[Batko]

US's triple-A credit rating 'under threat'

By Francesco Guerrera, Aline van Duyn and Daniel Pimlott,in New York

Published: January 11 2008 02:00 | Last updated: January 11 2008 02:00

The US is at risk of losing its top-notch triple-A credit rating within a decade unless it takes radical action to curb soaring healthcare and social security spending, Moody's, the credit rating agency, said yesterday.

The warning over the future of the triple-A rating - granted to US government debt since it was first assessed in 1917 - reflects growing concerns over the country's ability to retain its financial and economic supremacy.

It could also put further pressure on candidates from both the Republican and Democratic parties to sharpen their focus on healthcare and pensions in the run-up to November's presidential election...

More

[Noelnada]

They never deserved their triple-A rating anyway.

Well we could also ask if it is reasonable to allow these private companies to detain such a political power without any democratic supervision or legitimacy.

[Todd D.]

Well we could also ask if it is reasonable to allow these private companies to detain such a political power without any democratic supervision or legitimacy.

What political power? They are a credit rating company, and are suited to rate the credit of entities, even governments (who release their budget to the general public). Unless you want to seriously violate some freedom of speech, then of course it is reasonable.

[Kapanda]

Noel, what is an AAA rating and why did US government debt instruments not deserve it?

[Dr House]

Triple-A refers to the United State's credit rating. And as the World's largest, most diversified and most stable economy, it would of course get top-notch ranking. Lately America has been fiscally irresponsible, piling six trillion dollars into the national debt in as many years. It was bound to make a dent in our national credit score. However, I don't see how increased spending would hurt our credit as long as we paid for it on current revenues, rather than more loans.

[Kapanda]

Man we all know you like economics!! I wanted him to answer!!

[Zyx]

I blame Reagan.

Is not ~30% of our debt owed to the Private Sector?

So the rich [those who bought the bonds] will get their guaranteed money, while we [the poor] will eventually have to pay for this debt . . . essentially economic relocation.

But what do I know, I am just a kid. -- Kid who gives tips on Legend of Zelda, Link to the Past (Gameboy.)

[Dr House]

Wrong. The top 52% of Americans pay 99% of all tax revenues, which means the rest of us pay 1% of the debt.

What really happens is that the rich pay either the services or the interest owed on them, and then the rest of us use them.

Socialism at it's finest

By the way, anyone can buy bonds, and lots of average joes buy them as part of their retirement funds, because they are so safe. I buy T-bills meself during bear markets.

[Dr House]

Man we all know you like economics!! I wanted him to answer!!

Psh. An answer is an answer. What would be SO different about him answering the question?

[Zyx]

There are no "Top Americans;" The people earning the top dollars are not gaining them out of a time-warp vacuum but rather sliding it off the sweat on our backs.

Some man just walked into this library I am in and asked me if I had change for five dollars, just now, and he was very obviously a Janitor.

Sure he does not pay as much taxes as the President of this school who makes nearly a million dollars or so; but he makes the school tolerable.

Is the President of this school a "top American" to you?

---

When have we stopped being a country?

It's sad really, that you would think it wrong for that person's children to get an education subtracted from his employer's paycheck. How you can think that his employer deserves a vacation every week while he deserves to clean the toilets for nothing.

Whatever, I would think we were a nation, but apparently my poverty makes me scum to you.

[Kapanda]

Psh. An answer is an answer. What would be SO different about him answering the question?

He might not have known the answer!! I don't think he did!

[Kapanda]

There are no "Top Americans;" The people earning the top dollars are not gaining them out of a time-warp vacuum but rather sliding it off the sweat on our backs.

No they do not! What is with this loathing of large amounts of wealth!

Yes, there are some who do as you describe (in mine and yours opinions anyway), pro athletes, movie stars, and those kinds. Their work is important, but it shouldn't grant the huge sums they make. Others inherit wealth as well.

But most wealthy people aren't successful over night. And when they get there, work at the top isn't just easy as pie neither, and neither is it unnecessary. Why do people even believe that?

[Dr House]

When have we stopped being a country?

It's sad really, that you would think it wrong for that person's children to get an education subtracted from his employer's paycheck. How you can think that his employer deserves a vacation every week while he deserves to clean the toilets for nothing.

Whatever, I would think we were a nation, but apparently my poverty makes me scum to you.

No it doesn't. I don't believe in class conflict and in all likelihood you are not much poorer than I am. I know that employers are not lazy fat cats. Otherwise I would be one.

