Monday May 28, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

S&P officials defend U.S. credit downgrade

World Aug. 07, 2011 - 07:10AM JST ( 13 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

13 Comments

0

some14someAug. 07, 2011 - 07:32AM JST

So what can Obama do now? Downgrade S&P rating or ask rival companies to upgrade US rating (!)
1

grammefridayAug. 07, 2011 - 08:22AM JST

leading up to the financial meltdown a couple of years ago, companies like S & P were handing out 5 star ratings to pretty well all the dodgy products the large US banks produced.... one of the reasons for the meltdown was the worthlessness of these products when the time came to cough up the money.... I wouldnt trust or believe anything these clowns say...
0

SerranoAug. 07, 2011 - 08:37AM JST

"The U.S. will keep having problems getting its finances under control"

Ya don't say.
0

DeploreAug. 07, 2011 - 09:20AM JST

Does it really matter? Whether it was now or a year from now, the U.S. was going to have its credit downgraded. Perhaps this can serve as impetus for both parties to tackle revenue and entitlements...

One can hope.
0

KronosAug. 07, 2011 - 09:40AM JST

The only criticism for S&P is why they waited this long to downgrade US. Economy is in tatters. Debt is sky high. Politicians are incompetent no different than the J-government. Actually US should have been downgraded further than just one notch.
0

PotsandpansAug. 07, 2011 - 11:44AM JST

Agree with Kronos. What is amazing is that it took this long, and also amazing that it was only one notch. If individuals were treated with this much leeway, you could be years behind on a hundred maxed out credit cards before getting blacklisted.
0

FarmboyAug. 07, 2011 - 12:06PM JST

“I find it interesting to see S&P so vigilant now in downgrading the U.S. credit rating,” Independent Sen Bernie Sanders said Saturday. “Where were they four years ago?”

Is his advice that S&P should not be vigilant now because it's inconvenient for the US? That they shouldn't improve on past mistakes? These people are in denial. The S&P is not a government entity, and they really don't give a rat's patootie what the deadbeats in government think.
1

FarmboyAug. 07, 2011 - 12:25PM JST

PS: Nothing against Bernie Sanders, but this kind of thing is like parents who complain because their little Johnny got a C, and want the teacher to give him a B. Well, stupid little Johnny didn't do the work needed to get a B.
0

globalwatcherAug. 07, 2011 - 01:39PM JST

I have just heard S&P made 2 trillion dollars accounting mistake, not $20 mistake. I do not know what $2 trillion looks like. I wonder how heavy it is, just curious.......

Plus I am very allergic to grading system; AAA to AA. I thought I was done with that when I was in school many many years ago. Now I feel like I am back to school again..
0

FarmboyAug. 07, 2011 - 04:51PM JST

I wonder how heavy it is, just curious......

Well, you'd still have to do some math, but this might help with those weighty issues

http://www.fivecentnickel.com/2006/02/07/how-much-does-a-million-dollars-weigh/
-1

just-a-guyAug. 07, 2011 - 06:51PM JST

20 years later, the credibility of United States will downgrading to Greece's level!
0

LagunaAug. 07, 2011 - 07:19PM JST

S&P was looking for $4 trillion in budget cuts over 10 years.... Republicans are refusing to raise taxes in any deficit-cutting deal while Democrats are fighting to protect giant entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

Very poorly written article. Was S&P truly looking for "$4 trillion in budget cuts," or were they looking for a reduction in the deficit of that amount? The distinction is important.
0

MolenirAug. 08, 2011 - 11:19PM JST

Very poorly written article. Was S&P truly looking for "$4 trillion in budget cuts," or were they looking for a reduction in the deficit of that amount? The distinction is important.

Good question. The answer is, reduction in the deficit. Presently, over the next 10 years, we are projected to go more then 10 trillion additional into the hole. Thats including some rosy projections. Things like us getting out of recession, additional funds coming in, the Bush Tax cuts not continuing. Realistically, that 10 trillion number is significantly higher. The 4 trillion reduction would mean the US only going an additional 6 trillion in the hole, based on those rosy projections. In other words, its still a huge hole, and while this should serve as a wake up call to both Dems and Republicans, we all know it won't. Republicans don't have the spine to do the necessary things, and Dems would rather bury their head in the sand then cut a nickel from the entitlement trough. Government keeps growing ever larger.

The worst part about this is, is that based on those same projections, if the US just froze spending at its current, excessive level, the budget would balance in about 10 years. So pols haven't really discussed actually cutting spending, they've only discussed, reducing the rate of growth in spending. Hows that for pathetic!