Attention Media: S&P Lacks Credibility
When reporting on Standard & Poor's recent downgrade of the U.S. credit rating and its assessments of the U.S. fiscal situation, media outlets should carefully examine the rating agency's credibility.
Congressional Commission: Rating Agencies "Key Enablers Of The Financial Meltdown." From the January 2011 Financial Crisis Inquiry Report:
We conclude the failures of credit rating agencies were essential cogs in the wheel of financial destruction. The three credit rating agencies [Standard & Poor's, Moody's, and Fitch Ratings] were key enablers of the financial meltdown. The mortgage-related securities at the heart of the crisis could not have been marketed and sold without their seal of approval. Investors relied on them, often blindly. In some cases, they were obligated to use them, or regulatory capital standards were hinged on them. This crisis could not have happened without the rating agencies. Their ratings helped the market soar and their downgrades through 2007 and 2008 wreaked havoc across markets and firms. [The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report, Final Report of the National Commission on the Causes of the Financial and Economic Crisis in the United States, January 2011, emphasis in original]
Initial S&P Downgrade Document Included "$2 Trillion Mistake." From an August 5 New York Times report:
S.& P. had prepared investors for the downgrade announcement with a series of warnings earlier this year that it would act if Congress did not agree to increase the government's borrowing limit and adopt a long-term plan for reducing its debts by at least $4 trillion over the next decade.
Earlier this week, President Obama signed into law a Congressional compromise that raised the debt ceiling but reduced the debt by at least $2.1 trillion.
On Friday, the company notified the Treasury that it planned to issue a downgrade after the markets closed, and sent the department a copy of the announcement, which is a standard procedure.
A Treasury staff member noticed the $2 trillion mistake within the hour, according to a department official. The Treasury called the company and explained the problem. About an hour later, the company conceded the problem but did not indicate how it planned to proceed, the official said. Hours later, S.& P. issued a revised release with new numbers but the same conclusion.
In a statement early Saturday morning, Standard & Poor's said the difference could be attributed to a "change in assumptions" in its methodology but that it had "no impact on the rating decision." [The New York Times, 8/5/11]
Krugman: "It's Hard To Think Of Anyone Less Qualified To Pass Judgment On America Than The Rating Agencies." From an August 5 post by economist Paul Krugman:
[I]t's hard to think of anyone less qualified to pass judgment on America than the rating agencies. The people who rated subprime-backed securities are now declaring that they are the judges of fiscal policy? Really?
Just to make it perfect, it turns out that S&P got the math wrong by $2 trillion, and after much discussion conceded the point -- then went ahead with the downgrade.
More than that, everything I've heard about S&P's demands suggests that it's talking nonsense about the US fiscal situation. The agency has suggested that the downgrade depended on the size of agreed deficit reduction over the next decade, with $4 trillion apparently the magic number. Yet US solvency depends hardly at all on what happens in the near or even medium term: an extra trillion in debt adds only a fraction of a percent of GDP to future interest costs, so a couple of trillion more or less barely signifies in the long term. What matters is the longer-term prospect, which in turn mainly depends on health care costs.
So what was S&P even talking about? Presumably they had some theory that restraint now is an indicator of the future -- but there's no good reason to believe that theory, and for sure S&P has no authority to make that kind of vague political judgment.
In short, S&P is just making stuff up -- and after the mortgage debacle, they really don't have that right.
So this is an outrage -- not because America is A-OK, but because these people are in no position to pass judgment. [The New York Times, 8/5/11]
Rating Agencies Criticized For Handling Of Enron, WorldCom Ratings. A February 6, 2005, New York Times article reported:
When Enron and WorldCom failed, investors were stunned by how long it had taken the agencies to recognize the companies' declining fortunes. For example, all three agencies had rated Enron an investment-grade company until four days before it filed for bankruptcy. They had rated WorldCom similarly until a few months before it collapsed. [The New York Times, 2/6/05]
In 2002, the Times reported:
Credit-rating agencies, the independent securities analysts that pass judgment on a company's financial fitness, saw signs of Enron's deteriorating finances by last May. But the agencies -- Moody's Investors Service, Standard & Poor's and Fitch Ratings -- did little to warn investors until at least five months later, long after more problems had emerged and Enron's slide into bankruptcy had accelerated. [The New York Times, 2/8/02]
In time, Americans can apply for a Visa or Master Card off gr that they can pay the balance gradually.
This was The US won't need these scuzzy rating companies to tell us what's what.//
Tracing the traitors is what we should do. See WaPo articles now mentioning Dick Armey's "Freedom Works" (sic) as putting on events to develop strategy in concert with ....wait for it...Eric Cantor.
Anyone not think Cantor's shorting the dollar wasn't an insider deal?
Obama & his gang of morons spend, spend, spend & spend some more money we don't have, get called on it & they start shrieking & squealing like hogs pushed from the trough. "It's bad math, it's political, it's not our fault."
This gang of incompetent stooges are masters at blaming everyone but themselves. First they blame Bush, then they blame Republicans, then they blame the tea party, then they blame the unfairness of mathematics, then they blame jet owners, then they blame the oil companies, then they blame the Koch Brothers, then they blame FOX News, then they blame the unfavorable alignment of the planets. Next it's going to be witchcraft.
Now it's the liberal-socialists turn to compliment a naked Obama on his set of new clothes, because that's what brainless lickspittles do.
