U.S. may lose top credit rating soon, Moody's says

[Too Tall]

Raising the debt ceiling is the responsibility of Congress.

So is cutting spending to balance the budget.

You can't pay a $13 trillion dollar debt just by cutting spending.

But thanks for playing...

The debt is closer to $14.4 Trillion and you can damned well stop adding to it by the amount of spending that is cut.

 

[Too Tall]

I'm seriously asking about the highlighted part.

A self-described conservative, Bush 43, attacks Afghanistan and botches the hunt for bin Laden, resulting in the totally unbelievable presidential statement that he doesn't spend much time thinking about OBL. WTF?

Attack Iraq for nonexistent WMD? What's up with that?

Can't get to New Orleans for four friggin' days after Katrina? I could have driven to NO in my car in one day!

Prescription drug benefit (Medicare D) with NO bargaining for the lowest cost?

Going to bring down our credit rating because they won't raise the debt ceiling or taxes? WTF?

I'm sick of this argument that not raising the debt limit is doing something to threaten the country's credit rating.

Think about it: Greece's debt, spread evenly to every family, would be a burden of $40,000. Here in America it would be $45,000, and the left and Obama want us to believe that not increasing that number to $50,000 would hurt the country's credit yeah right. 63% of Americans, over 50% on all polls, the plurality of America is against this president.

What is it with conservatives that you guys are SO willing to reject reality in favor of a faith in your own beliefs, which aren't even backed up by any factual support? I mean, it's really mystifying.

Take the attack on Iraq for example. I didn't even include one of the post Iraq invasion fiascos which is now as clear as 20/20 hindsight, although it was perfectly clear to military experts prior to the invasion.

If you're going to invade a country with over 30 million people who have historical divisions along religious, ethnic, and tribal lines, take enough troops to secure the post invasion occupation. Despite warnings from Colin Powell (you remember the Powell Doctrine, right) and a large number of Generals), Bush and Rumsfeld just dismissed their concerns and plowed ahead with an inadequate force because they had "faith" that they were right. They weren't!

And here we are with the debt ceiling, and idiots who have NO idea what they're talking about claim that there is no threat to America's credit rating in the face of an overwhelming number of experts in business and the financial sector who say otherwise. Which side has more professional credibility?

I remember that Colin Powell was the Secretary of State and Bush relied on the Joint Chiefs of Staff for military advice on Iraq. How long did it take to wipe out the Iraqi armed resistance? Two, three months? Bush attacked in late March and captured Saddam Hussein in December.

 

[KissMy]

China's Dagong Global Credit downgrades US credit rating.

S&P & Moody’s warn of downgrade.

Moody's

The AAA ratings of financial institutions directly linked to the U.S. government, including Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Home Loan Banks, and the Federal Farm Credit Banks, were also put on review for cuts, Moody’s said. It also placed 7,000 municipal ratings on review for possible downgrade.

 

[Too Tall]

What is it with conservatives that you guys are SO willing to reject reality in favor of a faith in your own beliefs, which aren't even backed up by any factual support? I mean, it's really mystifying.

Take the attack on Iraq for example. I didn't even include one of the post Iraq invasion fiascos which is now as clear as 20/20 hindsight, although it was perfectly clear to military experts prior to the invasion.

If you're going to invade a country with over 30 million people who have historical divisions along religious, ethnic, and tribal lines, take enough troops to secure the post invasion occupation. Despite warnings from Colin Powell (you remember the Powell Doctrine, right) and a large number of Generals), Bush and Rumsfeld just dismissed their concerns and plowed ahead with an inadequate force because they had "faith" that they were right. They weren't!

And here we are with the debt ceiling, and idiots who have NO idea what they're talking about claim that there is no threat to America's credit rating in the face of an overwhelming number of experts in business and the financial sector who say otherwise. Which side has more professional credibility?

Hey, genius.... if you are having trouble paying your debts at current levels, piling more debt on isn't going to help. In your world if you can't make the payments at $14,000,000,000,000, let's bump it up to $16,000,000,000,000?

And frankly.. WTF does the Powell Doctrine have to do with any of this?

Raising the debt ceiling is not the cause of increasing our debt. It's already going up due to our need to borrow money to meet our current debt obligations. So, NOT raising the debt ceiling is just plain stupid BECAUSE the subsequent rise in interest rates that would take place from any default WOULD increase our debt, both public AND private.

If you don't understand the comparison, I can't help you.

Have you ever thought that cutting current spending would result in "our current debt obligations?" being less in the future?

 

[Flopper]

Been there , done that, got the t-shirt.

