Standard and Poor Cancel The title field is required!

1. Melvin Waldron

   

   43 posts
   
   8/9/2011 5:08 PM

   "By the way, the ratings agency is Standard and Poor's. Who's going to listen to a company whose name translate to Average and Below Average?" - Jon Stewart.
   
   I'm wonder what everyone's thoughts are on the lowing of our credit rating?
   
   My only comments are this is the same company that gave top ratings to the mortgage junk and they knew it was junk, yet gave it a top rating.
   
   And when the stocks were dropping, US Treasuries were being purchased, if our credit is so bad why was that happening?
   
   I am a novice when it comes to this, and I know it's not as simple as we operate with our personal budgets that we only spend what we take in....(yet why do we have credit cards, mortgages, car payments, etc.?)
   
   I'm interested in how others are thinking on this.
   
   Thanks! Mel

   
   Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
   
   
2. Wahlin Scott B

   
   8/9/2011 6:08 PM

   S&P was trying to send a message by lowering the rating. As Obama said, every knows the credit of America is AAA (except maybe the Tea Party who would destroy America to spite Obama). Of course the safe money would go to US Treasury Bonds.

   
   
   
   
3. Melvin Waldron

   

   43 posts
   
   8/9/2011 7:08 PM

   I agree with that assessment so far too Scott. Just reading their opinion that accompanied the downgrade, I felt they were saying to congress "get your heads out of your butts" As I read and understood it, that a lot of blame was placed at the tea party as they were steadfast to not approve a deal. Even when the republicans got 98% of what they wanted according to the speaker, they didn't want to vote for it. I will place blame on the democrats as well for not wanting to deal either. I blame the president while trying to compromise, he in my opinion, compromised too much by not forcing some revenue hikes, same as he did in December by extending the tax cuts. He should have stood up and said "guys, this is a balanced approach I present, (maybe he could have presented the plan to the people) If you aren't going to raise the debt limit, I will use the 14th amendment option and we'll just see what the people say in 2012." I think his ideas that he presents are sound in my opinion and knowledge, but what do I know I'm just some grass grower.
   
   Mel

   
   Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
   
   
4. Steve Nelson

   

   0 posts
   
   8/10/2011 10:08 AM

   The downgrade was ludicrous. S&P has little credibility left after their fraudulent conduct during the mortgage derivitive scandal and the wall street collapse. For the US downgrade "analysis" they had a $2 trillion arithmetic error. Even in the best of times the validity of a rating agency commenting on the bonds of nation states is suspect. Too hard to eliminate political opinon from the analysis. At the end of the day, the only thing they are supposed to do is analyze how likely the bond issue will be repaid. Investors around the world know that US bonds are the one and only safe haven. That's why when the stock market collapsed monday, all the money went to US bonds. So much for S&P's opinion.
   
   As a side note Fox (yes, I'm a repub) showed a clip of Stephen Colbert mocking the S&P downgrade while allowing the Isle of Mann to keep its AAA rating. It was hilarious.

   
   
   
   
5. McCallum David K

   
   8/10/2011 10:08 AM

   Glad you identified the problem Scott............ the Tea Party is the problem........bringing in $130 billion in revenue and spending $300 billion..........you're right I don;t see a problem in that at all.

   
   
   
   
6. Melvin Waldron

   

   43 posts
   
   8/10/2011 11:08 AM

   Gus, I wonder why they didn't show the Stewart clips as well on Fox? Both were hilarious, I don't care if it's satire or not, it quite honestly is what I'm thinking.
   
   Dave, I wonder if the Tea Party would have put up such a fight under the Bush Administration? Won't ever know because they didn't come to power under GW, but I do wonder.
   
   I will agree only bringing in $130 billion and spending $300 billion is a problem, but I felt should have been solved with a balanced approach with some revenue from the job creators, along with fixing entitlement spending. But I'm not trying to get re-elected (or elected as the presidential candidates are)

   
   Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
   
   
7. McCallum David K

   
   8/10/2011 12:08 PM

   Mel it's ok to owe more than you actually have. Most of us do in fact. A mortgage, a car note, a credit card or two but the reponsible individual(s) budget their personal finances in order to pay their debts in a timely fashion. Those that do not end up in bankruptcy court or seek out credit counseling (another scam). We as individuals lack the ability to print our own currency (though some have tried unsuccessfully), the government does. They also spend way to much of OUR MONEY (what they take from us in taxes, not what they print indiscriminatly)on their WANT list instead of our NEEDS list. I want and expect the government to provide a strong national standing army to protect us, guard our borders ( a possibilty for returning soldiers), maintain our nations infastructure with our tax money, protect both social security and medicare which we all pay for through payroll deductions. If they did those things well we would all need and require less government in our lives. Obviously the VERY poorest, those truly incapacitated need the governents help (unlike what Scott thinks all Republicans do not want to see those folks die). But those capable of work should work. The government(for one particular item that comes to mind) does not need to be in the business or providing cell phones for the poor (or those that claim they are). I grew up in an age in yes I remember living in a house with no telephone, then finally a 10 party line phone and much later a private line telephone, no air conditioning (in the deep south), one car, one TV (finally) etc etc...............it really isn't that hard.

