[larkin]

	Originally Posted by Tristan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	On the contrary, the compromise is what caused the downgrade.

And people wonder why shit doesn't get done? Until one side is willing to acknowledge what should be obvious - that compromise is not the problem, it's the solution - is it any surprise that lenders don't have any faith we'll find a solution?

Originally Posted by Tristan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Someone who specifically hates the Tea Party can interpret this as you suggest, but interpreted literally, S&P was bothered that a deal had to be brokered in order for the US to secure more loans. The Tea Party had nothing to do with the deal. It was not a large enough caucus to matter. It was a bipartisan, Obama/Boehner deal. It led to a lower credit rating, precisely as S&P says above. They didn't have much confidence that the deal would.

More nonsense - the Tea Party had nothing to do with the deal? They're the cause of a brokered deal to begin with.

Here's the problem, again, restated: if S&P says "the problem is a deal that had to be brokered," most people look at that statement and reasonably conclude that "had to be brokered" is the operative phrase. You look at that statement and think problem=deal. And completely ignore the reality of what would happen if there weren't one.

A quick thought exercise that might highlight what's really important to credit agencies: if this political debate had happened at any other time than when we we're trying to agree to write a check to our lenders, do you think the agency would have downgraded our credit? Have they ever done it before?

	Originally Posted by Tristan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And while they mentioned Republicans specifically as being obtuse about tax hikes, they devoted far more text to this slight, itsy-bitsy problem:[...] the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.

You act as if the president didn't outline a plan that offered very specific non-discretionary spending cuts in early 2011. Not just talking, not just hot air, but actual cuts. And Republicans took it off the board completely because it also talked about revenue.

	Originally Posted by Tristan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	For my part, I would rather see these debt issues brought to light by battles like the one that happened in July. And you guys, by contrast, appear prepared to defend interminably raising the ceiling to the death.

This statement sums it up well:

	Originally Posted by Daoist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	^Only because this sudden interest in the deficit is coming at the worst possible point in the business cycle.

I don't really care what your motives are for bringing it up now. (As I've said before, complaints about spending are conveniently complaints of the party out of power, but that's a digression.) What I care about is it not affecting my 401K or our credit rating. So I would prefer to see this debate happen at any other time. During the budgeting process is preferred. But the whole "shut down the government when we don't get our way" thing didn't work well for Republicans the first time, so this time they've chosen a point that's less damaging politically, but far more damaging to the fiscal health of this country.

Originally Posted by Tristan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So, I repeat the question I asked close to the beginning. Why? Why is this? What do you expect to happen? What do you stand to gain by making love to this process? More money for yourselves? Whose? China's? Is this process right, and the only wrong ones are the caucus that opposes it? Are you guys going to satisfy yourselves attacking me because I have the gall to be worried about this issue? Is $15,343,000,000,000 just going to take care of itself?

Clearly, you have fully drank the kool-aid that only one side is interested in long-term deficit reduction. Refuse to read or acknowledge Bowles-Simpson, refuse to consider revenue as part of a solution (no matter what your own experts say), refuse to consider military or non-discretionary cuts, refuse to negotiate as part of the budgeting process (preferring instead to throw a purely grandstanding fit during the "let's pay our bills for policies long since passed, some even during other administrations" part of the cycle - some fiscal conservatism there!), refuse to deal at all (Boehner excepted) if Obama's involved, and then repeat the question "why aren't you interested in deficit reduction" ad nauseam. But don't be surprised, again, when nothing gets done.

Of course, for political reasons, some people are banking on nothing getting done. (Probably the same people who said their only goal in governance is to make Obama a one-term President, that they would make this or that political debate Obama's Waterloo, and have openly stated that they will actively work to make sure he doesn't achieve anything, even things they would agree with otherwise.) That's exactly the point in pretending it's the other side that isn't interested.

[George]

Originally Posted by Tristan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

No, the reason they gave for the downgrade was, The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics. They registered their consternation about the fight in July in the following bullets... More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011. Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any time soon. Someone who specifically hates the Tea Party can interpret this as you suggest, but interpreted literally, S&P was bothered that a deal had to be brokered in order for the US to secure more loans. The Tea Party had nothing to do with the deal. It was not a large enough caucus to matter. It was a bipartisan, Obama/Boehner deal. It led to a lower credit rating, precisely as S&P says above. They didn't have much confidence that the deal would On the contrary, the compromise is what caused the downgrade. And while they mentioned Republicans specifically as being obtuse about tax hikes, they devoted far more text to this slight, itsy-bitsy problem: ...the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability. Our opinion is that elected officials remain wary of tackling the structural issues required to effectively address the rising U.S. public debt burden in a manner consistent with a 'AAA' rating and with 'AAA' rated sovereign peers (see Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions," June 30, 2011, especially Paragraphs 36-41). In our view, the difficulty in framing a consensus on fiscal policy weakens the government's ability to manage public finances and diverts attention from the debate over how to achieve more balanced and dynamic economic growth in an era of fiscal stringency and private-sector deleveraging (ibid). A new political consensus might (or might not) emerge after the 2012 elections, but we believe that by then, the government debt burden will likely be higher, the needed medium-term fiscal adjustment potentially greater, and the inflection point on the U.S. population's demographics and other age-related spending drivers closer at hand. Speaking more generally now, I'm not sure why I've encountered all this resistance in this thread. The congress and president are stalling for time by raising the debt ceiling. S&P made this clear in their analysis. There was no binding force in the other provisions of the legislation. There was no energy expended "tackling the structural issues." In hindsight, S&P should have defaulted to their 'AA' assumption that no cuts would actually occur. No cuts did occurr. For my part, I would rather see these debt issues brought to light by battles like the one that happened in July. And you guys, by contrast, appear prepared to defend interminably raising the ceiling to the death. Everything I say is wrong. It's the Tea Party that caused the downgrade by rocking the boat. The deal was great. We've already made the spending commitments, so it's no good questioning them or future ones. There's no need to bemoan the fact that congress couldn't agree on any cuts. Just raise taxes instead. So, I repeat the question I asked close to the beginning. Why? Why is this? What do you expect to happen? What do you stand to gain by making love to this process? More money for yourselves? Whose? China's? Is this process right, and the only wrong ones are the caucus that opposes it? Are you guys going to satisfy yourselves attacking me because I have the gall to be worried about this issue? Is $15,343,000,000,000 just going to take care of itself?

The compromise was not what caused the downgrade. The compromise was mentioned when the report discussed the potential for future downgrades though.

The actions of Republicans were specifically mentioned in the report as a cause of the downgrade, not the compromise.

And you are addressing the wrong problem when you suggest we should have more fights like we had in July. The Debt Ceiling isn't the problem and playing games with default only lowers our credit rating, thus making the debt harder to eliminate.

[crowbird213]

Its just a game between lawyers and mooches. Its all to get votes from a bunch of misinformed, want something for nothing idiots. When or if Republicans take the house,senate or presidency you can be sure that they will increase debt ceiling as long as they are in office. Total hypocrits. A republican only "sounds' like a libertarian when they are either running for office or they are criticizing a liberal. Which is worse, know nothing liberals or hypocritical conservatives.