I , AGAIN - remind you that the US defaulted - declared bankruptcy in 1935.

FDR and his statist and socialist cronies went much further than that, however. Rather than simply reducing the gold content in the U.S. dollar (as kings had done throughout history) and rather than simply making the federal government’s bills and notes legal tender, the federal government went much further down the road that Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, and the communist Soviet Union were traveling.

By confiscating gold, making gold ownership illegal, and making its bills and notes irredeemable (in terms of what they had promised to pay), the federal government was doing its best to ensure that the American people could never protect themselves from the government’s ability to plunder and loot them through the Federal Reserve System’s inflationary policies.

Economic Liberty and the Constitution, Part 10

.

Tell me that you're not comparing going off the gold standard to truly defaulting on our debt obligations!

HUH?

WTF?

Tell me that you understand that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REFUSED TO HONOR ITS DEBT OBLIGATIONS WHEN IT REFUSED TO HONOR GOLD CERTIFICATES BECAUSE IT HAD ISSUED TOO MANY

When Liabilities exceed assets you are bankrupt. Plain and simple,

Over and out.

.

Not so. You're bankrupt when you can't pay your bills.

 

[Chris]

Talking about learning from mistakes let's , adress the first time the fuckers defaulted, circa 1935.

Back then the bastard hads printed to much paper money. When the people tried to redeem the same Uncle Sam couldn't and defaulted.

The Lesson was LEARN TO LIVE WITHIN YOUR MEANS.

The fuckers, of course, ignored it.

Hopefully losing their credit rating will force the mo'fo's to live withing their means.

.

Reagan and the two Bushes created 93% of the National Debt by lowering taxes for the rich. Go to reaganbushdebt.com to see the numbers.

Now we need to raise taxes and cut spending.

Have the Republicans learned their lesson?

No.

I see.

So then , did the democrats lower expenditures?

.

Clinton raised taxes and cut spending and balanced the bugdet.

Clinton left Bush with a budget surplus, a strong economy, and a nation at peace.

Bush left Obama with a trillion dollar deficit, a shattered economy, and two useless wars.

 

[bripat9643]

Whether you are sick or not about this is irrelevant. What matters is what the ratings agencies say.

You keep bringing up this 63% of people saying we shouldn't raise the debt ceiling. Do you believe that if two-thirds of the country says something, we should do it?

So we shouldn't raise taxes on the rich? Is that what you're trying to say?

 

[bripat9643]

I have a friend that's a broker. He said on a conference call with with some analysts the subject of the debit limit came up. He said, the opinion on the Street is total disbelief that Congress would not come together and resolve this issue.

The financial consequences are so great, it is unimaginable that any group of sane people would allow this to happen, but then whoever said we are dealing with sane people.

You don't even need a college diploma to be a broker, and we should listen to this goofball why?

 

[grunt11b]

<sigh>

Can't conservatives ever do ANYTHING (as in being involved in governance) without the result being a disaster or a disaster in the making?



http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&where1=NEW YORK&sty=h&form=msdate

NEW YORK — The United States may lose its top-notch credit rating in the next few weeks if lawmakers fail to increase the country's debt ceiling, forcing the government to miss debt payments, Moody's Investors Service warned Wednesday.

"The review of the U.S. government's bond rating is prompted by the possibility that the debt limit will not be raised in time to prevent a missed payment of interest or principal on outstanding bonds and notes," Moody's said in a statement. "As such, there is a small but rising risk of a short-lived default."

Moody's was the first among the big-three rating agencies to place the United States' Aaa rating on review for a possible downgrade, which means a negative rating action is impending.

U.S. may lose top credit rating soon - Moody's - Business - Stocks & economy - msnbc.com

http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&where1=NEW YORK&sty=h&form=msdatehttp://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&where1=NEW YORK&sty=h&form=msdate

You guys have no idea just how good of news this is!!!!! This is awesome, maybe now we can go back to the gold standard and the government won't be able to manipulate it's value like they did the dollar!!!! Awesome news man!!! Thanks for posting!!!!

 

[Mustang]

<sigh>

Can't conservatives ever do ANYTHING (as in being involved in governance) without the result being a disaster or a disaster in the making?



http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&where1=NEW YORK&sty=h&form=msdate

NEW YORK — The United States may lose its top-notch credit rating in the next few weeks if lawmakers fail to increase the country's debt ceiling, forcing the government to miss debt payments, Moody's Investors Service warned Wednesday.

"The review of the U.S. government's bond rating is prompted by the possibility that the debt limit will not be raised in time to prevent a missed payment of interest or principal on outstanding bonds and notes," Moody's said in a statement. "As such, there is a small but rising risk of a short-lived default."