   
   
   
   
8. Melvin Waldron

   

   43 posts
   
   8/10/2011 1:08 PM

   The government is providing cell phones? Boy if my kid had known that he wouldn't have had to wait until this summer to finally earn his.
   
   I agree with everything your saying, my question is can we even afford that? With the tax rates at these low rates, are we able to even afford to do what the government should do? That's why I think that should be part of the discussion. Either hike the tax rate up, and that is even on those making less then $250,000 or/and cut out the loopholes, (because only the rich have the resources to take advantage of them, well except for my wife, she knows what we can deduct and what we can't).
   
   Like I have said 100 times, if the job creators are not going to create jobs with their money, maybe their taxes should go up....create some jobs and we'll give you a tax deduction. Taxes will be charged on all political contributions. Be careful with entitlements, buying cellphones? That's crazy, food stamps? At least that gets spent on food stimulating the economy for all those business involved in the food chain, get caught buying cigs with your food stamps...you get them taken away, (of course the cost to enforce that would probably be more then it saves)
   
   Mel

   
   Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
   
   
9. Wahlin Scott B

   
   8/10/2011 1:08 PM

   An individual person will eventually have a GDP of zero thus the need to plan to eventually get out of debt. Hopefully to the government will have an ever increasing GDP.

   
   
   
   
10. McCallum David K

    
    8/10/2011 2:08 PM

    Scott I can agree somewhat with the first and completely with the second.....as you put it "hopefully it will continue to grow".

    
    
    
    
11. Kim Brock

    

    3 posts
    
    8/11/2011 12:08 AM

    S&P was to kind in my opinion. If X corporation had as bad of a balance sheet as the USA, they would be down graded also. The USA has got to get a handle on borrowing to pay off debts. You can't borrow yourself out of debt.
    The only thing that "saves"the USA is that they can just print more money which devalues the dollar which isn't good either. Kim Brock, concerned citizen.

    
    
    
    
12. Kauffman John M

    
    8/11/2011 3:08 PM

    wahlins said: An individual person will eventually have a GDP of zero thus the need to plan to eventually get out of debt. Hopefully to the government will have an ever increasing GDP.

    
    
    Remember that GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is a measure of the value of all the different things that happen to be made or performed in this country -- it is not owned by any one entity. The government doesn't have a GDP and doesn't own GDP.
    
    I think we often forget that private resources and assets are not the property of the government, nor does the government have any claim to them.
    
    But , you have highlighted one of the main differences between public debt and private debt -- longevity of the debtor.

    
    
    
    
13. Wahlin Scott B

    
    8/11/2011 3:08 PM

    Could it be the only difference in that part of this discussion is that you look at the government as "them" and I look at it as "us"?

    
    
    
    
14. Kauffman John M

    
    8/11/2011 7:08 PM

    wahlins said: Could it be the only difference in that part of this discussion is that you look at the government as "them" and I look at it as "us"?

    
    
    I don't know if I think of the government as "them," but I certainly know that it isn't solely you or me. I would submit that our Founders thought of the government as "them." The Declaration of Independence rails against strong central government. The Articles of Confederation deliberately witheld powers from the federal government. The Constitution is framed with the individual in mind and places limits on the government. It places the individual over the government, not government over the individual. Our nation's founders prized liberty and freedom, which are fundamentally opposite of the communal ownership of government being "us." The US was founded on the premise that each individual is a free being and has the right to be secure in his possessions. Similarly, I think that you should keep as much of your stuff as possible. And I don't discriminate, so I think that Bill Gates and factory workers should have the same right.
    
    The Founders understood, also, that funding government (which is necessary) happens by coercion -- they take your stuff under threat of removing your freedom. They were very cautious about giving power to the government (see Articles of Confederation).
    
    If we want to look at it another way, how much "us" is it when 50% of "us" don't financially contribute to it?
    
    Perhaps we do think differently. I just think that no one has the right to take something from someone else.