The Goat Pen

There....

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-2 ... ment-.html

So what you guys are telling me is that if the current deal was done 4 months ago while all the congressman were holding hands on th capitol steps....we would still be AAA today?

They ol' "political rhetoric" statement is in itself a political move to deflect criticism, especially when a rival keeps their rating at AAA and is loved by all...

There were reports that the S&P told the Obama administration and Republican leaders that they needed 4 trillion in reduction or they could lower the rating. One of the reasons Obama was willing to put entitlements on the table if the Republicans were willing to add to it on the revenue side.

The President thought that 4 trillion in cuts plus one trillion in revenue increases would be a enough, but this was soundly rejected by the teaparty.

So what you guys are telling me is that if the current deal was done 4 months ago while all the congressman were holding hands on th capitol steps....we would still be AAA today?

Clearly the answer is yes

Moody's even ask the Congress to stop voting on the debt ceiling and make it automatic

Owlman wrote:There were reports that the S&P told the Obama administration and Republican leaders that they needed 4 trillion in reduction or they could lower the rating. One of the reasons Obama was willing to put entitlements on the table if the Republicans were willing to add to it on the revenue side.

The President thought that 4 trillion in cuts plus one trillion in revenue increases would be a enough, but this was soundly rejected by the teaparty.

You talking about this plan? LOL

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/ ... -reduction

yeah, not much detail offered there. Try submit a plan like that to your lender.

Owlman wrote:

So what you guys are telling me is that if the current deal was done 4 months ago while all the congressman were holding hands on th capitol steps....we would still be AAA today?

Clearly the answer is yes

Clearly, you're delusional.

sardis wrote:

Owlman wrote:

So what you guys are telling me is that if the current deal was done 4 months ago while all the congressman were holding hands on th capitol steps....we would still be AAA today?

Clearly the answer is yes

Clearly, you're delusional.

Hardly. You are just ignoring the facts given to come to a predecided conclusion. Bkln has given you the statements. Your response is "yeah, they said it, but I ignore it and give my own opinion." No wonder you're a teaparty supporter.

sardis wrote:

Owlman wrote:There were reports that the S&P told the Obama administration and Republican leaders that they needed 4 trillion in reduction or they could lower the rating. One of the reasons Obama was willing to put entitlements on the table if the Republicans were willing to add to it on the revenue side.

The President thought that 4 trillion in cuts plus one trillion in revenue increases would be a enough, but this was soundly rejected by the teaparty.

You talking about this plan? LOL

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/ ... -reduction

yeah, not much detail offered there. Try submit a plan like that to your lender.

Never done much negotiation, I see. No body had anything written down, it was a negotiation. But people in negotiation say what they are willing to do. Obama was willing to put entitlements on the table. Republicans weren't willing to put revenue on the table.

“$4 trillion would be a good down payment,” Chambers said in a video interview distributed by the New York-based ratings firm. “A grand bargain of that nature would signal the seriousness of policy makers to address the fiscal situation in the U.S.”

S&P, which has given the U.S. a top AAA ranking since 1941, said on July 14 that the chance of a downgrade is 50 percent in the next three months and may cut the rating as soon as August if there isn’t a “credible” plan to reduce the nation’s deficit.

That quote is a far cry from "if the plan is not $4 trillion over 10 years, at least, then you get a downgrade." Chambers provided plenty of wiggle room and only gave the downgrade 50% chance at that point.

Pre-downgrade analysis is not as weighty as post-downgrade justification.

it's even worst than that Bklyn. Sardis claims that the downgrade is because they didn't cut 4 trillion in debt over 10 years (which they could have gotten too if they had put revenue on the table but that's a side issue) instead of the 2 trillion they eventually agreed upon. This is the sole reason.

But Sardis, the S&P agrees that they made a 2 trillion dollar mistake in their estimates over 10 years therefore making the amount of debt reduction based on their previous requirements the same. If quantitative was the only reason, then they should have reraised the rating upon their discovery of their mistake.

Of course, since you've pointed out that that wasn't the primary reason, then it is no surprise that it wasn't raised.

