S&P Cuts U.S. Ratings Outlook to Negative

#3
#3
administration now saying S&P made a "political judgement." wow. unbelievable.
 
#4
#4
droski said:
administration now saying S&P made a "political judgement." wow. unbelievable.
Click to expand...

It'd be funny if it weren't so sad. All entities not buying the admin BS are politically motivated. Fortunately for us all the admin is not at all politically motivated.
 
#5
#5
Honest question, given the deficits run under Bush, do you think we would be in this situation if he were elected to a third term?
 
#6
#6
rjd970 said:
Honest question, given the deficits run under Bush, do you think we would be in this situation if he were elected to a third term?
Click to expand...

who the hell knows? my guess is that bush would have spent the same money, but instead lowered taxes. the economy could be a lot better in that situation i suppose.
 
#8
#8
droski said:
administration now saying S&P made a "political judgement." wow. unbelievable.
Click to expand...


One has to wonder about the timing of this. Plus, that release seems a bit .... stilted. Just sayin.'

Its subjective, anyway, correct? I mean, there is no formula for it, no objective measure, no threshold to cross that signals reduction in your rating.

I'm not saying it isn't bad news. But one wonders if the S&P, with a vested if not indirect interest in a budget solution that favors investors, isn't exactly completely unbiased.
 
#9
#9
lawgator1 said:
One has to wonder about the timing of this. Plus, that release seems a bit .... stilted. Just sayin.'

Its subjective, anyway, correct? I mean, there is no formula for it, no objective measure, no threshold to cross that signals reduction in your rating.

I'm not saying it isn't bad news. But one wonders if the S&P, with a vested if not indirect interest in a budget solution that favors investors, isn't exactly completely unbiased.
Click to expand...

Sure, they just make it up on a gut feeling or to prove a political point or to mess with the market. No real analysis goes into it.
 
#10
#10
lawgator1 said:
One has to wonder about the timing of this. Plus, that release seems a bit .... stilted. Just sayin.'

Its subjective, anyway, correct? I mean, there is no formula for it, no objective measure, no threshold to cross that signals reduction in your rating.

I'm not saying it isn't bad news. But one wonders if the S&P, with a vested if not indirect interest in a budget solution that favors investors, isn't exactly completely unbiased.
Click to expand...

how do they have a vested interest in a budge solution that favors investors? they are a credit rating firm. and btw they talked about doing this during the bush administration. it's absurd to argue they are antiobama. particurally considering that most of their employees live in a city filled with democrats.
 
#11
#11
volinbham said:
Sure, they just make it up on a gut feeling or to prove a political point or to mess with the market. No real analysis goes into it.
Click to expand...


That's now what I said. Its just not completely clear as I read the comments where "analysis" ends and "argument" begins.
 
#13
#13
droski said:
who the hell knows? my guess is that bush would have spent the same money, but instead lowered taxes. the economy could be a lot better in that situation i suppose.
Click to expand...

How did that work out with deficits?
 
#14
#14
rjd970 said:
Honest question, given the deficits run under Bush, do you think we would be in this situation if he were elected to a third term?
Click to expand...

Probably. The differences I see would be that the 2 omnibus bills that raised discretionary spending by 20+% likely wouldn't have been signed and thus knocked down some.

The stimulus would have been much more tax focused and less program budget increases - don't forget, Obama's new budget proposes growth for programs that 1) were raised in the Omnibi and 2) were raised in the Stimulus. As a result we see some programs with 50%+ growth since Obama took over.

On the flip side, taxes would have been cut more and defense spending might be hire due to less urgency to get out of Iraq.

We also wouldn't have Obamacare.
 
#16
#16
Would love to see simlar outrage over the raising and lowering of the terrorism alert level during political fights during the Bush admin. No real analysis there either.

Obama = political games with economy
Bush = political games with national security

Every admin does this BS.
 
#17
#17
droski said:
how do they have a vested interest in a budge solution that favors investors? they are a credit rating firm. and btw they talked about doing this during the bush administration. it's absurd to argue they are antiobama. particurally considering that most of their employees live in a city filled with democrats.
Click to expand...


I'm not saying they are anti-Obama. And I'm not saying that we should continue with record deficits. I am, however, wondering whether they are pro-deficit reduction in a manner that helps their own interests.

As a CRA, and especially one that has been heavily criticized for not exactly doing a masterful job assigning risk to some of the financial industry gimmicks over the last five or ten years, it just feels like there is some tension there to me.
 
#19
#19
The Obama administration moved swiftly Monday to downplay ratings agency S&P's downgrade of its U.S. credit outlook, calling the decision a political judgment that should not be taken too seriously.

No big deal...of course.
 
#20
#20
droski said:
better economy means better tax receipts and lower deficits.
Click to expand...

Deficits during Bush's second term flies in the face of this statement, and he didn't even include discretionary defense spending on the books.
 
#21
#21
rjd970 said:
Would love to see simlar outrage over the raising and lowering of the terrorism alert level during political fights during the Bush admin. No real analysis there either.

Obama = political games with economy
Bush = political games with national security

Every admin does this BS.
Click to expand...

I don't get this analysis. S&P is not part of the administration - they are an independent rating agency.
 
#22
#22
lawgator1 said:
I'm not saying they are anti-Obama. And I'm not saying that we should continue with record deficits. I am, however, wondering whether they are pro-deficit reduction in a manner that helps their own interests.

As a CRA, and especially one that has been heavily criticized for not exactly doing a masterful job assigning risk to some of the financial industry gimmicks over the last five or ten years, it just feels like there is some tension there to me.
Click to expand...

I can't see a material benefit here. particurally with the political pressure that can be put on S&P by the administration.

so they've been proping up lousy assets as AAA and now they should continue to do that for sake of the govt? S&P has been far more agressive in downgrading everything recently (munis, corporates, etc) than the other agencies. i suppose you could argue they've overreacted to teh other side, but it sure beats downgrading paper AFTER the crap hits the fan.
 
#23
#23
rjd970 said:
Deficits during Bush's second term flies in the face of this statement, and he didn't even include discretionary defense spending on the books.
Click to expand...

you are assuming he would start another iraq war. take that out and i assure you that bush's deficits would look a lot better. not all spending is repeatable.
 
#25
#25
It is a bit ironic that the same administration claiming greedy Wall Street hid risks is now claiming the risk assessment of them is politically motivated.

I thought financial reform was about true transparency and clear risk assessment?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top