You people are pathetic.
You don't see any difference? Of course not! You've got your face wedged in his cheeks but tight! I bet you think it smells like roses.
It's always someone else's fault.
Really, can you show us the break down data.
Bush inherited a BUDGET SURPLUS, FULL EMPLOYMENT, 22.7 MILLION NEW JOBS from Clinton. What did Bush leave behind, He left a pile of cr@p with baggers like you.
Nope. Not even close.
Reagan/Bush I added three times as much debt as all preceeding administrations combined. GW Bush doubled the inherited debt.
Obama hasn't even touched that. But don't worry, I'm sure your people will manage to break the economy and send us into complete collapse.
Obama's made a couple of mistakes during his presidency. He didn't try to repeal the Bush tax cuts in his first two years of office and for some reason he extended them in 2010 when he should have let them expire. Secondly, the stimulus package should have been much larger and the tax cut portion should have been left out. He had to make up for the lack of consumer spending which reduces corporate spending and that small amount wasn't going to cut it.
And the debt situation is being driven by a number of factors: Tax rates are too low; the high unemployment rate is reducing government revenue; and Americans are seeking social services because they lack jobs.
What do you think Liberals don't understand about a "capitalistic economy" that you seem to understand?
Deficit spending is a problem now, but not a crisis. Spending money to help the economy when it's in such dire straits is the responsible thing to do - Obama was right to do it. Bush was wrong to spend more than we had coming in, as his spending wasn't necessary. The fault doesn't lie with Obama's choices hardly at all.
BTW, if they are teabaggers, what does that make you?
as pointed out above and below, and again and again, a 100% fact-free right wing talking point.
NEXT!
never seen ANY economist use that as a the reason there was a budget surplus in clintons years. he had one of the greatest economy in the modern era, that he had nothing to do with but he got credit for.
However the important thing is that it was a good thing to balance the budget and even pay back debt if possible in a good economy, just like it is a bad thing to try to balance it when things are bad.
That honor goes to Reagan and Bush Jr., dimwit.
When you learn how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide, come back and tell us what we can't see.
And you ignore the fact that the Democrats didn't behave in a way to contravene what Bush wanted to do with his budgets.
So, you, once again, have no point, and you're only trolling.
So does he have a great influence in why there is NO budget? Obama can have it both ways?
Ouch....
OUCH.
The debt at the end of President Clinton's LAST fiscal year (ended 9/30/01) was about $5.65T, as I recall. Whether you use the fiscal year ending before the last presidential general election (about $10.3T) OR inauguration (about $10.6T), either way you come up with at least $4.65T. Add $4.65 to $10.3, you get $14.95 - and the debt ceiling was just $14.3T.
Now, remember too that I am being very generous with President Bush (43) and debt, because I counted from the end of the fiscal year AFTER he was inaugurated to the election or President Obama's inauguration. To be ACCURATE, I would have to count from the end of the fiscal year after President Obama was inaugurated - and by that time, the debt was $11.7T.
Subtract $5.65 from $11.7 and you get $6.05. Subtract $11.7 from the current roughly $14.3, or heck go all the way to $15, and you get at most $3.7. Now, I do know that in an extremists world, 40% of something is a majority (the senate?), but in the real world $3.7T is less than $6.05.
debt by President. From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
note the lowering of the WWII debt from 1945-1973, then note that only democrats lowered the debt since then and every Republican has increased the debt. Bush Jr. had the record increase of 20% in his second term. Also notice that he beat President Regans 9% and 11% and Bush seniors 13%
Also notice that Clinton lowering the debt prior to Bush Jr.
You are a LIAR. He has done no such thing. My GOD but you are stupid. You just spew out ANYTHING you were brainwashed with no matter how ignorant it is. GOD but you are pathetic and stupid
Incorrect. Of the $14.5 trillion or so we are in debt, Republican presidents own about $12 trillion of that.
Where were you when Bush was doing that?
100% of the increase in the Debt to GDP ratio post WWII came under Reagan/Bush I/Bush II. None under any other president.
"First they blame Bush, then they blame Republicans, then they blame the tea party, then they blame the "
It is GW Bush and the republicans who turned to Clinton surplus into the Bush debacle. Live with it, we have to.
Just because you voted for Barack doesn't mean he walks on water! It is possible to have made a mistake and elected another moron!
Whatever other president have done is HISTORY! I'M TALKING ABOUT THE HERE & NOW! All you robotic idiots do is excuse Obama because you think someone else was worse!
"Oh, Manson wasn't so bad because Jack the Ripper was worse".
Nice logic! It like talking to a bucket of clam shells!
Now, take your talking points and shove them where the moon don't shine, which is where the GOP got them from in the first place.
You do realize that, by far, without a doubt, the reason for the increase is that tax revenue dropped off. And why is that? Because we are in the midst of a GLOBAL economic slowdown.
And when there is a slow down in the consumer portion of spending, the smart economic route is to have govt fill the void left by consumer spending.
The govt does not have to run on the same basis as a household because of it's ability to issue debt. That's not to say the ability to run a deficit is unlimited.
If you are really concerned about the deficit, then you also need to put increasing revenue on the table. Otherwise, STFU as you're just using the deficit issue to push forward political gain.
Let met answer that - anything that will cause Obama not to get re-elected.