Moody's was the first among the big-three rating agencies to place the United States' Aaa rating on review for a possible downgrade, which means a negative rating action is impending.

U.S. may lose top credit rating soon - Moody's - Business - Stocks & economy - msnbc.com

You guys have no idea just how good of news this is!!!!! This is awesome, maybe now we can go back to the gold standard and the government won't be able to manipulate it's value like they did the dollar!!!! Awesome news man!!! Thanks for posting!!!!

I'm probably going to regret this, but what exactly would be the benefit to the US of going back on the Gold Standard?

 

[Mustang]

How does it go?

Republicans are afraid to raise revenues by closing loopholes or repealing the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% of earners because they believe they'll lose house seats (and maybe some senate seats) next year because of their pledge to Grover Norquist to not "raise" taxes? That's the logic, right?

Well, what do republicans think is going to happen to their election prospects if the US goes into some kind of partial default or if the gov't has to partially shut down and the US credit rating is downgraded?

My feeling is that Republicans would probably be voted out of power for a generation.

Treasury cash squeeze would wreak economic havoc - Business - Eye on the Economy - msnbc.com

 

[Chris]

How does it go?

Republicans are afraid to raise revenues by closing loopholes or repealing the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% of earners because they believe they'll lose house seats (and maybe some senate seats) next year because of their pledge to Grover Norquist to not "raise" taxes? That's the logic, right?

Well, what do republicans think is going to happen to their election prospects of the US goes into some kind of partial default or if the gov't has to partially shut down and the US credit rating is downgraded?

My feeling is that Republicans would probably be voted out of power for a generation.

Treasury cash squeeze would wreak economic havoc - Business - Eye on the Economy - msnbc.com

The Republicans want to destroy Social Security and Medicare by bankrupting the government.

I believe they will succeed.

 

[Trajan]

I think its time to note, or remind those that may have forgotten, that default is not really the question, its were we go from there.....the problem does not end at raising the ceiling;


Will coming debt ceiling deal save America&#8217;s AAA credit rating?
Jul 15, 2011 07:34 EDT

Keeping America&#8217;s gold-plated credit rating may take both a deal to raise the debt ceiling (which will happen) and a meaningful deficit reduction plan of around $4 trillion (which is not happening).

Moody&#8217;s says it wants a &#8221;deficit trajectory that leads to stabilization and then decline in the ratios of federal government to GDP and debt to revenue beginning within the next few years.&#8221; And here is Standard & Poor&#8217;s in a report released last night:

If a debt ceiling agreement does not include a plan that seems likely to us to credibly stabilize the U.S.&#8217; medium-term debt dynamics but the result of the debt ceiling negotiations leads us to believe that such a plan could be negotiated within a few months, all other things unchanged, we expect to affirm both the long- and short-term ratings and assign a negative outlook, If such an agreement is reached, but we do not believe that it likely will stabilize the U.S.&#8217; debt dynamics, we, again all other things unchanged, would expect to lower the long-term &#8216;AAA rating, affirm the &#8216;A-1+&#8217; short-term rating, and assign a negative outlook on the long-term rating.


and


Looking at the most likely scenario out there right now, Goldman Sachs has its doubts (bold is mine):

&#8220;Using our baseline projections as a starting point, the $1.7trn agreement we outline would represent substantial progress, but would probably fall short of Moody&#8217;s criteria. That said, we view any agreement that is reached this year as a first step; tax and entitlement reform efforts look likely following the election in 2013. With a cyclically-adjusted primary deficit of around 6% of GDP in 2011, additional consolidation clearly will be necessary, and thus we view this as the first round of what will ultimately need to be multiple deficit reduction measures over the next few years.&#8221;


James Pethokoukis | Analysis & Opinion | Reuters.com



we may get past the debt ceiling for now, but the underlying and critical issue remains.

 

[Flopper]

<sigh>

Can't conservatives ever do ANYTHING (as in being involved in governance) without the result being a disaster or a disaster in the making?



http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&where1=NEW YORK&sty=h&form=msdate

You guys have no idea just how good of news this is!!!!! This is awesome, maybe now we can go back to the gold standard and the government won't be able to manipulate it's value like they did the dollar!!!! Awesome news man!!! Thanks for posting!!!!

I'm probably going to regret this, but what exactly would be the benefit to the US of going back on the Gold Standard?