They generally had to bust their asses in college and claw their way up a steep corporate ladder, or go through all the headaches of starting their own business. Employers generally work longer and tougher hours than their employees do, and they thus deserve better pay. They are not a scourge upon humanity, and should not be treated as such.

I do believe, however, that we should have certain public goods paid through taxes, but not so many and so big that those who use them can afford less than 1% of the expense. It's not fair to the most successful among us. And it's not fair to the people living in tent cities and shanty towns around the World because their governments cannot or will not afford such excesses.[/quote]

[Zyx]

But most wealthy people aren't successful over night. And when they get there, work at the top isn't just easy as pie neither, and neither is it unnecessary. Why do people even believe that?

Does a escaped convict lose his prison sentence for the meticulousness of his escape plan?

What does "hard" or "easy" have to do with thievery?

What thievery? The janitor I cite likely wanted to buy himself a drink or snack, and as such, I think that Coke should pay his dental fee rather than take his child's education away from it.

I know that employers are not lazy fat cats. Otherwise I would be one.

Sound logic.

They generally had to bust their asses in college

Find me a person who "busts" their ass through college and I'll find you someone who did not belong there.

And besides, at least this person had the opportunity to go to college; others do not and many others, from their time, were prohibited.

claw their way up a steep corporate ladder

Hence? Honestly, you seem to be going off on a creative tangent, why do you not justify these idioms with your position. It seems as if you are suggesting that because they screwed other people over who were out to screw others over, they should screw "us."

go through all the headaches of starting their own business.

So they do a little good and now should take a lot from others?

Employers generally work longer and tougher hours than their employees do, and they thus deserve better pay.

The land that Harvard is built on is mine (and yours) and when that land is semi-threatened, you and I go to defend it. Who does not defend it is the person who goes to that land, and now you are saying that this person, disciplined, superior to us, "deserves more pay" for something that I allowed them to get?

Much like that theist argument Muslim offered, you seem to think that we are a society up to a point that one can break away on its own . . . that while the upkeep of America's institution is achieved through my blood and sweat, once a person gains a firm ground through it, one should not act as if I played a part in one's "achievements."

This sort of thinking, one the "self-made" person is abominable and not for the good of a society; it is much like how Stalin treated his friends . . . except this outlook reaches to every corner of our nation. How can a person gain wealth through their countrymen and then turn on them as though they had not needed them earlier?

Do you go back to your elementary school and treat your old teachers like shit?

They are not a scourge upon humanity, and should not be treated as such.

It depends on who you mean; Cheney is scum.

I do believe, however, that we should have certain public goods paid through taxes, but not so many and so big that those who use them can afford less than 1% of the expense.

A fool's remark; we cannot afford 1% of the expense because the people who pay us do not pay us 1% of what we deserve.

And it's not fair to the people living in tent cities and shanty towns around the World because their governments cannot or will not afford such excesses.

So rather than open borders, or even neo-liberal foreign intervention, you nominate a degeneracy of social welfare . . . how touching.

[Dr House]

they don't steal. They provide a service, just like everyone else. They coordinate. They make sure that all the pieces fall in their place, thus ensuring we get our consumer goods cheaply and efficiently.

So rather than open borders, or even neo-liberal foreign intervention, you nominate a degeneracy of social welfare . . . how touching.

I don't really put a lot of weight on "fairness". But I do strongly advocate open borders and free trade. I guess I should have explained myself. I think it unfair that our welfare tax dollars are going to poor people in this country, who are universally among the top 20% income earners in the World and have a very high rate of social mobility (75% chance that a bottom-quintile income earner will move to a higher tier). By giving money to people who by global standards are already rich we accomplish nothing except appease out own conscience. And on other people's dime, no less. Whatever happened to "no taxation without representation"?


On the other hand, why am I arguing with someone who believes a woman getting mugged in an alley doesn't have the right to defend herself?

It depends on who you mean; Cheney is scum.

Completely agree. But it is not being a CEO that makes him so.

[ThereBeDragons]

Wrong. The top 52% of Americans pay 99% of all tax revenues, which means the rest of us pay 1% of the debt.

The top 52% of Americans own 98% of all the assets, which means everyone else owns 2% of the assets. But hey, when you put it that way, everything seems fair again!

