

That’s precisely what bush junior did, and where did it get us?

Do you actually deny that historically taxrates are increased to pay for an active war?

If so, then can you please give me an example documenting such fantasies?

jomoco
 
CMatt25 said:
"Mr. Obama at first demanded a "clean’’ debt limit bill, but entered into negotiations with Republicans, hoping for a “grand bargain’’ that would reduce deficits by $4 trillion over 10 years through spending cuts, entitlement changes and new tax revenue…”

You apparently stopped reading much beyond the words “at first”. In any case Congress historically produced clean debt limit bills signed by even Preisdents such as that conservative icon Ronald Reagan.
Click to expand...
A “clean” debt limit bill would probably have still led to a downgrade. If you read the report, our debt as a percentage of the GDP and the trajectory of our debt compared to our peers is what concerns the S&P. A “clean” debt limit bill would have addressed neither of those two concerns.
 
jomoco said:
The report says what it says friend.

That it specifically mentions the precise cause of our debt problem, the 01&03 bush taxcuts, only serves to highlight how irresponsible it is to lower taxes during wartime, and why there was no historical precedent for such foolishness prior to it becoming a reality under a neocon administration in control of all three branches of govt.

You guys act as if history has no relevance, and being dead wrong has no consequence politically.

Well reality is catching up to the teaparty, and for very valid and real reasons in my opinion.

jomoco
Click to expand...
I assume you are misstating what the statement says because your ideology will not allow you to see it as a whole, and not because of any intent to deceive.

The S&P statement very explicitly “takes no position” on the relative merits of the Democrat reluctance to cut spending and the Republican reluctance to raise taxes.

For some reason, I can no longer open the site you posted. Here’s another. I strongly encourage others to believe neither me nor Jomoco, but to read the statement yourselves.

standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563

Oh, yes, and the major Bush tax cuts were enacted before there was any war going on.
 
Ridgerunner said:
According to the article, the “plan” was “vote the debt ceiling increase now, all by itself. I’ll come up with $4 billion in cuts later.” That’s not a plan. But in truth, the bill that was passed isn’t a plan either. Not really. But it’s a lot closer to the Obama “plan” than to anyone else’s.
Click to expand...
His plan was to ‘invest’ in clean energy and education.
He seems to have left out any reference ot a chicken in every pot though.
 
CMatt25 said:
You apparently stopped reading much beyond the words “at first”. In any case Congress historically produced clean debt limit bills signed by even Preisdents such as that conservative icon Ronald Reagan.
Click to expand...
How many “clean” debt bills were passed when deficits were running more than 10% of GDP?
 
CMatt25 said:
"Mr. Obama at first demanded a "clean’’ debt limit bill, but entered into negotiations with Republicans, hoping for a “grand bargain’’ that would reduce deficits by $4 trillion over 10 years through spending cuts, entitlement changes and new tax revenue…”

You apparently stopped reading much beyond the words “at first”. In any case Congress historically produced clean debt limit bills signed by even Preisdents such as that conservative icon Ronald Reagan.
Click to expand...
Well, if I missed something, it would be good to see what I missed. It would be a kindness on your part to produce a respectable source actually quoting Obama in which he links the debt limit increase to a real $4 trillion dollar budget reduction, as well as Republican opposition to it. i would be particularly interested in seeing what his first year’s cuts would have been. Not reduced increases, but real cuts.

I’ll wait.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top