The benefit of a gold standard is that money is backed by a fixed asset. It provides a self-regulating and stabilizing effect on the economy. The government can only print as much money as its country has in gold. This discourages inflation, which is too much money chasing too few goods. It also discourages government budget deficits and debt, which can't exceed the supply of gold.

There is just a couple of itsy bitsy problems. First, the U.S. does not even have enough gold, at current rates, to pay off just the portion of its debt owed to foreign governments, much less enough to back our currency and pay off internal debt. Second, the gold standard causes countries to become obsessed with keeping their gold, rather than improving the business climate. Lastly, it would isolate the US in world trade. I don't believe there are any countries that 100% on gold standard.

Every time there is looming financial crisis, reactionaries beat the drum to return to the gold standard. The scenario as best I can determine it is; since we don't have enough gold to make good on our foreign debt we just refuse to pay it, at least not in gold then we back our currency with as much gold as we have. Our trading partners would fall by the wayside. America would puts it's people to work digging goldmines. It's kind of a doomsday strategy.

http://useconomy.about.com/b/2008/04/02/should-the-us-return-to-a-gold-standard.htm

 

[Mustang]

You guys have no idea just how good of news this is!!!!! This is awesome, maybe now we can go back to the gold standard and the government won't be able to manipulate it's value like they did the dollar!!!! Awesome news man!!! Thanks for posting!!!!

I'm probably going to regret this, but what exactly would be the benefit to the US of going back on the Gold Standard?

The benefit of a gold standard is that money is backed by a fixed asset. It provides a self-regulating and stabilizing effect on the economy. The government can only print as much money as its country has in gold. This discourages inflation, which is too much money chasing too few goods. It also discourages government budget deficits and debt, which can't exceed the supply of gold.

There is just a couple of itsy bitsy problems. First, the U.S. does not even have enough gold, at current rates, to pay off just the portion of its debt owed to foreign governments, much less enough to back our currency and pay off internal debt. Second, the gold standard causes countries to become obsessed with keeping their gold, rather than improving the business climate. Lastly, it would isolate the US in world trade. I don't believe there are any countries that 100% on gold standard.

Every time there is looming financial crisis, reactionaries beat the drum to return to the gold standard. The scenario as best I can determine it is; since we don't have enough gold to make good on our foreign debt we just refuse to pay it, at least not in gold then we back our currency with as much gold as we have. Our trading partners would fall by the wayside. America would puts it's people to work digging goldmines. It's kind of a doomsday strategy.

Should the U.S. Return to a Gold Standard?

Where are we supposed to get all this gold?

 

[Flopper]

I think its time to note, or remind those that may have forgotten, that default is not really the question, its were we go from there.....the problem does not end at raising the ceiling;


Will coming debt ceiling deal save America&#8217;s AAA credit rating?
Jul 15, 2011 07:34 EDT

Keeping America&#8217;s gold-plated credit rating may take both a deal to raise the debt ceiling (which will happen) and a meaningful deficit reduction plan of around $4 trillion (which is not happening).

Moody&#8217;s says it wants a &#8221;deficit trajectory that leads to stabilization and then decline in the ratios of federal government to GDP and debt to revenue beginning within the next few years.&#8221; And here is Standard & Poor&#8217;s in a report released last night:

If a debt ceiling agreement does not include a plan that seems likely to us to credibly stabilize the U.S.&#8217; medium-term debt dynamics but the result of the debt ceiling negotiations leads us to believe that such a plan could be negotiated within a few months, all other things unchanged, we expect to affirm both the long- and short-term ratings and assign a negative outlook, If such an agreement is reached, but we do not believe that it likely will stabilize the U.S.&#8217; debt dynamics, we, again all other things unchanged, would expect to lower the long-term &#8216;AAA rating, affirm the &#8216;A-1+&#8217; short-term rating, and assign a negative outlook on the long-term rating.


and


Looking at the most likely scenario out there right now, Goldman Sachs has its doubts (bold is mine):

&#8220;Using our baseline projections as a starting point, the $1.7trn agreement we outline would represent substantial progress, but would probably fall short of Moody&#8217;s criteria. That said, we view any agreement that is reached this year as a first step; tax and entitlement reform efforts look likely following the election in 2013. With a cyclically-adjusted primary deficit of around 6% of GDP in 2011, additional consolidation clearly will be necessary, and thus we view this as the first round of what will ultimately need to be multiple deficit reduction measures over the next few years.&#8221;


James Pethokoukis | Analysis & Opinion | Reuters.com



we may get past the debt ceiling for now, but the underlying and critical issue remains.