We can close off the tax loopholes that favor special interests without raising rates. Repeal a portion of the Bush tax cuts (as they helped contribute to the deficit problem).
If you are really concerned about the deficit, then give me one good reason why revenue shouldn't be on the table?
I just replied to Panzer for trying to do the same thing.
You own Bush. You own every Republican in congress that backed him up, that would be all of them.
He's a "moron" now, huh? Judging by the way you spit out Republican talking points, it's a certainty that you voted for him twice. Now you want to sweep him under the rug and talk about "now"? Screw you.
Most of Bush's spending policies are still running, because the Republicans won't let go of them. That's right, the same incompetent morons that helped the "incompetent moron" Bush get these policies through without paying for them, are now insisting that we pay for them. Ten f()cking years later. The funny part is, they are blaming Democrats for not wanting to pay for Republican legislation, and the "liberal" media is only to happy to help them out.
The deficit for fiscal '08, when unemployment was 6%, was over a trillion dollars. Republican spending owns most of this deficit.
Own up to it and you might not vote for an "incompetent moron" next time.
Yes, deficit spending is okay under some circumstances. Like when we're in the worst recession we've seen in 70 or 80 years, yes, it does make it okay.
But no, it's not okay when you've cut taxes, thinking that the economy wouldn't falter, and you won't increase taxes to resolve issues caused by downturns, 2 wars and and unfunded drug program! Then it's not okay to splurge with deficit spending!
That's why Bush gets much more blame than Obama does - because Bush deserves much more blame!
Someone who shoots a threatening burglar shouldn't be compared to the DC sniper! It's not Manson vs Jack the Ripper - it's responsible economic spending vs irresponsible deficit spending!
At least you admit you were wrong in your initial post, that's a start. Now if you conservatives could remain this concerned with debts the next time your party controls the White House, I'll be impressed.
The only people who think this are listeners to right wing media. If you perused any actual liberal media you would see a great deal of criticism coming from what President Obama himself called "the proffesional left".
Yes, that's a derogatory term he used to describe his critics on the left, and there are quite a few. I don't know how many times we see this mindless right wing talking point repeated, but it's so infuriating after seeing thoughtful and honest criticism of the Obama administration from my fellow "libs".
No, it is not we liberals and Democrats who think President Obama walks on water, it is you right wing media followers who make yourselves feel better about your irrational hatred of the President by accusing us of doing the opposite.
1) Knowing the actual history and facts of what happened is important so we DON'T MAKE THE SAME MISTAKES.
2) Why are the republicans trying to KEEP MAKING THE SAME KINDS OF MISTAKES, and blocking the Obama administration through flat out abuse and exploitation of congressional rules?
A shame, I thought maybe you would be less likely to make blanket judgments about a bunch of clamshells after so many posters flat out schooled you on your utterly false talking point about Obama doubling the deficit.
Too bad your mind is stuck in binary "GOP Good, Dems BAD!!!" mode.
What year did the debt go down again??
The supposed surpluses also included spending the surplus SS taxes on other programs!
Fiscal Year End*********Total Debt
09/30/2001**************$5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000**************$5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999**************$5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998**************$5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997**************$5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996**************$5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995**************$4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994**************$4,692,749,910,013.32
There's a huge difference between "spent" and loaned.
During the same two extension years we roughly had a 2 trillion dollar deficit. So you blaming 86 billon for 2000 billion?
The Republicans did it.
Let me quess, you believe Bush did a great job for the Country, don't you. How sad, you need to get a life with reality.
You should know that intelligent life here on Planet MMfA is somewhat sparse so try to give the poor souls here a little slack katan. To the Left, up is down, down is up, left is right (double meaning here), right is left (not for normal folks), and so forth.
These people will follow Obama off a 1,000-foot cliff without hesitation. He can NEVER be wrong on ANYTHING - EVER! GOT IT?
You obviously haven't heard people like jjamele talk about how the president was WRONG about compromising to the republican party so much and how the president would probably not be getting his vote? He's not the only one to reflect such sentiments of disappointment toward Obama either. Surprising considering the fact you've certainly been around long enough to spot those posts.
The president spoke about how instances like the Japan tsunami and the Europe economy have slowed down prospects of growth for the American economy. That is fact. Indeed these instances have caused economic slowdown for other parts of the world as well (economies are linked you know) as the impact on one market affects another. Of course the right wing have construed this as him complaining and blaming the impact on economies of other countries as the cause of the American economy's slowdown. That's like saying a statement of fact such as "The sun is too bright to look at directly" is blaming the sun for being too bright.
The underlined portions are solely your own words (you own them). About the portion about Obama being dealt a bad hand? Yep he inherited one of the worst economic recessions in modern history from a previous history. That's a pretty bad hand. However it seems that many on the right have completely forgotten the dealer that dealt that hand.
Your up is down here, so is your down up and left right and right left here. Agreed.
Fair enough Deluded. I agree Obama "inherited one of the worst economic recessions in modern history from a previous history (I assume you meant previous president - right?)". Where we probably disagree is WHY the recession started. I've already said my OPINION is it started predominately because of the housing financial mess allowed to continue unabated by Rep Frank and Senator Dodd, who refused to work with Bush on establishing regulates for Fannie, Freddie, and other mortgage loan companies (Bush submitted more than a dozen regulation proposals which were returned to Bush without any Congressional action). If some regulations (such as NEVER allowing the purchase of a house with zero down [except for vets], refies or 2nd's totaling more than the appraised value of a house (e.g. loans of 105% the home value), or approving loans for people who could never possibly make the required monthly mortgage payments).
