Jane Hampsher was right: S&P's pol agenda: influence the election & slash Soc Sec & Medicare

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1612265&mesg_id=1612265


This escalated hysteria is the lead up to the next round. By then, they hope to have Dems so totally cowed and rethugs so energized
that cutting Medicare and Soc Sec will be guaranteed. Obama has played right into their hands by embracing their agenda. There is no "deficit" crisis and the "deficit" would disappear if we had strong job creation and ended the Bush tax cuts.

where is your evidence child?

They don't trust Congress to let the Bush tax cuts expire (the 'math error' myth) and don't believe that congress will add revenues to the austerity package.

Stupid PUMA.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

WS wanted a clean debt ceiling increase. They KNOW austerity will kill the economy.

Yes, I believe this. This isn't about higher interest rates (AA+ isn't that big of a deal), this is about reminding congress to do what they are told, when they are told and how they are told.

tinker belle, i be here waiting....

"Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on
discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on
more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have
dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions
only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements,
the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key
to long-term fiscal sustainability."

We could elect pit the younger from the clown party, it has no affect on S&P ratings.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm sick of that attitude, and sick of the people who perpetuate it. It's a demeaning and deliberately spiteful way of taking the genuine criticisms and points from the left, and sneeringly dismissing them as nothing more than leftover primary whining. Why bother actually addressing questions, problems, and arguments when you can just roll your eyes and shout "PUMA!" instead? I guess that's intellectually easier, but it's a tactic that, IMHO, is profoundly wrong. Continuing to toss in "PUMA" at every given conversational opportunity is, ironically, quite a PUMA-esque behavior in and of itself. It does NOTHING but make people angry, hurt, and resentful. It contributes absolutely nothing of value to the larger conversation. It does, however, perpetuate the alienation and polarization between the two major factions of our party.

How coincidental.

But I will never trust someone who A) worked with grover norquist
B) takes money from a group that is working to elect GOP members.

All the same, S and P is trying to get a GOP member in 2012.

how credit agencies profit from this...

wants Barnie frank around, you can only be so wrong for so many years before people just laugh at what you say!

And no i am not making fun of his speech impediment, i am making fun of his god damn always wrong speeches.

.. what did he did regarding Fanny and Freddie?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Barnie+frank+fannie+mae">barney frank and fanny mae



From 2003


While I admire many things about barney, honesty is not one of them...

but this week he did say he's digging around into Wall Streets business...

s&p is owned by mcgraw-hill, ceo harold mcgraw III:

On the Business Round table

Harold Whittlesey "Terry" McGraw III (born 1948)<1> is chairman, president and chief executive officer (CEO) of McGraw-Hill Companies and chairman of the Business Roundtable, an association of CEOs of American companies....McGraw was chairman of the group's International Trade & Investment Task Force from October 2003 through 2006. In that post, he led the task force's efforts to work with CEO groups in other countries and to support free trade agreements.

The group makes up more than a third of the total value of the U.S. stock market, 60 percent of total corporate philanthropic donations in the country and almost half of all private research and development funding in the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_McGraw_III


The Business Roundtable (BRT) is a politically conservative<1><2><3><4> group of chief executive officers of major U.S. corporations formed to promote pro-business public policy.

The Roundtable was founded in 1972 by John Harper, the head of ALCOA Aluminum, and Fred Borch, CEO of General Electric, who were concerned about growing public hostility toward corporations as evidenced by support for government regulation of the workplace environment, and about the power of unions to squeeze corporate profits in an increasingly competitive international market. The two CEOs talked with John Connally, President Nixon's Secretary of Treasury, and Arthur Bums, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, who advised them to set up a lobbying organization that would specifically represent large banks and corporations. Harper was the first president, followed by Thomas Murphy of General Motors, Irving Shapiro of Du Pont, and Clifford Garvin of Exxon. <5>

The group was formed through the merger of three existing organizations: the March Group, consisting of chief executive officers who met informally to consider public policy issues; the Construction Users Anti-Inflation Roundtable, a group devoted to containing construction costs; and, the Labor Law Study Committee, largely made up of labor relations executives of major companies.<6> The group is called President Obama's "closest ally in the business community."<7>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Roundtable


Gee, why would a group of union-busting, labor-squeezing corporate fat cats want to push cuts in public spending and the safety net?