[Dr House]

Psh. We spend our money, which means we get the full value out of it, whereas they wast their money on assets with no other purpose than to generate more money, and relatively little actually spending it. So they don't get the full value of their hard-earned money. And yes, it is hard-earned. The self-made man gets to where he is not by stealing money, but by providing a good or a service that a lot of people purchase. And inversting rather than spending means that your money is going towards increasing output (and therefore the amount people consume and their quality of life), rather than consuming output.

[Kapanda]

Does a escaped convict lose his prison sentence for the meticulousness of his escape plan?

What does "hard" or "easy" have to do with thievery?

What thievery? The janitor I cite likely wanted to buy himself a drink or snack, and as such, I think that Coke should pay his dental fee rather than take his child's education away from it.

Why is that? He provides a service, Coke provides a product. And how is Coke taking away his child's education? So should Coke be paying the dental fee of those who buy it but can afford dental fees in the best private practices? Or is it only stealing depending on the person's income?

This is ridiculous. So, even though his skills are pretty low, he can easily be replaced, he most likely hasn't worked that long in that job (but not so relevant whether he did or not), he should be getting paid as well as someone whose skills are more in demand, has worked hard all his life, and is still making a big contribution to economy?

All fair and dandy to feel bad that the janitor at times cannot afford certain things. But to even suggest that a janitor should be on par with wealthy individuals is silly! Some people do contribute more to the economy, and are therefore better rewarded. It isn't by mistake that those happen to be hard working and highly skilled individuals. If you had to, could you not do a janitor's job tommorrow (with maybe a little bit of training)? Now, if they asked you to direct a company in the right path during a recession, to ensure good return on shareholders' investments could you do it? If they asked you to conduct a medical operation on somebody could you do it?

What would be the point of working hard, if your hard work is not rewarded, instead people find that your paycheck is just some sort of thievery from someone's part...

Find me a person who "busts" their ass through college and I'll find you someone who did not belong there.

Doesn't belong there because you say so?

And besides, at least this person had the opportunity to go to college; others do not and many others, from their time, were prohibited.

What is your point here?

Hence? Honestly, you seem to be going off on a creative tangent, why do you not justify these idioms with your position. It seems as if you are suggesting that because they screwed other people over who were out to screw others over, they should screw "us."

Oh then surely you agree that the janitor also screwed people over. Surely that makes him a thief too!

Being successful, climbing a career ladder isn't screwing anyone over. You were chosen as the most fitting candidate for a job, and you decide to take it. How that is seen as screwing someone over... I would like some clarification if possible.

So they do a little good and now should take a lot from others?

That is partial discrimination. I should start contesting that the janitor is taking way too much for his job. Others would take the job for much less, and that makes me believe his job is not worth that much. Workers' unions should pay for the dental care fees of the population at large.

The land that Harvard is built on is mine (and yours) and when that land is semi-threatened, you and I go to defend it. Who does not defend it is the person who goes to that land, and now you are saying that this person, disciplined, superior to us, "deserves more pay" for something that I allowed them to get?

Much like that theist argument Muslim offered, you seem to think that we are a society up to a point that one can break away on its own . . . that while the upkeep of America's institution is achieved through my blood and sweat, once a person gains a firm ground through it, one should not act as if I played a part in one's "achievements."

This sort of thinking, one the "self-made" person is abominable and not for the good of a society; it is much like how Stalin treated his friends . . . except this outlook reaches to every corner of our nation. How can a person gain wealth through their countrymen and then turn on them as though they had not needed them earlier?

Do you go back to your elementary school and treat your old teachers like shit?

Rather, society is rightfully rewarding someone who has contributed so much to it (assuming we are still talking about the general cases, instead of the extreme pro athletes' case). Contributing to the economy is indeed contributing to society. Those that have contributed the most generally get paid more. Hence the free market advocation, not because it is wrong to tax people's incomes, but because people's incomes should reflect their contribution to society. The janitor did his part, but it isn't nearly as much as Bill Gates has (granted, he was rich already, but Microsoft is hugely important to a vast amount of people around the world, and the chip has given technological progress a huge leap). On the other hand, you as an individual are giving yourself too much credit for the success of others. You have both contributed throughout your lifetime, it isn't like he has gone through some special way that all his life he didn't contribute, then he starts reeling rewards. At the same time, however, he has also worked very hard for whatever his rewards are, and geared himself to contribute better to society than you have.

[QatzelOk]

And when they get there, work at the top isn't just easy as pie neither, and neither is it unnecessary. Why do people even believe that?