As evidenced from what I said above, I haven't forgotten that dealers Frank and Dodd dealt Obama a horrible economic hand. Having said this, Obama has had 2 years eight months to do something about it. The policies he's dealt the American people have been bust hands for almost everybody. He's done as bad as one could possibly do on about everything he's done. Maybe I'm wrong on this but I don't know of a single thing he has done that could be considered a success. In fact, what he has done has resulted in the opposite of what's required to stimulate an economy.
What got us into this bad mess was under-regulation of the financial sector in general, along with heretofore unimaginable deficit spending by George Dumbya Bush. While we're all running around blaming people, I have one last question:
Mr. Boner, where are the JOBS?
I didn't, but alot of people used their homes as an ATM to make up for the lack of a wage increase over the last 2 decades. I recieved 10+ offers of 125% mortgages a week. It was very easy to get yourself upside down and when it all came crashing down, who did they think was going to suffer,the banks?
Much blame goes to corporations that put a .01% profit increase over their obligations to be a good member of this country and to the Wall St. tycoons who put their short term interests over the long term interests of the country.
Yes, much blame to go around.
Now, pushing home ownership without an acknowledgement on the part of some buyers that there are ups and downs and it's a long term investment and home prices were overly inflated in some regions? That burden falls on the banks, builders, flippers, investors, and home buyers alike.
First, I said alot and not most.
Second, Even if you don't like that analogy, it still true. They maxed out their credit cards and refinanced their homes to pay off their credit cards, only to do it again, as housing prices increased, until the system collapsed under its own weight. I am not saying this caused the problem. It contributed to the problem. And its effects are still being felt.
Ultimately, my point was that everyone has some blame in our current situation and I only used that as an example.
And you did say "most". Read your first sentence.
Most Americans who own their homes or are on their way to owning their own homes stayed 100% current with their mortgage payments. It's somewhere between 5-10% of people who are late. That means that more than 90% are paying their mortgages on time! That means relatively few, not "a lot".
And very few people behaved as you describe. Most Americans aren't to blame. I understood what your point was from the very start. It wasn't valid. Most Americans are entirely innocent of any blame for causing the recession. Consumer spending is what fuels our economy, and so an ongoing constriction in borrowing money and spending is partly to blame for the downturn continuing and for its slow recovery. People need to be borrowing and spending money right now - the exact thing you say is causing the problem would help solve the problem!
That's a bold statement. You mean to say that most Americans were not responsible for signing their mortgage papers? Were they forced into those loans? Why are you taking the responsibility off the shoulders of the people who are responsible for their mortgages? It is up to every individual who signs to buy a house to determine whether they can afford payments on a house. There is personal responbility in this mess that you are simply unwilling to place on the heads of those responsible. A bad economy is a really good excuse for blaming others for one's bad misfortune, but at the end of the day, individuals must take responsibility for themselves and the mess they are in.
Also, most of the people when they signed their mortgage papers could afford their loans. Either through a loss of income, or if they had a variable interest rate mortgage, when the banks reset their payments, they could no longer afford them. Many of those people's payments almost doubled when their interest rates reset, because then the banks determined them to be a "credit risk." Banks were understating what a person's interest rate could be after it reset.
It's convenient to say "personal responsibility" to absolve the banks on the mess they created.
And there's never been a regular procedure that allows someone to get a mortgage that they didn't have income to afford - you're smearing people with that claim, but that's typical for you to be dishonest.
And Obama did a good job, given the circumstances, to mitigate the worst recession since the Great Depression! He's done about as good as any President could have done given a totally backasswards Republican obstructionist Congress!
There's no "maybe" about this - you're wrong on everything.
It's tough to get the facts out there past the smokescreen of angry, deliberately misleading rhetoric from the right.
Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines. Everything in the 1992 act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. . . .
Rep. Frank: Let me ask [George] Gould and [Franklin] Raines on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, do you feel that over the past years you have been substantially under-regulated?
Mr. Raines?
Mr. Raines: No, sir.
Mr. Frank: Mr. Gould?
Mr. Gould: No, sir. . . .
Mr. Frank: OK. Then I am not entirely sure why we are here. . . .
Rep. Frank: I believe there has been more alarm raised about potential unsafety and unsoundness than, in fact, exists.
except that it was a republican congress that bush was talking to. rep frank, as important as he thinks he is didn't do anything to cause this, it was the ratings regulators and the banks.
hey wait, i thought that your side said there we TO MANY regulations on banks.
You are pathetic, you are stupid, you are brainwashed and you are a LIAR. The left criticized Obama so much that his Chief of staff threw a public hissy fit about it. Then again Rush TOLD you that the left thinks Obama is the messiah and you gotta think what you are told to think right?
You are also far too STUPID to be saying anything about intelligent life. You have no intelligence you are too stupid to recognize intelligence you are too stupid to even know what intelligence is. So stick to what you do best. Regurgitate for us what Rush told you to think.
Dont you ever get tired of making a fool out of yourself?
What an intelligent sentence kabnut. WELL DONE!
BTW, how does it feel to so frequently step in y6ur own crap? It's gotta be discusting. It would be embarrassing for a normal person but not for you, huh kabNUT?
