Posted on 08/07/2011 5:17:23 AM PDT by reaganaut1
The day after Standard & Poor’s took the unprecedented step of stripping the United States government of its top credit rating, the ratings agency offered a full-throated defense of its decision, calling the bitter stand-off between President Obama and Congress over raising the debt ceiling a “debacle.” It warned that further downgrades may lie ahead.
In an unusual Saturday conference call with reporters, senior S.& P. officials insisted the ratings firm hadn’t overstepped its bounds by focusing on the political paralysis in Washington as much as fiscal policy in determining the new rating. “The debacle over the debt ceiling continued until almost the midnight hour,” said John B. Chambers, chairman of S.& P.’s sovereign ratings committee.
Another S.& P. official, David Beers, added that “fiscal policy, like other government policy, is fundamentally a political process.”
Initial reactions from Congressional leaders suggested that S.& P.’s action was unlikely to force consensus on the fundamental divide over spending and taxes. Politicians on both sides used the decision to bolster their own long-standing positions.
Officials at the White House and Treasury criticized S.& P.’s move as based on faulty budget accounting that did not factor in the just-enacted deal for increasing the debt limit.
Gene Sperling, the director of the White House national economic council, called the difference, totaling over $2 trillion, “breathtaking” and said that “the amateurism it displayed” suggested “an institution starting with a conclusion and shaping any arguments to fit it.”
Even as the ratings agency insisted on Saturday that its move shouldn’t have come as a shock, it reverberated around the world. Officials from China to Europe scrambled to assess the downgrade’s impact on the already troubled global economy, and political leaders in the United States sought to frame the issue in their favor.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Officials at the White House and Treasury criticized S.& P.’s move as based on faulty budget accounting that did not factor in the just-enacted deal for increasing the debt limit.
How can we be broke? We still have a credit card.
Thank you. This should be required reading.
Of course... more debt is always the best solution for the problem of too much debt.
After the Crash of 2008 there was a lot of talk that the
ratings agency’s were at fault for being lax.
Today they do their job and they are called nit pickers.
Just last week the Italian government putting pressure on them.
Ratings agencies should have lowered the ratings of the gubermint’s debt based on the size and exponential rise the debt. It’s been obvious for years that this is unsustainable.
“the amateurism it displayed” suggested “an institution starting with a conclusion and shaping any arguments to fit it.”
What’s the old playground retort? “It takes one to know one?”
Sperling’s criticism is a pitch-perfect characterization of this administration’s approach to health care reform, Porkulus, Cash for Clunkers and dozens of other bone-headed ideas in which facts were never allowed to interfere with the headlong rush to adopt ideas that progressive “experts” felt certain America needed.
That every one of these ideas has produced “unintended” consequences (read: turned out the opposite of what was promised/predicted) has in no way tarnished them in the eyes of true believers. Quite the contrary, the most delusional (e.g., Paul Krugman) argue that we simply didn’t go far enough: we spend TOO LITTLE on stimulus spending; the health law would have been vastly better with a public option etc.
Thus, when any member of this administration alludes to “amateurism” and bending facts to fit preconceived conclusions, they are speaking from years of experience.
Thnks for the ping!
Just so!
As the expression goes, the LIEberal/Socialist/Marxist/Fascist Bastards have run out of other people’s money to spend.
And, get this: “. . . political leaders in the United States sought to frame the issue in their favor.”
Where, and when, might I ask, are these sh!tferbrains politicians going to start framing issues in favor of WE THE PEOPLE?
Is it 2012 yet?
Each of us, in whatever way we can participate (time, talent or treasure):
MUST DO EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO ENSURE THAT THIS LIEBERAL/MARXIST/SOCIALIST/FASCIST SCUMBAG AND HIS FELLOW TRAVELERS ARE NOT RETAINED IN POWER!
[Rant over] Please do everything you can to help us defeat them.
Thanks.
FRank
The more I hear Obama and his minions speak, the more it seems they all must have take a Hypocritic Oath as a condition of joining this administration.
The United States government wouldn’t be able to borrow a DIME if they were treated like an average citizen with such a debt to income ratio! I say S&P didn’t go far enough!
Raising the debt limit to correct overspending is like trying to cure alcoholism with more whiskey!
"The debacle over the debt ceiling continued until almost the midnight hour," said John B. Chambers, chairman of S.& P.'s sovereign ratings committee. Another S.& P. official, David Beers, added that "fiscal policy, like other government policy, is fundamentally a political process."For "full-throated defense" read "climbdown". These jokers are obviously gutless, obviously under pressure, obviously feel the threat of a federal takeover breathing down their necks, and are starting the process of backing down.
From Para-Ord.45, yesterday comes this quote, which needs to be stated often!
-S&P exec John Chambers,
“But $4 trillion would be a good down payment. We thought that..if policy makers could deliver the goods on that, then that would be a strong sign on our political scores and eventually on our projections on the fiscal side.”
S&P has already said it may slash the Triple-A rating if a debt ceiling deal is not accompanied by what it deems is a credible plan to cut the $14.3 trillion federal [debt] by $4 trillion.
S&P’s Chambers is saying the ratings agency wants to see at least a $4 trillion deal, one that would come with bipartisan support.
There was only ever one plan that did what S&P said was required — $4 trillion in cuts with bipartisan support. That’d be Cut, Cap, and Balance — a plan that cut $4 trillion and got bipartisan support in the House of Representatives.
As Democrats tonight, and some Republicans, lash out and blame the Tea Party for causing the United States to lose its credit rating, it is worth pointing out that only the Tea Party offered up a plan to avoid what happened.-
Worth repeating, again and again.
I think many of us have come to believe S&P and DOW leadership has been coopted by The Usurping Marxist Onada and his band of angry commies.
Given the actual state of the US economy none of their analysis or reporting indices made one iota of sense. Always rising upon preliminary rosy gov’t economic reports; then continuing to rise once those reports were revised seriously downward.
The question, therefore, is what has changed that would cause them to suddenly and unexpectedly—on the face if it anyway—change their tune? The components that went into this budget disaster didn’t materialize over night. Even as Onada continued spending money the gov’t didn’t have, unemployment kept rising, continuing housing market deterioration, manufacturing decline etc. the S&P and DOW climbed ever upward.
So why now? The same Wall Street leadership is in place today that was in place two, three or four months ago.
I will respectfully disagree. The budget debate and uncertainty would be a factor. The printed of worthless paper is another. Perhaps they expected us to correct our course, and we failed. I don't believe we have been co-opted by anything except the fiscal irresponsibility by our government. If anything, I'm surprised that it didn't happen sooner.
“it is worth pointing out that only the Tea Party offered up a plan to avoid what happened.-
But another part of your post merits equal emphasis. It’s not just that they offered up a plan (anyone can do that), but that their plan actually passed the House, so it didn’t just appeal to the 22% of voters who identify as Tea Partiers.
The failure of this bill to advance further can be laid at the feet of President (My Way or the Highway) Obama and Harry Reid. A true leader would have set aside his personal preferences in favor of recognizing an approach that had majority support among voters and that also was a solid first step in getting onto a more fiscally sustainable glide path. Such a leader would have invested the same sort of energy/political capital as Obama did in ramming his health plan through Congress: he would have demanded that Senate Democrats hold their nose and vote in favor of the House plan even if they did not personally agree with it or thought it might cause problems with their constituents in 2012.
That Obama did none of these things tells us all we need to know about his leadership skills and about who to blame for the credit rating downgrade.
I agree. Our policies have brought this upon ourselves. Somebody finally called us on it. That's what I see.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.