The problem I see with any agreement is it can be changed by congress at any time. What would actually happen, I believe is that a crisis would arise such as another deep recession. Voters would demand the government do something and Congress respond with tax cuts or increased government spending, probably both and the agreement would be worthless.

 

[Flopper]

I'm probably going to regret this, but what exactly would be the benefit to the US of going back on the Gold Standard?

The benefit of a gold standard is that money is backed by a fixed asset. It provides a self-regulating and stabilizing effect on the economy. The government can only print as much money as its country has in gold. This discourages inflation, which is too much money chasing too few goods. It also discourages government budget deficits and debt, which can't exceed the supply of gold.

There is just a couple of itsy bitsy problems. First, the U.S. does not even have enough gold, at current rates, to pay off just the portion of its debt owed to foreign governments, much less enough to back our currency and pay off internal debt. Second, the gold standard causes countries to become obsessed with keeping their gold, rather than improving the business climate. Lastly, it would isolate the US in world trade. I don't believe there are any countries that 100% on gold standard.

Every time there is looming financial crisis, reactionaries beat the drum to return to the gold standard. The scenario as best I can determine it is; since we don't have enough gold to make good on our foreign debt we just refuse to pay it, at least not in gold then we back our currency with as much gold as we have. Our trading partners would fall by the wayside. America would puts it's people to work digging goldmines. It's kind of a doomsday strategy.

Should the U.S. Return to a Gold Standard?

Where are we supposed to get all this gold?

As I said we would put all our unemployed to work digging for gold and since there would be a worldwide recession, we would have plenty of manpower.

 

[Contumacious]

I think your question might actually be an insight as to why so many conservatives don't seem to learn from past examples of being both wrong and in denial at the same time. They just refuse to learn from their mistakes. I guess ignorance IS bliss...for some people.

Talking about learning from mistakes let's , adress the first time the fuckers defaulted, circa 1935.

Back then the bastard hads printed to much paper money. When the people tried to redeem the same Uncle Sam couldn't and defaulted.

The Lesson was LEARN TO LIVE WITHIN YOUR MEANS.

The fuckers, of course, ignored it.

Hopefully losing their credit rating will force the mo'fo's to live withing their means.

.

You do understand, don't you, that YOU would also be personally screwed in your finances if the cost for you to borrow (and hence, pay back) money goes up? Is your political anger SO great that you would welcome that kind of news in your own personal life? What would you do then, blame Obama, when you, yourself, welcomed a default?

Yes, I fully understand that the federal government have dislocated our economy so bad that reducing the influence at this point in time is going to cause severe pain and inconvenience.

But the same thing would happen if my docotr was to tell me that I have cancer. So my dilemma then would be do I remove the tumor now or do I wait until it metastasizes.

Clearly, I must agree to the limited surgery and not wait until the problem compounds.

.

 

[Flopper]

Talking about learning from mistakes let's , adress the first time the fuckers defaulted, circa 1935.

Back then the bastard hads printed to much paper money. When the people tried to redeem the same Uncle Sam couldn't and defaulted.

The Lesson was LEARN TO LIVE WITHIN YOUR MEANS.

The fuckers, of course, ignored it.

Hopefully losing their credit rating will force the mo'fo's to live withing their means.

.

You do understand, don't you, that YOU would also be personally screwed in your finances if the cost for you to borrow (and hence, pay back) money goes up? Is your political anger SO great that you would welcome that kind of news in your own personal life? What would you do then, blame Obama, when you, yourself, welcomed a default?

Yes, I fully understand that the federal government have dislocated our economy so bad that reducing the influence at this point in time is going to cause severe pain and inconvenience.

But the same thing would happen if my docotr was to tell me that I have cancer. So my dilemma then would be do I remove the tumor now or do I wait until it metastasizes.

Clearly, I must agree to the limited surgery and not wait until the problem compounds.

.

Sounds more like a lobotomy

 

[Contumacious]

You do understand, don't you, that YOU would also be personally screwed in your finances if the cost for you to borrow (and hence, pay back) money goes up? Is your political anger SO great that you would welcome that kind of news in your own personal life? What would you do then, blame Obama, when you, yourself, welcomed a default?

Yes, I fully understand that the federal government have dislocated our economy so bad that reducing the influence at this point in time is going to cause severe pain and inconvenience.

But the same thing would happen if my docotr was to tell me that I have cancer. So my dilemma then would be do I remove the tumor now or do I wait until it metastasizes.

Clearly, I must agree to the limited surgery and not wait until the problem compounds.

.

Sounds more like a lobotomy

Sorry to hear that? Did they diagnose you with brain cancer?

Is that the reason your posts lack cohesion?

.