I agree that Kabniel's posts often just sound like a bunch of insults strung together and I usually just skip over them, but that doesn't change the facts, and you were repeating falsehoods.
Ever wonder why Fannie and Freddie get singled out by right wing media while giving the rest of the financial industry who engaged in the exact same practices? Because they donate more to Democrats. That's it.
The CRA has been around since Carter was President. Why haven't three Republican Presidents and a multitude of congressional Republicans ever made a peep about it until after a housing meltdown some three decades later?
You'll swallow anything as long as it makes you feel good about hating the people who your media masters tell you to hate.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law
Republicans whining and crying and fear mongering about deficit reduction is what got this whole fake crises started. We heard all these numbers and all these dire warnings. The S&P was off by two trillion with it's numbers and you want to blame Obama because that's all you right wingers know how to do any more.
Now two trillion dollars is not important? Make up your minds already! The only consistency you conservatives have is your unwavering predictability in blaming the president for everything regardless of the facts.
Where are these liberal socialists? Where are these people defending everything President Obama does?
Get this through your head: Most of us on the left are somewhat disappointed with President Obama. At the same time we realize the republican party has been taken over by incompetent trust fund babies ,libertarian extremists, and amoral wannabe lobbyists.
We're not so stupid to accept everything the Democrats do as "good" and everything the Republicans do as "bad". If you paid attention you would see this spelled out day after day in actual liberal media.
Bottom line: You clearly have no objectivity, and the republicans and their media echo chamber zombie followers have no interest in being accurate when addressing this crises created by their leadership alone.
It wasn't a problem for me when my Visa and Discover cards were cancelled. Why was it a problem for the credit bureaus? I guess being debt free is just an asset and not a credit. There goes Tara.
I also enjoyed jjcomet514's post and most of us are onto the credit card exploitation. As long as corporate money dominates Washington this and the S&P stupidity will continue.
Republicans are pretty much bought & paid for shills for corporate interests. Some but not all Democrats are.
BTW we're not bloggers, we're posting on a thread.
Everyone who can get a credit card should get one, and use it a few times every 6 months, and pay it off every billing cycle. That will help their credit score, and not cost them hardly anything except maybe an annual fee if they can't qualify for a free card - try your local credit union. Everyone should also have a loan - having a variety of credit helps one's credit score. Buy some furniture on credit.
It's stupid to not use credit cards, because having credit in reserve is never a bad idea.
And no, your sockpuppet isn't an Einstein.
Your credit card company might not like you as well as they like people who help them earn lots of money, but it doesn't hurt your credit score at all. In fact, it helps it, by maintaining a large gap between available credit and credit being used.
What matters is If US debt is the safest around to invest in.
I believe so.
The rating should be the product of the external audit performed by the accounting firm. And any firm that gives a pumped up rating is subject to heavy fines, possible dissolution and jail time if the misstatement is deemed fraudulent (see Arthur Andersen's role in the Enron scandal).
Randy
Amen!
John
Given that the three biggest drivers of the current debt are the Bush tax cuts, unfunded wars and Part D, and the lost revenue due to the downturn their deregulation caused--it will be a Bush deficit for decades.
Just as very few economists make it in business, I have yet to come across a businessperson who has successfully managed an economy.
As for ratings agencies, they are merely the tools of the punters in the Big Casino and act as an opinion poll of Kool-Aid drinkers.
HINT: They do not represent the public interest.
Obama's Council of Corporate Kingpins:
"Prosperity for the American People"?
http://andrewgavinmarshall.com/2011/07/20/obama%E2%80%99s-council-of-corporate-kingpins-%E2%80%9Cprosperity-for-the-american-people%E2%80%9D/
John
And g'day.
but lets blame obama, rightwing noise machine?
dont get me started on AIG........
As I believe I have mentioned in one of my relatively few postings to Media Matters, I worked at a comedy club in San Francisco in the early '80s and the owner discouraged the brilliant in-their-own-minds comedians from responding to hecklers, because he said, "You give them the microphone, they disrupt the show, and nothing is gained from it except they love the attention."
I once saw a guy stride (and it was a purposeful, expectant stride) into the standing room only club, twitching while trying to catch from the back of the room what the comedian was saying so he could load and fire his rhetorical gun, and when the comedian said, "I was riding a Muni bus," the guy screamed out, "Oh, yeah! I'VE GOT A FAST PASS! What do you have to say about that!"
That is the troll mentality here. They see a word they recognize - "bus" in the comedy world or "Obama" in the real world - and scream out word association test responses. Why give them the microphone? Repeatedly? They want attention. If you ignore them, they just might go away and save me from trying to follow descending steps into reply comment hell. I'm being selfish here.
A considered retort has the added benefit of enabling you to order your thoughts into a coherent argument. I have often encountered well expressed and compelling arguments on this site - arguments that have enabled me to better express my own ideas. This is the upside of debate that even the most destructive of trolls cannot prevent.
1. What the S&P statement says about Republican brinksmanship?
2. Discussing the Financial Crisis Inquiry Report and the part rating agencies played in the disaster? (available at: http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo3449 )
We can argue amongst like-minded people (and with the trolls), but disinformation is still being spread. The teapublicans and their talkers will just continue to manufacture crises to take the public's eye off the important issues.