Hardly. You are just ignoring the facts given to come to a predecided conclusion. Bkln has given you the statements. Your response is "yeah, they said it, but I ignore it and give my own opinion." No wonder you're a teaparty supporter.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

I'm not a tea party supporter, I hate Michelle Bachman as a candidate. I've supported going back to Clinton tax rates, which by the way is ALREADY LEGISLATED TO OCCUR IN 2013. So you have your $2 trillion in revenue increases already there. You are the one ignoring obvious facts. The S&P up until the passage of the bill was trumpeting $4 trillion over 10 years. They didn't get it. They were being attacked, so they deflected by blaming it on politics. The excuses were post facto because their credibilty was put to the fire.

Then it's a point that stays in moot territory. I'm going by what was in the press release and you are saying the press release was convenient excuse-making.

No need to take this conversation any further. I say rhetoric played a part. You say, no, it was quantitative. No one wins, or has a chance to. Nice going back and forth, though.

Except the quantitative argument falls through with their 2 trillion dollar mistake. With that mistake, they ended up with the deficit reduction that they claimed (if quantitative is the only reason)

Owlman wrote:it's even worst than that Bklyn. Sardis claims that the downgrade is because they didn't cut 4 trillion in debt over 10 years (which they could have gotten too if they had put revenue on the table but that's a side issue) instead of the 2 trillion they eventually agreed upon. This is the sole reason.

But Sardis, the S&P agrees that they made a 2 trillion dollar mistake in their estimates over 10 years therefore making the amount of debt reduction based on their previous requirements the same. If quantitative was the only reason, then they should have reraised the rating upon their discovery of their mistake.

Of course, since you've pointed out that that wasn't the primary reason, then it is no surprise that it wasn't raised.

And that proves my point. It was a political answer to cover themselves when the heat was bearing down. It would have been embarassing to revise so they blamed politics. Even Assistant Treasury Secretary John Bellows said that the S&P reasons turned political when the mistake was made.

"After Treasury pointed out this error – a basic math error of significant consequence – S&P still chose to proceed with their flawed judgment by simply changing their principal rationale for their credit rating decision from an economic one to a political one."

http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Pa ... take.aspx

That's ok, keep believing the tea partiers are the boogiemen. You have to have some scape goat.

Only in America. Embarrassing.

So you have your $2 trillion in revenue increases already there

Nope. S&P wanted 4 trillion in addition to that. Plus, I doubt seriously that they end up with all of tax cuts going away. Probably, those making less than $250,000 will not get their taxes increased. Of course, if Obama loses, then there will be even further tax decreases

And that proves my point. It was a political answer to cover themselves when the heat was bearing down. It would have been embarassing to revise so they blamed politics. Even Assistant Treasury Secretary John Bellows said that the S&P reasons turned political when the mistake was made.

No, it does the opposite. It proves that the quantitative wasn't the real reason. If it was just quantitative and that what was scaring S&P, then there would be no reason to downgrade anymore. It shows that the economic reason was never the reason in the first place.

S&P, pfft. Idiots. All of you who follow that crap.

Nope. S&P wanted 4 trillion in addition to that.

S&P wanted 4 trillion in deficit reduction; I don't think they specified how we got it, did they?

Politics.

Too funny.

A bunch of know it alls from each "party" fighting on a message board about things A) They can't control and B) Things they don't agree with.

Then, because S&P says so, stocks fall. Why? Media?

Same S&P who gave the banks a thumbs up in 2008.

OK then.

Washington doesn't care about you or your opinions. You vote what you believe and then let them do their jobs. If they fuck it up, it's on you. Politics today is a joke. Stop falling for it.

S&P wanted 4 trillion in deficit reduction; I don't think they specified how we got it, did they?

Nope, but they weren't including the anticipated end of the Bush tax cuts. They did get their 4 trillion, with the 2 trillion agreement plus their 2 trillion mistake.

As for blaming the tea-party? ON this, yeah. From the very beginning, they spoke of default. The Wisconsin teaparty noted that people were blaming the teaparty for the AAA rating drop stated that they were happy that this occurred and was cheered for saying it.