Moody's: Neither debt plan protects the nation's AAA rating

Here it is. Losing our AAA rating has nothing to do with this debate over the debt ceiling like Obama keeps using to scare people. The damage is already done with the out of control spending.

The "limited magnitude" of both debt plans put forward by congressional leaders would not put the nation's AAA credit rating back on solid footing, Moody's Investors Service announced Friday.

"Reductions of the magnitude now being proposed, if adopted, would likely lead Moody's to adopt a negative outlook on the AAA rating," the credit rating agency said in a new report. "The chances of a significant improvement in the long-term credit profile of the government coming from deficit reductions of the magnitude proposed in either plan are not high."

While Moody's is confident it will not have to downgrade the nation's rating because of a default, it maintained that long-term debt and deficit problems will continue to weigh on the AAA mark.


http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/8 ... aaa-rating

I've worked hard all my life to have good credit because I knew from an early age (thanks to my parents!) that paying bills on time and not spending more than I could afford would allow me to earn the trust of those who lend money. I have friends who never figured that out and have paid dearly for it.

The US is no different....we are truly screwed if we can't reduce what we spend and we can't admit that we have to break promises that are now impossible to keep. Our children will be slaves to our debt which to me is disgusting and wrong. I wish more people would look at the numbers instead of just listening to the idiots they elected....they would soon realize that it is inevitable that this country will collapse if we stay on this same sick path. Social issues are becoming completely meaningless as compared to our financial problems...time to wake up people!!

Plan-A: cuts... No revenue, not even closing loopholes for millionaires and billionaires...

Plan-B: cuts... No revenue, not even closing loopholes for millionaires and billionaires...

By golly, Moody's is right! Neither plan protects the nation's AAA rating...

(Wait a minute... Wasn't Moody's one of the debt-rating agencies that's been caught in ratings scandals for propping up the AIG/Lehman Brothers/Goldman-Sachs/ad nauseum failures by providing phony ratings?... Hmmmmmmm)

Cut, Cap and Balance would have protected the AAA rating LJ. Limiting the ability of the wannabe national government to spend a maximum of 18% of the nation's production would have allowed the country to raise more than that in revenue on a regular basis, with the existing tax structure, and apply the extra to paying down the existing principle amount of the loan and made deficit spending possible only with a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress.

The regressives keep saying the evil rich need to pay their fair share, but for some reason or another they refuse to say what a fair share of the national production is for the wannabe national government to spend on a regular and continuing basis. Seems to me that the share of the pie the wannabe national government gets for itself is the proper place to begin and then work your way into what represents the fair share of that amount for each of the income sections of the population, not that one expects regressives to approach the situation logically when they can continue to believe that the wannabe national government's share of the national production is without any limits at all.........

PrintSmith wrote: Cut, Cap and Balance would have protected the AAA rating LJ. Limiting the ability of the wannabe national government to spend a maximum of 18% of the nation's production would have allowed the country to raise more than that in revenue on a regular basis, with the existing tax structure, and apply the extra to paying down the existing principle amount of the loan and made deficit spending possible only with a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress.

The regressives keep saying the evil rich need to pay their fair share, but for some reason or another they refuse to say what a fair share of the national production is for the wannabe national government to spend on a regular and continuing basis. Seems to me that the share of the pie the wannabe national government gets for itself is the proper place to begin and then work your way into what represents the fair share of that amount for each of the income sections of the population, not that one expects regressives to approach the situation logically when they can continue to believe that the wannabe national government's share of the national production is without any limits at all.........

Where has it been said that CC&B would have kept our AAA credit rating, if any plan had a chance it was the original dem/Obama plan which called for reducing the deficit by $4 trillion with a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases, exactly the amount S & P is looking for. CC&B had no numbers attached, and no specifics.....I think S & P and Moodys would have laughed at it as being smoke and mirrors.

LadyJazzer wrote: Plan-A: cuts... No revenue, not even closing loopholes for millionaires and billionaires...

Plan-B: cuts... No revenue, not even closing loopholes for millionaires and billionaires...

millionaires and billionaires

How's that polling for you lately?

The notion of taxing the wealthy to help meet our fiscal obligations has overwhelming public support — a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that 81% of Americans favor boosting taxes on millionaires and billionaires as a deficit reduction strategy. The same poll found little support for cutting education funding and health care entitlements.

Working pretty good, actually.

archer wrote: Where has it been said that CC&B would have kept our AAA credit rating, if any plan had a chance it was the original dem/Obama plan which called for reducing the deficit by $4 trillion with a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases, exactly the amount S & P is looking for. CC&B had no numbers attached, and no specifics.....I think S & P and Moodys would have laughed at it as being smoke and mirrors.

CC&B, at 18% of GDP, would have trimmed $4 Trillion in 10 years easily archer. Our current economy is $14.5 Trillion, 18% of which would be about $2.61 Trillion, give or take, a savings over this year's budget of over $1 Trillion for a single year. Even if the BBA was eventually voted down instead of ratified, the prudent course for the wannabe national government would be to show that they are willing to limit the spending themselves without the restriction of the BBA and that it was unnecessary to pass such an amendment, at least for the time period the question was before the states, which most recent amendments have set at 7 years. The wannabe national government would have been forced to show by their actions that the message had been received, and $4 Trillion over a decade would have been easy to realize under those circumstances.

CC&B had only one specific - a limited percentage of the nation's production which the wannabe national government would be able to spend each and every year without a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress and the executive all deciding that this amount should be exceeded. Given the difficulty in overriding presidential vetoes, the only other thing I can think of off the top of my head that requires a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress, it would be a serious constraint, which would have protected the AAA rating.

Now I know why the statists don't like the idea of a BBA, it would take away all the power they have seized over the last 75 years or so, but if the most recent episode hasn't shown you that the wannabe national government has gotten to big for its britches and too large to be effective in overseeing all the power they have seized, I don't know much else that will.

LadyJazzer wrote:

The notion of taxing the wealthy to help meet our fiscal obligations has overwhelming public support — a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that 81% of Americans favor boosting taxes on millionaires and billionaires as a deficit reduction strategy. The same poll found little support for cutting education funding and health care entitlements.

Working pretty good, actually.

Yeah, that tyranny of the majority has proven to be so effective in governing long term over the course of history, hasn't it.......