http://finance.yahoo.com/news/SampP-downgrades-US-credit-apf-2107320979.html?x=0

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Credit rating agency Standard & Poor's on Friday downgraded the United States' credit rating first time in the history of the ratings.

The credit rating agency said that it is cutting the country's top AAA rating by one notch to AA-plus. The credit agency said that it is making the move because the deficit reduction plan passed by Congress on Tuesday did not go far enough to stabilize the country's debt situation.

Two AAA's and a AA+.

While this isn't going to be as catastrophic as people want to make you believe it will be, D.C. needs to get it's shit together.

You beat me to it. Job well done raising the debt ceiling.

Nothing will happen different in D.C. They will literally have to be hit repeatedly over the head with a 2X4 and they still won't get it. Not until our ability to borrow any money at all is taken away will fiscal change happen.

If you were paying attention at all, you knew this was going to happen even after the so-called deal was struck.

Obama is leading this nation to ruin...

Thanks, Barry. You are now the 1st President in the entire history of the Republic to see our credit rating downgraded. It's been AAA since 1917. The complete and utter ineptitude of your administration is now evident to the world.

As far as I'm concerned, Barack Hussein Obama needs to resign immediately because his ineptness and lack of knowledge is now harming America. It's no longer fun & games. These are serious times and we need serious leadership. Step aside, Obama, you've done enough damage.

..... NOT MY PRESIDENT ...... anyone like to join the club now..

Writerbuckeye;852934 wrote:If you were paying attention at all, you knew this was going to happen even after the so-called deal was struck.

Obama is leading this nation to ruin...

This.

I believe the Friday before the deal was made, they said it would be downgraded, due to not enough spending cuts.

Now, what does this mean as a person who has a house payment and a car payment? Should I brace for higher monthly payments?

The blame falls almost solely on the Obama Administration. Hopefully the Republicans start mumbling impeachment to get someone in there who has a freaking clue.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Credit rating agency Standard & Poor's on Friday downgraded the United States' credit rating first time in the history of the ratings.

The credit rating agency said that it is cutting the country's top AAA rating by one notch to AA-plus. The credit agency said that it is making the move because the deficit reduction plan passed by Congress on Tuesday did not go far enough to stabilize the country's debt situation.

Five key words for every liberal media type calling Tea Partiers "terrorists", the "Hezbollah wing", "hostage-takers";
for every weak-kneed, spineless establishment Republican calling us "reckless", "hobbits", and pre-blaming us for any potential bad results at the polls in 2012;
for every Republican leader in the Senate who undermined the negotiating position of Cut Cap & Balance with every plan under the sun;
for every liberal Democrat in the Senate who has perfected the art of demagoguery and failing to pass any budget;
and for every Republican leader in the House who thought it better to bypass their Constitutional responsibility to control the purse strings of the federal government and act as a check on the other branches of government than to stand up and do the right thing . . .

DID NOT GO FAR ENOUGH

I'll no doubt love the spin the MSM puts on this.

Wanna bet they ignore Obama's responsibility for his lack of leadership, and lack of willingness to compromise on enough spending cuts?

coyotes22;852978 wrote: Now, what does this mean as a person who has a house payment and a car payment? Should I brace for higher monthly payments?

No, your rates are locked in. This effects only new debt, well and a mortgage if you have an ARM set to adjust sometime soon. Even with a bump in interest rates, they are still going to be very near historic lows.

gut;853111 wrote:No, your rates are locked in. This effects only new debt, well and a mortgage if you have an ARM set to adjust sometime soon. Even with a bump in interest rates, they are still going to be very near historic lows.

I doubt rates go up very much if at all. S&P said that one thing that will cause a downgrade to AA shortly would be a hike in interest rates.

The U.S. was already bottom of the pile AAA and some AAA rated countries have bounced back and forth multiple times in the past 10 years. Honestly, it's not really going to make that big of a difference right now

Anyone remember "fundamentally transform the United States of America?"

Obama said it...plenty heard it....not enough were listening.

Exactly what platform does this President plan to run for re-election on? Anyone? Bueller?

At this point, he may face a real challenge from within his own party....nevermind re-election.

Writerbuckeye;853074 wrote:I'll no doubt love the spin the MSM puts on this.

Wanna bet they ignore Obama's responsibility for his lack of leadership, and lack of willingness to compromise on enough spending cuts?

I hate to break it to you, but it is being widely reported that S&P has said that they were looking for tax increases to go along with the spending cuts. We gave them half.

gut;853111 wrote:No, your rates are locked in. This effects only new debt, well and a mortgage if you have an ARM set to adjust sometime soon. Even with a bump in interest rates, they are still going to be very near historic lows.

phewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!