People believe that because it often appears as if the wealthier caste's job isn't so much to produce anything, as it is to ensure that all resources fall into as few hands as possible - into their hands, and nobody elses.

The wealthy do whatever it takes to deny other people a decent living. Capitalism is all about winning, and that's why humanity is headed into a sewer of destroyed externalities like the environment.

[Zyx]

they don't steal.

Suppose you and I were agreeing to perform a fair trade and so I gave you $8,000 and you in return gave me $7,500; am I stealing from you?

If you think the dollar trade silly then imagine it a value trade; tell me if that is stealing or not.

They make sure that all the pieces fall in their place, thus ensuring we get our consumer goods cheaply and efficiently.

Cheap for whom? For them, aye.

I think it unfair that our welfare tax dollars are going to poor people in this country, who are universally among the top 20% income earners in the World and have a very high rate of social mobility (75% chance that a bottom-quintile income earner will move to a higher tier). By giving money to people who by global standards are already rich we accomplish nothing except appease out own conscience.

So, you rather people who are as rich as 30 nations to keep the money to themselves than give to the people that they are oppressing. You are a genius.

On the other hand, why am I arguing with someone who believes a woman getting mugged in an alley doesn't have the right to defend herself?

This is a very stupid statement for you to make on a politicsforum. If you think that along the lines of "why am I arguing blah blah blah" then you are simply an annoying individual. But, since I suppose you say this to evoke my reiterating that position, I will repeat what I have already said. YOU NEED TO CITE RIGHTS. There is no "right to defend oneself if getting mugged in an alley." But this is irrelevant to the thread.

For instance, do I have a right to "shower myself daily.?"

It sounds like a good thing, but how can I claim it my right?

You just do not know what rights are, or you are being idiotic.

So should Coke be paying the dental fee of those who buy it but can afford dental fees in the best private practices?

Yes, if Coke rottens the person's teeth.

So, even though his skills are pretty low, he can easily be replaced, he most likely hasn't worked that long in that job (but not so relevant whether he did or not), he should be getting paid as well as someone whose skills are more in demand, has worked hard all his life, and is still making a big contribution to economy?

Who, the school President?

The school President can be replaced too; in fact there is a whole queue of people who would qualify to be a school's President, and the President just started recently too.

Now, if they asked you to direct a company in the right path during a recession, to ensure good return on shareholders' investments could you do it? If they asked you to conduct a medical operation on somebody could you do it?

Yeah I probably could do both, with a little bit of training.

Some people do contribute more to the economy, and are therefore better rewarded. It isn't by mistake that those happen to be hard working and highly skilled individuals.

You throw around the phrase "contribute more to the economy" . . . what do you mean?

The person making toys for toddlers, "contributes more to the economy?" Do you mean by "employing toy makers?"

The doctor contributes more to the economy?

Doesn't belong there because you say so?

College is easy.

What is your point here?

It's like two twins where one twin is treated very poorly; should the cursed twin kiss the feet of the blessed one?

Being successful, climbing a career ladder isn't screwing anyone over. You were chosen as the most fitting candidate for a job, and you decide to take it. How that is seen as screwing someone over... I would like some clarification if possible.

Is not the corporate ladder synonimous with backstabbing haven?

That's what I mean by screwing someone else over . . . if there are many climbers but only a few who "reach the top" then it is likely the top people toppled the others.

Hence the free market advocation, not because it is wrong to tax people's incomes, but because people's incomes should reflect their contribution to society. The janitor did his part, but it isn't nearly as much as Bill Gates has (granted, he was rich already, but Microsoft is hugely important to a vast amount of people around the world, and the chip has given technological progress a huge leap).

Some people have lost relatives in wars that have kept America powerful; should not they be payed for their relative's sacrifices?

Do you know what would, likely, happen to the US if not for its military?

Do you honestly think that no one contributes to the rich's wealth?

You have both contributed throughout your lifetime, it isn't like he has gone through some special way that all his life he didn't contribute, then he starts reeling rewards.

As it is, this person who "makes it big" has made it big at someone else's expense; whether it was that they innovated a device as a result of the higher learning they received through public funds or if they had opened a market in China because a diplomat and 300,000 soldiers had requested a tolerant China, Americans are a whole.

If you think that Bill Gates did not need the United States to be what he is, then you are highly mistaken.

That said, he should give back. And while he can keep some, everything he earned is dependent upon his nation status. We allow him to have some.