If he has any town hall meetings this month, I will be asking my rep some serious questions. Oh wait, this is the same rep who answered my concerns about raising the debt limit by assuring me I "would be glad to know he voted against raising the ceiling." Huh? Guess he wasn't listening, because he continued to vote against it. He is a true Norquista after all.
MMFAs tactic is classic 'blame the messenger.' Unfortunately for the left, including MMFA, wishing and feeling doesn't cut it with real life economics.
Here's what S&P actually said:
What S&P doesn't say, but assumes, is that our present debt load is unsustainable. So, as long as the idiocracy on the left continues to seek more spending (and higher taxes) this impasse will continue, and further downgrades are inevitable.
You're really looking forward to repeating the mistakes of 1937 arn't you.
What is HILARIOUS is watching brainwashed MORONS like you thinking that a Nobel Prize winning economist doesnt know what he is talking about but an ignorant fool like YOU who has proven over and over how stupid you are and how little you know what you are talking about knows so much more than he does. Now THAT is sitcom material.
What they DID say is they could not sustain our credit rating as long as the republicans in Congress are so comitted to opposition to any revenue increases. My GOD but you are stupid edross
They don't say it but you know they assume it.
Ladies and gents, the amazing psychic jackleg economist.
No folks, you can't make this sh!t up.
Right, you don't want to listen to the guy who warned us about the housing collapse and impending financial troubles to follow years before it happened and in great detail.
Let's listen to the hacks and paid mouthpieces who laughed at him them, and dismiss him now.
You'd go back to the dentist that pulled the wrong tooth twice, wouldn't you?
Never mind the agencies. As for the politicians, good politics does not guarantee good policy. In fact it might just be the other way around. Let's see what the markets do with the data.
I seem to remember entitlements were reconfigured somewhat in 1983. The work was bipartisan. Now there's an idea!
A rational take on the situation. Tell me what did the right think would happen when they spent a couple of decades with Coulter and Limbaugh and Savage and the rest of rightwing hate radio spewing vitriol at the left day in and day out. Did anyone think we would go away? Now that we fight back you act like it is some unfathomable mystery why there is so much hostility.
Plain FACT that the right picked a fight and is now snivelling that the left is mean. As for bipartisanship it would be nice if the right didnt think it meant uniting behind their previously stated positions and even MORE if they think they can get it. The left has been doing ALL the compromising for a while now. Its time for the right to give some ground
Which party has actually made any attempt whatsoever to create jobs?
(hint: the bills sponsored and passed by the Tea Partiers in the House has focused on about 5 or 6 hot-ticket topics... was one of them jobs?)
And the downgrade makes the Republicans in Congress look bad. It's their lack of cooperation and unwillingness to compromise tied with their refusal to acknowledge that we need increased revenue that's caused the downgrade.
It's 100% the responsibility of the Republicans in Congress.
And stop saying "increased revenue".....TAXES! Increased taxes! Why do liberals always need to come up with euphemisms for their ideology? Smoke and mirrors, the liberal M.O...
A President that offers nothing, rejects everything Republicans have offered....a Democratic Senate that hasn't passed a budget in 830+ days, and REPUBLICANS ARE 100 PERCENT TO BLAME?!? You are LOST...
And the Federal Government only gets a portion of their revenue from personal income taxes, and so "revenue" is the correct word to use. It's not a "euphemism". It's the correct word to use.
The President offered a lot in multiple discussions with members of Congress - so did the VP on the president's behalf. And you're wrong about the budget too. You scored a perfect ZERO in your diatribe here.
It's two words: DAMAGE CONTROL.
Read the article bro. There are some pretty good reasons in the article, two trillion good reasons in fact.
You'd have to read the article though, and I understand it's easier to just post what you want to believe instead of reading the article ...which you didn't read.
The big talking point this weekend is that this is a "Tea Party Downgrade". HOW?!? The reason why this happened is because of the excess spending, and the blame should fall on the group that wants to cut spending??? Jeez, good luck selling that one to independents! Obamacare is another reason this is happening. It's only gonna get worse.
I think all the demonization of the Tea Party and their candidates is gonna make a lick of difference. The blame Bush argument is DEAD.
We are well on our way to losing the dollar as the world's reserve currency. The process has already begun internationally. The consequences will be catastrophic for us.
No, its bad for the country.
Our abuse? What the hell are you talking about? Can you name the 3 presidents that increased the National debt from 700 billion to 12 trillion? Sure you can.
Please see above. Like all things on the right you are too short sighted. This problem did not start in 2009! it started in 1981.
Is there any favorite talking point you've left out?
If the reason for this downgrade was excessive spending, it still wouldn't be Obama's fault, since it's not his spending that's excessive - it's Bush's fault for spending too much with too little revenue when we weren't in a deep recession!
The "blame Bush" argument is more relevant than ever before, because the solution is greater taxes, totally contrary to Bush's plans.
My goodness, what ignorance.
Answer me this, if you are all about increasing "revenue" (*cough-cough*), and you all like to blame Bush for the tax cuts, then why don't any of you blame Obama for EXTENDING THE SAME VERY TAX CUTS?
This election is going to be a very bitter pill for you libs to swallow. There's NO reason why Obama should be re-elected. His presidency thus far has been a failure.
Let me spell this out for you. If Cut, Cap, and Balance was passed in the Senate and signed by Obama, THE DOWNGRADE WOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED. That is a FACT.
