Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Obama officials tried to pressure S&P rating agency

  1. #1

    Obama officials tried to pressure S&P rating agency

    into keeping USA's outlook at "stable"....CHANGE we can all believe in, continued.......


    [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama_administration_officials_tried_to_keep_sandp_rating_at_stable/2011/04/19/AFfAeO8D_story.html[/url]

  2. #2
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,440
    "They argued a change in ratings was not needed at this time because the debt was manageable and [B]the administration had a viable plan in the works[/B], the official said."


    :rofl:


    Much like companies that raised health insurance premiums last year, S&P will be called to testify before someone about it spreading fear and lies. :rolleyes:

  3. #3
    I actually think the S&P did a good thing. They have to come to some sort of deficit agreement, this only adds urgency.

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,929
    How is this a bad thing exactly?

    A lowered credit rating and outlook can have very negative implications for our economy. In my view, Obama and his administration fighting to keep the rating as positive as possible is the most leadership they have shown in quite some time.

    Would it be better if they turned their backs on the issue and said "go ahead and lower it?"

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=parafly;4005098]How is this a bad thing exactly?

    A lowered credit rating and outlook can have very negative implications for our economy. In my view, Obama and his administration fighting to keep the rating as positive as possible is the most leadership they have shown in quite some time.

    Would it be better if they turned their backs on the issue and said "go ahead and lower it?"[/QUOTE]

    Interesting take. I'm guessing if Goldman Sachs pressured S&P to rate a bond you bought higher then it should have been you would think they were doing their job.

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,929
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4005103]Interesting take. I'm guessing if Goldman Sachs pressured S&P to rate a bond you bought higher then it should have been you would think they were doing their job.[/QUOTE]

    Technically, they would be doing their job by doing what's in the best interest of their company.

    I have no problem with the President doing what's in the best interest of the U.S.

    Let's not forget that S&P played a huge part in the sub prime mortgage disaster by giving AAA ratings to bundles of junk loans.

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=parafly;4005106]Technically, they would be doing their job by doing what's in the best interest of their company.

    I have no problem with the President doing what's in the best interest of the U.S.

    Let's not forget that S&P played a huge part in the sub prime mortgage disaster by giving AAA ratings to bundles of junk loans.[/QUOTE]

    Congratulations on reaching a new level of hypocrisy in 3 short sentences.

    Think about what you just wrote. I can't believe you really believe that nonesense.

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4005103]Interesting take. I'm guessing if Goldman Sachs pressured S&P to rate a bond you bought higher then it should have been you would think they were doing their job.[/QUOTE]

    The article stated it's common and isn't Wall Street a giant rumor mill anyway?

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,929
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4005116]Congratulations on reaching a new level of hypocrisy in 3 short sentences.

    Think about what you just wrote. I can't believe you really believe that nonesense.[/QUOTE]

    My point is that I don't fault Obama for fighting to keep our rating as high as possible. S&P did the right thing by ignoring the request.

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=parafly;4005129]My point is that I don't fault Obama for fighting to keep our rating as high as possible. S&P did the right thing by ignoring the request.[/QUOTE]

    Fiscal responsability is one of the Presidents main jobs. He should be fighting to keep the rating as high as possible. The way he should have done it is by putting in place a reasonable budget short and long term when his party had all 3 branches of power. Abdicating responsability for the financial footing of the US and trying to pressure ratings agency's to look the other way is borderline criminal.

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=parafly;4005106]Technically, they would be doing their job by doing what's in the best interest of their company.

    I have no problem with the President doing what's in the best interest of the U.S.

    Let's not forget that S&P played a huge part in the sub prime mortgage disaster by giving AAA ratings to bundles of junk loans.[/QUOTE]

    :rotfl:

    :rotfl:

    :rotfl:

    :rotfl:

    :rotfl:

  12. #12
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    2,531
    Who gives a crap what the S&P says. They lost all credibility with the CDO/CDS debacle.

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=parafly;4005098]How is this a bad thing exactly?

    A lowered credit rating and outlook can have very negative implications for our economy. In my view, Obama and his administration fighting to keep the rating as positive as possible is the most leadership they have shown in quite some time.

    Would it be better if they turned their backs on the issue and said "go ahead and lower it?"[/QUOTE]

    +1

    I recently bought a scale and recalibrated it to say I'm 20 pounds lighter than I really am. It makes me feel better, and besides, if I'm 20 pounds overweight I might have to take some sort of action, right? But as long as it SAYS I'm healthy, I figure I have nothing to worry about. And the best part is, if I continue to gain weight, I'll just recalibrate again!

    And some of you suckers go to the gym . . .:rolleyes:

  14. #14
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,929
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4005134]Fiscal responsability is one of the Presidents main jobs. He should be fighting to keep the rating as high as possible. The way he should have done it is by putting in place a reasonable budget short and long term when his party had all 3 branches of power. Abdicating responsability for the financial footing of the US and trying to pressure ratings agency's to look the other way is borderline criminal.[/QUOTE]

    The budget is the responsibility of Congress, not the President.

    I agree with you that the best solution for keeping the rating as high as possible would have been to put together a healthy long term budget plan, but it simply didn't happen. Politics at its finest, and Democrats are certainly to blame.

    I would be curious to know what kind of "pressure" we are talking about here. If his appeal was for S&P to completely and indefinitely disregard the fiscal reality of our country, then yes, it is borderline criminal. However, it could have simply been a request to refrain from changing our "stable" status until a long term budget plan is hammered out.

    The article states that these types of actions are typical from corporations and governments (although not the U.S. Government). S&P did the right thing by ignoring the request, but I don't fault the President for trying at this stage of the game.

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4005134]Fiscal responsability is one of the Presidents main jobs. He should be fighting to keep the rating as high as possible. The way he should have done it is by putting in place a reasonable budget short and long term when his party had all 3 branches of power. Abdicating responsability for the financial footing of the US and trying to pressure ratings agency's to look the other way is borderline criminal.[/QUOTE]


    let's not forget that the real reason they didn't pass a budget prior to Nov '10 is because they were going to let the Bush tax cuts expire....& that would've hurt their chances in the Nov elections....not that it mattered bc they got smushed anyway

  16. #16
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,929
    It seems like many people here would prefer for the President to sit by the wayside, admit defeat, and happily accept a lowered rating for the strongest economy in the world. After all, the economy is in the tank and we deserve it, amirite? :rolleyes:

    Something tells me the reaction would be completely different if we had a (R) President.

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=parafly;4005152]
    I would be curious to know what kind of "pressure" we are talking about here. If his appeal was for S&P to completely and indefinitely disregard the fiscal reality of our country, then yes, it is borderline criminal. However, it could have simply been a request to refrain from changing our "stable" status until a long term budget plan is hammered out.

    [/QUOTE]

    Gitner probably reminded them that the IRS and the Justice departement works for the govenment.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us