quote:

Have you seen, anywhere, in any media, or even heard reported or repeated on NPR, the following sentence? “WE HAVE CHANGED OUR ASSUMPTION ON THIS BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS CONTINUE TO RESIST ANY MEASURE THAT WOULD RAISE REVENUES, A POSITION WE BELIEVE CONGRESS REINFORCED BY PASSING THE ACT.”

It’s right there on Page 4 of the official Standard & Poor’s “Research Update” – the actual report on what they did and why – published on August 5th as the explanation for why they believe Congress – and even the Gang of Twelve – will be unable to actually deal with the US debt crisis...

In order to figure out that one of the reasons why is that “Republicans in the Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues,” a hard-working reporter would have to read to page four of the eight-page report. It’s just too much effort for most reporters?...

...could it be that reporters are afraid that if they report the actual language of the S&P Research Report, then Republicans will punish them by denying them “access” – i.e. refusing to show up on their programs – which is the career and show kiss-of-death for radio and TV programs that rely on big-name politicians to work?

I don’t know the reason, but it’s fascinating to see all the huffing and puffing about the S&P downgrade of America’s debt that all seems to be working so hard to avoid mentioning that critical sentence.

“WE HAVE CHANGED OUR ASSUMPTION ON THIS BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS CONTINUE TO RESIST ANY MEASURE THAT WOULD RAISE REVENUES, A POSITION WE BELIEVE CONGRESS REINFORCED BY PASSING THE ACT.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto
I don’t know the reason, but it’s fascinating to see all the huffing and puffing about the S&P downgrade of America’s debt that all seems to be working so hard to avoid mentioning that critical sentence.

I'm sorry, what was that "critical sentence" again?

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: outhere69

I've also heard they made a 2 trillion mistake when they crunched the numbers.

quote:


Ahhhh, so the Republicans stance on tax increase ISNT the whole story, as you want people to think.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Consider the sources...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

People are too lazy to read and inwardly digest
just to show it is in there, I downloaded the PDF and took a screenshot of it


they also said.....

The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as
America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective,
and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt
ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in
the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our
view, the differences between political parties have proven to be
extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting
agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program
that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently.�P�

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Consider the sources...

quote:

ORIGINAL: pogo4pres

FR


For the fucktard brigade what media IS NOT REPORTING is that MOODYS & FITCH (both better known and more respected "bond houses" than S&P) still rate the U.S. as "AAA".  Additionally the media is NOT REPORTING that S&P is currently in some deep fucking kimchi with the SEC.


Investingly,
Some Knucklehead in NJ

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

People are too lazy to read and inwardly digest
just to show it is in there, I downloaded the PDF and took a screenshot of it


they also said.....

The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as
America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective,
and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt
ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in
the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our
view, the differences between political parties have proven to be
extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting
agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program
that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently.�P�

Sigh... I made this point to wilbur in the other thread when he erroneously stated that S&P would have downgraded us if there were no debt ceiling debate. It is VERY clear from S&P report that they blame the Republicans for this nonsense.

The BOTTOM LINE: No debt ceiling debate. No downgrade. S&P wouldn't have said a word.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

Sigh... I made this point to wilbur in the other thread when he erroneously stated that S&P would have downgraded us if there were no debt ceiling debate. It is VERY clear from S&P report that they blame the Republicans for this nonsense.

The BOTTOM LINE: No debt ceiling debate. No downgrade. S&P wouldn't have said a word.

Because the U.S. has, relative to its 'AAA' peers, what we consider to be
very large budget deficits and rising government indebtedness and the
path to addressing these is not clear to us, we have revised our outlook
on the long-term rating to negative from stable.

We believe there is a material risk that U.S. policymakers might not
reach an agreement on how to address medium- and long-term budgetary
challenges by 2013; if an agreement is not reached and meaningful
implementation is not begun by then, this would in our view render the
U.S. fiscal profile meaningfully weaker than that of peer 'AAA'
sovereigns.

"More than two years after the beginning of the recent crisis, U.S.
policymakers have still not agreed on how to reverse recent fiscal
deterioration or address longer-term fiscal pressures," Mr. Swann added.

In 2003-2008, the U.S.'s general (total) government deficit fluctuated
between 2% and 5% of GDP. Already noticeably larger than that of most 'AAA'
rated sovereigns, it ballooned to more than 11% in 2009 and has yet to
recover.

On April 13, President Barack Obama laid out his Administration's
medium-term fiscal consolidation plan, aimed at reducing the cumulative
unified federal deficit by US$4 trillion in 12 years or less. A key component
of the Administration's strategy is to work with Congressional leaders over
the next two months to develop a commonly agreed upon program to reach this
target. The President's proposals envision reducing the deficit via both
spending cuts and revenue increases.

Key members in the U.S. House of Representatives have also advocated
fiscal tightening of a similar magnitude, US$4.4 trillion, during the coming
10 years, but via different methods. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul
Ryan's plan seeks to balance the federal budget by 2040, in part by cutting
non-defense spending. The plan also includes significantly reducing the scope
of Medicare and Medicaid, while bringing top individual and corporate tax
rates lower than those under the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

We view President Obama's and Congressman Ryan's proposals as the
starting point of a process aimed at broader engagement, which could result in
substantial and lasting U.S. government fiscal consolidation. That said, we
see the path to agreement as challenging because the gap between the parties
remains wide. We believe there is a significant risk that Congressional
negotiations could result in no agreement on a medium-term fiscal strategy
until after the fall 2012 Congressional and Presidential elections. If so, the
first budget proposal that could include related measures would be Budget 2014
(for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, 2013), and we believe a delay beyond
that time is possible.

Standard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue
measures the Congress and the Administration might conclude are appropriate.
But for any plan to be credible, we believe that it would need to secure
support from a cross-section of leaders in both political parties.

If U.S. policymakers do agree on a fiscal consolidation strategy, we
believe the experience of other countries highlights that implementation could
take time. It could also generate significant political controversy, not just
within Congress or between Congress and the Administration, but throughout the
country. We therefore think that, assuming an agreement between Congress and
the President, there is a reasonable chance that it would still take a number
of years before the government reaches a fiscal position that stabilizes its
debt burden. In addition, even if such measures are eventually put in place,
the initiating policymakers or subsequently elected ones could decide to at
least partially reverse fiscal consolidation.

"Some compromise that achieves agreement on a comprehensive budgetary
consolidation program--containing deficit-reduction measures in amounts near
those recently proposed, and combined with meaningful steps toward
implementation by 2013--is our baseline assumption and could lead us to revise
the outlook back to stable. Alternatively, the lack of such an agreement or a
significant further fiscal deterioration for any reason could lead us to lower
the rating.

“S&P assumes that the U.S. will enact ‘a comprehensive budgetary consolidation program – combined with meaningful steps toward implementation by 2013,’ but we believe S&P’s negative outlook underestimates the ability of America’s leaders to come together to address the difficult fiscal challenges facing the nation.”​