It's called a filibuster and if you say "super majority", I'll laugh in you face.
"Let me spell this out for you. If Cut, Cap, and Balance was passed in the Senate and signed by Obama, THE DOWNGRADE WOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED. That is a FACT. "
Another psychic.
From the S&P decision. If the Repubs had just let the debt ceiling increase without this ridiculous theatre, we would not be in the situation we find ourselves in now.
Why does everything hinge on increasing the revenue? We have always resorted to raising taxes to solve the problem. Why don't we let the federal government get their act straight with their current revenues, and after they prove their trustworthiness, then we can consider tax increase proposals. Until they prove they are responsible with all of our hard earned money, I refuse to give them more money only to misuse it again.
Getting anything to the point where it can get voted upon and passed by a mere majority in the Senate now requires 60 votes.
Fool.
Second, for a large portion of last year, Democrats controlled 60 seats in the Senate, and still chose not to pass a budget plan for the nation.
Finally, Senate Democrats have not even written or introduced a budget plan this year, much less passed one out of the Senate.
Analysis: Republicans setting filibuster record
"The rules of the Senate are designed to give muscle to the minority," said Senate historian Donald Ritchie.
"...With the Senate now made up of 100 members, two for each of the 50 states, an opposition filibuster can only be broken with 60 votes — a three-fifths majority..."
Your text to link here...
It seems all the wingnuts here just lie so effortlessly.
So, who's to blame for the extension of the Bush tax cuts? The Republicans. I fully understand this. It's not my fault that you apparently don't.
The reason the downgrade is happening isn't because of excessive spending. It's because there's too great a disparity between the revenues coming in and the spending going out in the long term.
As Obama just said in a press statement, the two things we need now are tax reform to make those who can afford to pay more do so, and reforming health care costs to rein in the inflation we've seen in that area.
It's not a lack of plans or policies - it's a lack of political will, and it's the fault of people who kowtow to their political ideology.
That's the Republicans behaving that way.
There...fixed it.
I also think the Great Depression was America's finest moment and I'd love to see a Great Depression Part II.
Tbone...surely you can point out how Krugman's record is faulty? Surely you can contrast it to prominent conservative economists and show they have better track records?
You can't?
Well then it's just a bunch of blather and wishful thinking on your part, isn't it?
Just a question.
How many people here are currently in debt?
Our credit rating going down is a blessing because it forces the government and citizens to learn to live within their means, something we have chosen not to do for the past half century.
How much debt?
Do you have a plan to pay off your debt?
What happens if you tell your creditors "I don't think I want to pay my bills now"?
Do you understand ANYTHING about what this whole manufactured crisis was about?
My neighbors for example has remortgaged their house three times in order to pay for all the nonsense they have accumulated. They have this false belief that the government cannot let everyone fail.
This "manufactured crisis" was not caused by one single person (the president) or congress, sure, they passed the legislation that made it possible, but it was dumb Americans who can't figure out how to responsibly conduct their lives that gave us the problem we are facing today..
This very real crisis was caused by banks acting irresponsible, by giving loans to people they knew could not afford to pay them back.
Those people are more at fault than the banks.
First, no I do not have any sources, it was merely an opinion based on my personal experiences.
Second, it is my goddamned business because they are 60 years old and if they have to remortgage their house (3 times) to pay for other expenditures, what make you think they have enough to make the payments on their house. Also, if their house gets forclosed on it brings down my property value.
"Those people are more at fault than the banks. "
Not the borrowers.
They sold them on Wall Street, knowing they were worthless.
It's that simple Batman.
However you'd probably just blame the people again for not doing their own math, but the math really isn't very simple, and there are more "rule of thumbs" out there than you can shake a stick at (believe me, I've tried), so the customer usually ends up relying on the bank more than they probably should.
Like I said, if they can still make their payments, it is none of your Goddamned business. It doesn't matter if they are 90 years old.
Me thinks "manufactured crisis" flew right over Batman's head.
Way to go!!!
Go
From the Blogs
Ten Miles Square
Guest Post: God Asks Governor Perry to Cancel Prayer RallyBy Harold Pollack08/08/2011 12:20 PM
Medical Marijuana Policy, Then and NowBy Mark Kleiman08/08/2011 12:00 PM
Yet Another Reason For Recess AppointmentsBy Jonathan Bernstein08/08/2011 10:43 AM
College Guide
Payoff ProblemsBy Daniel Luzer08/08/2011 11:00 AM
“What I Did This Summer”By Daniel Luzer08/08/2011 10:00 AM
One Way to Make Up for Budget CutsBy Daniel Luzer08/07/2011 12:00 PM
Tilting at Windmills
Layer cake… The Department of Housing and Unbelievable Delays… God help the squeaky wheel
Supreme Amnesia…A slam Dunc…Your thoughts, please…
The ugly truth in twenty-one words… The bakery-industrial complex… Make-believe = survival
Follow WaMo
Facebook Friend our Facebook Fan page.
Twitter Click to see a list of our Twitter feeds.
2010 College Guide
and Rankings
buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly
Washington’s New Gridlock Physics
If legislators don’t accomplish anything, the country finds other methods to enact policy. That’s the problem. By Ezra Klein
A Pox on One House
The S&P downgrade is the GOP’s fault. By Steve Benen
Coming Lobbyist Brawl May (Really) Fix Our Taxes
Why lobbyists, of all people, may soon bring us a simpler tax code. By Jonathan Alter
Steve Benen, Political Animal
Blog
August 06, 2011 11:05 AMA timeline of events
Let’s take a stroll down memory lane, shall we?