Thanks for this useful post!!!!!!

LJ;853125 wrote:I hate to break it to you, but it is being widely reported that S&P has said that they were looking for tax increases to go along with the spending cuts. We gave them half.

Yes but don't forget that the MSM really means "tax the rich" when they say "tax increases".

I've said it before and I'll say it again....BEFORE these clowns ask for tax increases, they need to (a) approve a balanced budget amendment to make it the law of the land to spend no more than they take in AND (b) guarantee that the additional revenues generated from any tax increases are applied directly to the nation's debt. The additional revenues cannot - by law - be used for additional spending....period.

Do these things and I'll be the first conservative on OC to champion tax increases.

LJ;853125 wrote:I hate to break it to you, but it is being widely reported that S&P has said that they were looking for tax increases to go along with the spending cuts. We gave them half.

Don't kid yourself. If enough real cuts had been made, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The only reason S&P probably said that is because they were splitting the budget "battle" in half...as the parties mostly did.

Their bottom line is the fiscal integrity of the US and the ratio of debt to GDP. If that goes down and there's a solid plan in place to keep it from getting no higher than about 16 percent or so (where it has traditionally been) they wouldn't care about increasing taxes.

I also am not opposed to some tax increases, but ONLY if they are earmarked to pay down the deficit and cannot be used, by law, for further spending. Why would anyone with common sense trust Congress to use extra funding for that purpose based only on their word?

Put a balanced budget amendment into law and start cutting back spending at least 10 percent across the board (real cuts, not just lowering projected increases); and focus on those areas of the federal government that are Constitutionally mandated first, like national defense. I'd also include health and safety in those (excluding the EPA, which can be done at the state level).

I'm guessing the federal government could easily absorb 10 percent cuts in personnel by attrition alone. Just don't fill slots of retirees and don't create new positions.

Writerbuckeye;853074 wrote:I'll no doubt love the spin the MSM puts on this.

Wanna bet they ignore Obama's responsibility for his lack of leadership, and lack of willingness to compromise on enough spending cuts?

Dude. Barry wanted more cuts than was in the final deal and we would not have been downgraded would have, say, raised the debt ceiling without any political issues back in December. But alas, I know you're emotionally invested in disliking BHO so carry on.

BoatShoes;853262 wrote:Dude. Barry wanted more cuts than was in the final deal and we would not have been downgraded would have, say, raised the debt ceiling without any political issues back in December. But alas, I know you're emotionally invested in disliking BHO so carry on.

Barry wanted more cuts 10 years from now in exchange for more taxes right now.

Why couldn't it have been the other way? More cuts now and taxes down the road?

486,200 years...give or take a decade......the amount of time it would take to pay off the national debt....if we shoveled one dollar per second as a payment plan. S and P....what took you so long?

LJ;853125 wrote:I hate to break it to you, but it is being widely reported that S&P has said that they were looking for tax increases to go along with the spending cuts. We gave them half.

this

I think the idea that we can't raise taxes is retarded. For the past few years, as a % of GDP, we've been lower than historical averages for the last 50 years. Cut Defense Spending, Cut Entitlement Spending, Raise Revenues. That is the only way. Until the Republican party unhinges themselves from the Tea Party, we are all screwed.

Look at federal revenues the past 10 years. Since the Bush Tax cuts, we are actually bringing in more revenue than ever with reduced taxes. Raising taxes is not going to solve anything, cutting spending will.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Uh huh, historical tax revenues are usually around 18% GDP. Spending is running over 25% GDP. Even raising tax rates up to the 18% GDP isn't going to come close to solving this problem. Are you saying that the liberals in Congress are going to cut spending 7% of GDP? That's over 1 Trillion in actual cuts, not that future reduced spending crap.

By 2015, the federal budget will be over 4.2 Trillion dollars. Revenues are around 2.2 Trillion. There is no possible way for the government to almost double revenues in 4 years, it's not going to happen.

LJ;853125 wrote:I hate to break it to you, but it is being widely reported that S&P has said that they were looking for tax increases to go along with the spending cuts. We gave them half.

I hate to break it to you, but raising taxes does not scratch the surface of yearly deficits. If Obama got his way and "increased revenue" (BTW Barry...stop using euphemisms for tax increases like revenue and "investments"; We aren't as stupid as you think), we'd still be $1,000,000,000,000 SHORT.

Raising taxes NOW in exchange for spending cuts 10 YEARS FROM now is what he wanted, not to have a "balanced approach". He and everyone else knows that future spending cuts NEVER happen, but tax increases hit as quickly as the IRS can rewrite the tax code.