To cheapen the price of labor and ensure spending is directed to paying off *their* T-bill "investments".

on edit

and that is a bit of a reach.

re-reading I noticed she is her usual self blaming Obama for everything..

This is her revenge?

The mind boggles

Just read the second part of her analysis, the usual blame of Obama.

I think however that S+P has made it clear the only solution is cutting trillions.

They don't care about jobs, they don't care about entitlements

You know, the "math error"?

S&P = we don't think they will be allowed to expire in 2012 so did not add that assumption into our analysis

WH = trust us, we really really will let them expire this time and if you don't assume that, you are making a 2T 'math error'

S&P = well, we'll believe it when we see it and if there is additional revenue added to the mix, we'll raise the rating back up

Boehner = its all spending related!!!

America = STFU, John.

I'm not sure I fully understand the disagreement over the basis. I've heard it described that they did take that into consideration and that they did not, the tax expiration that is. I'm sure we'll get the details big time with charts for the next few weeks!

and that is what the CBO scored. This is the exact statement from S&P about it:

"Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. 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."

The number was 2 trillion, that raises 900 billion apparently

Cause I would LOVE to see a link on that given that $1.8T was the cost from 2001-2011 and estimated to be ~$3T from 2013-2021. Per the bill that passed this week.

You need to get to Washington ASAP. Congress, the president and the CBO are all working off of the $1.8T to date, $3T projected assumption.

On the Democratic side, Obama has proposed letting the Bush tax cuts expire on people earning over $250,000 and make other adjustments in the tax code to phase out itemized deductions for top earners. The additional income would amount to $900 billion over 12 years. But critics like David Stockman, the former budget director under Ronald Reagan, say that won’t be enough.

was about two and a half trillion dollars.1 The recent “compromise” that extended them for another two years, through the end of 2012, cost $571.5 billion.2

But this is only the beginning. If Congress makes permanent the Bush tax cuts or extends them for
another decade, the cost will be $5.4 trillion.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/bushtaxcuts2013to2022.pdf

not, it is fair to assume they would cost the country another 2 trillion. The Bush ten year cuts did cost over 2 trillion.

"Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on
discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on
more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have
dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions
only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements,
the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key
to long-term fiscal sustainability."

vile creature.

since that is not of importance to her.

It is of importance to me and I think that is what S+P is up to

to read more carefully that she's just using this to trash Obama once again.

Grover is her man!

That would be a pretty silly thing for them to do.

One has to wonder what color the sky is in her world.

"We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related
fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the
growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an
agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and
will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal
consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week
falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the
general government debt burden by the middle of the decade."

his failure to do so and his adoption of deficit discourse plays right into their hands

spending?

From S&P: "Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. 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."

Cherry pick all you want, but this boiled down to the lack of increased revenues. Hell, S&P's execs have been all over the teevee tonight saying that, but by all means, you run with Grover Hamsher's opinion.

just b/c they threw in a little bone about revenue?

They are making the case that you either raise revenues, or eliminate entitlements. The downgrade was precisely because they don't see Republicans willing to raise revenues to balance the deficit and by saying that they will up the limit once (i) the bush tax cuts expire or (ii) new revenue sources are added explains what they based their analysis on.

Can you show me where they have said the opposite - ie, thank God there were no new taxes, now we need to gut the rest of the budget? Cause I would really love to see that piece of advice given that it is the polar opposite of what they said was their reasoning & recommendation.

How is this complicated?

they indirectly caused this situation

by according AAA rating to fraudulent CDOs

and they have cred with you?

For weeks, we were told that no bill would pass that puts the weight of our debt 'on those who can least afford it'.

For weeks, we were assured that revenue increases would be a requirement in any discussion.

This week they passed an austerity measure with no revenues, and we screamed and yelled at out 'weak leaders' and thread after thread was about primarying Obama (and half of congress).

NOW, we finally have someone standing up and saying what congress needed to hear - this is a shitty deal - and here's how to fix it BY INCREASING revenues, and you shoot them in the foot? The one group (Wall Street) that can get through these congresscritter's thick skulls that their austerity bill will cripple what is left of the country?

This has nothing to do with S&P (or Moodys or Fitch) and everything to do with the fact that the message (RAISE TAXES NOW) will finally be listened to. Lord knows they aren't listening to us.

You just run with whatever Jane tells you to think.