1980: Ronald Reagan runs for president, promising a balanced budget
1981 - 1989: With support from congressional Republicans, Reagan runs enormous deficits, adds $2 trillion to the debt.
1993: Bill Clinton passes economic plan that lowers deficit, gets zero votes from congressional Republicans.
1998: U.S. deficit disappears for the first time in three decades. Debt clock is unplugged.
2000: George W. Bush runs for president, promising to maintain a balanced budget.
2001: CBO shows the United States is on track to pay off the entirety of its national debt within a decade.
2001 - 2009: With support from congressional Republicans, Bush runs enormous deficits, adds nearly $5 trillion to the debt.
2002: Dick Cheney declares, “Deficits don’t matter.” Congressional Republicans agree, approving tax cuts, two wars, and Medicare expansion without even trying to pay for them.
2009: Barack Obama inherits $1.3 trillion deficit from Bush; Republicans immediately condemn Obama’s fiscal irresponsibility.
2009: Congressional Democrats unveil several domestic policy initiatives — including health care reform, cap and trade, DREAM Act — which would lower the deficit. GOP opposes all of them, while continuing to push for deficit reduction.
September 2010: In Obama’s first fiscal year, the deficit shrinks by $122 billion. Republicans again condemn Obama’s fiscal irresponsibility.
October 2010: S&P endorses the nation’s AAA rating with a stable outlook, saying the United States looks to be in solid fiscal shape for the foreseeable future.
November 2010: Republicans win a U.S. House majority, citing the need for fiscal responsibility.
December 2010: Congressional Republicans demand extension of Bush tax cuts, relying entirely on deficit financing. GOP continues to accuse Obama of fiscal irresponsibility.
March 2011: Congressional Republicans declare intention to hold full faith and credit of the United States hostage — a move without precedent in American history — until massive debt-reduction plan is approved.
July 2011: Obama offers Republicans a $4 trillion debt-reduction deal. GOP refuses, pushes debt-ceiling standoff until the last possible day, rattling international markets.
August 2011: S&P downgrades U.S. debt, citing GOP refusal to consider new revenues. Republicans rejoice and blame Obama for fiscal irresponsibility.
There have been several instances since the mid 1990s in which I genuinely believed Republican politics couldn’t possibly get more blisteringly ridiculous. I was wrong; they just keep getting worse.
by Steve Benen
Your text to link here...
August 06, 2011 11:05 AMA timeline of events
By Steve Benen
Let’s take a stroll down memory lane, shall we?
1980: Ronald Reagan runs for president, promising a balanced budget
1981 - 1989: With support from congressional Republicans, Reagan runs enormous deficits, adds $2 trillion to the debt.
1993: Bill Clinton passes economic plan that lowers deficit, gets zero votes from congressional Republicans.
1998: U.S. deficit disappears for the first time in three decades. Debt clock is unplugged.
2000: George W. Bush runs for president, promising to maintain a balanced budget.
2001: CBO shows the United States is on track to pay off the entirety of its national debt within a decade.
2001 - 2009: With support from congressional Republicans, Bush runs enormous deficits, adds nearly $5 trillion to the debt.
2002: Dick Cheney declares, “Deficits don’t matter.” Congressional Republicans agree, approving tax cuts, two wars, and Medicare expansion without even trying to pay for them.
2009: Barack Obama inherits $1.3 trillion deficit from Bush; Republicans immediately condemn Obama’s fiscal irresponsibility.
2009: Congressional Democrats unveil several domestic policy initiatives — including health care reform, cap and trade, DREAM Act — which would lower the deficit. GOP opposes all of them, while continuing to push for deficit reduction.
September 2010: In Obama’s first fiscal year, the deficit shrinks by $122 billion. Republicans again condemn Obama’s fiscal irresponsibility.
October 2010: S&P endorses the nation’s AAA rating with a stable outlook, saying the United States looks to be in solid fiscal shape for the foreseeable future.
November 2010: Republicans win a U.S. House majority, citing the need for fiscal responsibility.
December 2010: Congressional Republicans demand extension of Bush tax cuts, relying entirely on deficit financing. GOP continues to accuse Obama of fiscal irresponsibility.
March 2011: Congressional Republicans declare intention to hold full faith and credit of the United States hostage — a move without precedent in American history — until massive debt-reduction plan is approved.
July 2011: Obama offers Republicans a $4 trillion debt-reduction deal. GOP refuses, pushes debt-ceiling standoff until the last possible day, rattling international markets.
August 2011: S&P downgrades U.S. debt, citing GOP refusal to consider new revenues. Republicans rejoice and blame Obama for fiscal irresponsibility.
There have been several instances since the mid 1990s in which I genuinely believed Republican politics couldn’t possibly get more blisteringly ridiculous. I was wrong; they just keep getting worse.
Steve Benen is a contributing writer to the Washington Monthly, joining the publication in August, 2008 as chief blogger for the Washington Monthly blog, Political Animal.
It's so blatantly obvious.
They passed medicare part d without a penny to pay for it and less than a year later, they were screaming about medicare spending.
If course, that will require the help of the President to that end.
No problem there.
John