I'll be over here in the corner listening to the economists chat about how to fix this mess we are in.

but i'm not letting anyone tell me what to think

anyone following the financial meltdown knows not to trust
anything S&P says, for starters

to take their statement at face value defies belief;

more importantly, try to re-read their statement and note their statement on cutting entitlements and Medicare....

and awaiting the results of the new political climate after the 2012 election

now, what do you think that's all about?

That doesn't seem believable to me. Wall St especially wants to 'reform' SS and turn it into individual private savings accounts, all of which can be gambled away in the 'market'.

The S&A are not very credible and probably should have been investigated, maybe even prosecuted for the role they played in helping to deceive investors.

Frankly I don't now what's going on. Something seems terribly wrong with all of this. I am beginning to think there is a lot we do not know. That things may be way worse then we have been led to believe. They all seem desperate. The way Paulson was when he ran into the Capitol Bldg waving his threee-page edict demanding nearly a trillion dollars because they had destroyed the world's economy and they forced us to bail them out.

Reference those like Warren Buffet who have been calling for higher taxes.

Do not underestimate their greed, but do not estimate their finger on the pulse. They know if the economy goes south due to austerity cuts in a weak economy, the gravy train is over.

businesses.

since wall street is bribing -- ahem, funding -- most of our politicians, i think you are way off-base.

there is no such call to raise taxes on wealth in the s&p document.

S&P statement: "Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. 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."

Sure looks like a call to raise taxes to me.

Then again, I had the luxury of listening to S&P execs on cnbc/bloomberg tonight repeating over and over that this was their intent as opposed to being limited to gleaning my information from what I read on facebook (or such), so there is that.

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related
fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the
growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an
agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and
will remain a contentious and fitful process...

In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key
to long-term fiscal sustainability.

***

the tax cuts are mentioned specifically only when they start making projections. all the projections assume cuts in entitlements except their "downside scenario". and it's only with that scenario that they say is consistent with downgrade to AA.

they make 3 projections, each with different assumptions:

our revised base case scenario...

Our revised upside scenario...

Our revised downside scenario--which, other things being equal, we view
as being consistent with a possible further downgrade to a 'AA' long-term
rating--features less-favorable macroeconomic assumptions, as outlined below
and also assumes that the second round of spending cuts (at least $1.2
trillion) that the act calls for does not occur.

Standard & Poor's transfer T&C assessment of the U.S. remains 'AAA'. Our
T&C assessment reflects our view of the likelihood of the sovereign
restricting other public and private issuers' access to foreign exchange
needed to meet debt service. Although in our view the credit standing of the
U.S. government has deteriorated modestly, we see little indication that
official interference of this kind is entering onto the policy agenda of
either Congress or the Administration. Consequently, we continue to view this
risk as being highly remote.

The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. As our downside
alternate fiscal scenario illustrates, a higher public debt trajectory than we
currently assume could lead us to lower the long-term rating again. On the
other hand, as our upside scenario highlights, if the recommendations of the
Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction--independently or
coupled with other initiatives, such as the lapsing of the 2001 and 2003 tax
cuts for high earners--lead to fiscal consolidation measures beyond the
minimum mandated, and we believe they are likely to slow the deterioration of
the government's debt dynamics, the long-term rating could stabilize at 'AA+'.


entitlements are primary, taxes secondary.

Sid

http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563

We should have raised the debt ceiling when the Bush tax cuts were extended.


"...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. Republicans and
Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on
discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on
more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have
dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions
only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements,
the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key
to long-term fiscal sustainability.

...A new political consensus might (or might not) emerge after the 2012 elections, but we believe that by
then, the government debt burden will likely be higher, the needed medium-term
fiscal adjustment potentially greater, and the inflection point on the U.S.
population's demographics and other age-related spending drivers closer at
hand (see "Global Aging 2011: In The U.S., Going Gray Will Likely Cost Even
More Green, Now," June 21, 2011).

Standard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue
measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate
for putting the U.S.'s finances on a sustainable footing..."

and, especially:

"In addition, the plan envisions
only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements,
the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key
to long-term fiscal sustainability."

it was one of the reasons to push for a national HC system for all.

fuck Primarying Obama. That just plays into this agenda.

Yes Obama was a Bankster-whore wolf in a hope&change sheep's clothing.

And he's a real human being, who asked us long ago, once elected,
to hold his feet to the fire, to MAKE HIM do the right thing,
rather like the civil rights movement MADE JFK do the right thing.

J

:kick:

:kick: :thumbsup: