PDA

View Full Version : Govt official: US expecting S&P downgrade



bijou
08-05-2011, 04:56 PM
A government official tells ABC News that the federal government is expecting and preparing for bond rating agency Standard & Poor’s to downgrade the rating of US debt from its current AAA value. ...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/08/govt-official-us-expecting-sp-downgrade.html

djones520
08-05-2011, 05:00 PM
Well... I guess in looking for a silver lining, it'll be harder for us to find money to spend on useless shit now.

lacarnut
08-05-2011, 05:05 PM
The Chinese bond rating agency has already downgraded the US from A+ to A. I don't think we even deserve that high a rating.

Nubs
08-05-2011, 06:27 PM
So after all the drama of the Debt Ceiling deal, threat of doom if we fail to pass the bill in the form of a downgrade, we get a fuck all shit piece of a deal and downgraded to boot?

The Tea party is being deamonized for wanting a balanced budget amendment, no tax increase, and a cap on spending. They were denegrated as terrorists and assholes.

Now Italy is going to be bailed out by the ECB on the condition of the addition of a balance budget amendment to their constitution. To which Italy has agreed.

So our politicions are weaker, more spineless, and more socialist than the Italians???

Hawkgirl
08-05-2011, 08:07 PM
With our debt being 100% of our gdp...I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet.

Hawkgirl
08-05-2011, 08:27 PM
White House Fights Downgrade:

[QUOTE][/UPDATE 7:10 p.m.: S&P is reconsidering its position on a potential U.S. credit downgrade after the Obama administration challenged the credit rating agency's economic model, CNN reports, citing a senior Obama Administration official, who said the analysis was off by "trillions" of dollars.

Politico's Ben White tweets the supposed errors are said to display "incompetence."

UPDATE 8:19 p.m.: S&P downgrades U.S. credit rating to AA+ with negative outlook, Reuters reports
[QUOTE]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/05/downgrade-us-standard-and-poors_n_919867.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmaing10%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%7C84087

what a bunch of clowns...they can't face their own ineptness.

namvet
08-05-2011, 09:11 PM
http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/1168/0bamasealix2.jpg

any life boats left????

the director
08-05-2011, 10:43 PM
The only thing that the S&P accomplished was that it cut its own credibility.

S&P assigned a AAA rating to the toxic assets that started this whole mess in the first place.

What the S&P is attempting to say right now is that they assessed that packaged sub-prime mortage loans were less risky than the US Debt.

There is very little risk to the US defaulting on its loans, and the market (with yields approaching 2% on 10 year bonds) still believes that US debt is the safest investment in the world.

I understand the "negative" outlook. I do not understand S&P's line of thinking or logic, unless this was businesses firing back at government. In which case the underlying factors are a lot more complex than what is hitting the news right now.

The Night Owl
08-05-2011, 10:56 PM
John Boehner got 98% of what he wanted and so downgrading the US credit rating is the natural next step.

djones520
08-05-2011, 11:03 PM
John Boehner got 98% of what he wanted and so downgrading the US credit rating is the natural next step.

Idiot, look at what the S&P wants. They want more debt reduction steps taken. They want more spending cuts, and a more balanced budget. They don't want more trillion dollar + deficits, which by the way, Obama is now overseeing his third year of.

Boehner did not get what he wanted, he got some of what he wanted. What he really wanted probably would have kept our credit rating at AAA. :rolleyes:

Rockntractor
08-05-2011, 11:05 PM
John Boehner got 98% of what he wanted and so downgrading the US credit rating is the natural next step.

Why don't you stick to your just pretend threads you have started.

The Night Owl
08-05-2011, 11:10 PM
Boehner did not get what he wanted, he got some of what he wanted. What he really wanted probably would have kept our credit rating at AAA. :rolleyes:

Tell Boehner, not me.

Boehner: I got 98 percent of what I wanted (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/01/eveningnews/main20086598.shtml)

lacarnut
08-05-2011, 11:51 PM
The only thing that the S&P accomplished was that it cut its own credibility.

S&P assigned a AAA rating to the toxic assets that started this whole mess in the first place.

What the S&P is attempting to say right now is that they assessed that packaged sub-prime mortage loans were less risky than the US Debt.

There is very little risk to the US defaulting on its loans, and the market (with yields approaching 2% on 10 year bonds) still believes that US debt is the safest investment in the world.

I understand the "negative" outlook. I do not understand S&P's line of thinking or logic, unless this was businesses firing back at government. In which case the underlying factors are a lot more complex than what is hitting the news right now.

The S&P warned the US that a downgrade was possible if they did not cut 4 trillion. 1.7 trillion was cut and 70% of those cuts do not take place till way off in the future according to Neal Cavuto whom I suspect has forgotten more about the Treasury and the bond market that you will ever learn.

The Obama administration did smoke and mirrors on the last budget deal. This one is no different. The Republican leaders and novices like you may be too stupid to see that the wool has been pulled over their eyes but the non political S&P members are not. We got what we deserved and there are no two ways about it. Our spending and debt is out of control, and if things do not start going in the opposite direction, this agency will downgrade them again within the next 12 months. Moody's is not too far behind giving the US a bad taste of medicine that we deserve.

lacarnut
08-06-2011, 12:04 AM
John Boehner got 98% of what he wanted and so downgrading the US credit rating is the natural next step.

What has gotten us to this point does not have a thing to do with Boehner. It has to do with the atrocious spending policies of Obama and tiny Tim. Get your facts straight.

You can place ALL THE BLAME on Obama and Geithner. Another Obama legacy that even Carter does not have. The losing of our AAA credit rating is something that these two crazed socialistic spenders can not erase.

Geithner wanted to jump ship a few days ago but Obama convinced him to stay. Watch Obama throw him under the bus now. I am going to laugh my ass off when he does.

txradioguy
08-06-2011, 07:41 AM
Aaaaaand now the U.S. is saddled with an AA+ credit rating for the first time in our history. The Liberals march towards turning us into a third world nation continues.

namvet
08-06-2011, 09:10 AM
Don't believe for a second that the WH and the rest of the left is not ecstatic about the credit rating downgrade. The show "fight" with S&P was just a way to make it sound like the USA should not have been downgraded. For the left, it is merely another step towards the destruction of the middle class.
Add the credit rating decrease to the dog pile:
Obamacare
Frank Dodd
EPA and other middle class business stifling regulations
The continuing decline of education standards and results.
The perpetuation of the Global Warming and variations fraud
The curbs on energy exploitation
a nearly $15 trillion debt
the unending expansion of political correctness.
The stupidity of the American people who still think that Obama should be re-elected.
The decline of ethics and morality
Continuing high unemployment with only obstacles to private sector job creation (see above list)
The stupidity of Americans who think the Tea Parties are "extremist".
The ignorance and crass stupidity of the so called 'intellectual elite'.
The awarding of academic and other tenures for incompetence.
The ignorance of the free market and the meaning of individual freedom.
The failure to get rid of public service unions...completely.
These are only the visible factors. New regulations are still being written for Obamacare that will further erode freedom and lead America down the road to economic and political slavery.

malloc
08-06-2011, 09:14 AM
The only thing that the S&P accomplished was that it cut its own credibility.

S&P assigned a AAA rating to the toxic assets that started this whole mess in the first place.

What the S&P is attempting to say right now is that they assessed that packaged sub-prime mortage loans were less risky than the US Debt.

There is very little risk to the US defaulting on its loans, and the market (with yields approaching 2% on 10 year bonds) still believes that US debt is the safest investment in the world.

I understand the "negative" outlook. I do not understand S&P's line of thinking or logic, unless this was businesses firing back at government. In which case the underlying factors are a lot more complex than what is hitting the news right now.

I don't know you, I've been away for a while, but your post is either through ignorance or dishonesty. Ignorance isn't a bad thing, unless it's intentional, because we can't all know everything about all. Dishonesty is another story.

Either way, I'd like to straighten out a few things. Your post casts credit rating agencies like Moody's and S&P as players in the game. Players that need to upkeep some sort of batting average or ERA in order to stay relevant. That's just not true. These credit rating agencies aren't players, they are umpires. Their calls stick, regardless of past call history. Investors are now going to demand more money for their risk, which means a rise in interest rates which translates to a rise in maintenance payments on the debt. No investment firm, broker, analyst or adviser is going to question the validity of S&P's rating when their other option is the validity of the U.S. Treasury's rating of itself. It's just not going to happen.



Tell Boehner, not me.

Boehner: I got 98 percent of what I wanted (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/01/eveningnews/main20086598.shtml)

I ordered a 400hp GM crate motor for my '77 Corvette. I got the block, the crank, the pistons, intake and heads. I didn't get the spark plugs or ECM. I got 98% of what I wanted, but I was still left with an engine that doesn't run, and is isn't useful. That's a pretty good analogy to Boehner's deal. 98% wasn't good enough for the thing to run, but it's all that could be ordered in the end.

The risk of "default" was a myth; a bogeyman conjured up liberal democrats to put public pressure on house Republicans. I'm sure many, many others on this board has tried to explain this *fact* to you, but dishonest people have problems with facts. When you get cut back from full time with overtime to fewer hours, do you refuse to pay your mortgage and car payment so that you can keep your cable T.V. with premium channels, entertainment subscriptions, and still tinker with your hobby? Of course you don't, because you are supposedly "intelligent" and "enlightened". You cut those things to make your mortgage and debt payments. while you seethe on about being a proletariat, exploited by the bourgeois, and daydream about how you are just as entitled to a yacht as someone who actually earned it.

The threat of downgrade never, ever, had anything to do with default. Get that through your thick,angry, skull. The threat of downgrade came from a basic principle of usury, and that is debt to income ratio. The U.S. spends too much in proportion to what it pulls in, plain and simple. Reid's Senate, Pelosi's House, and Obama's Executive Administration put us there, and there is no dodging that bullet. The facts are so thick and heavy they are unspinnable for fear of putting your metaphorical back out. Raising the debt ceiling would, never, ever, save us from a downgrade. Reducing spending by $4T over 10 years would have. Raising taxes by $2T to meet the $2T in cuts to make $4T wouldn't have made it either. That $2T in taxes would have raised unemployment, and shrunk the taxpayer, i.e. employed, base by a margin wide enough to render that $2T in additional "revenues" (i.e. taxes) useless, because the revenues wouldn't be there. S&P, and anyone with an ounce of common sense knows this.

Due to the basic common sense of debt over income in relation to usury, one other thing would have saved us from the downgrade. A balanced budget amendment proposal. Yeah, I know, it's so right wing and radical! Nobody would ever vote for that! It's so teabagger right wing nazi that it would cause gramma to explode and allow the rich to drink up their blood. Only, it hasn't....anywhere. Forty-nine out of fifty states have a balanced budget amendment type law of some sort or another, except the "surprisingly" ultra liberal State of Vermont.

Why isn't Vermont the only State with a shred of fiscal well being left? Why is the state of Vermont entirely dependent upon Federal Stimulus, and even more so is dependent upon Obama suspending interest payments on Federal Loan funds in order to continue operating? Please, don't pretend like you know. That would just be more embarrassing for you than is normal. It would be awkward for everyone.

The weight of the indisputable facts of this entire mess must be enough to crush your spine TNO. The fact that you are still here cheerleading for Obama and his dysfunctional leadership toward goals that were scientifically debunked more than a half a century ago is a testament toward your stupidity preserving preserverance, or perhaps just stupidity.

I know you think you are some sort of intellectual hotshot, but you aren't even average intellectually. You have this id of you being some sort of genius savant, but the simplest of concept, like cause and effect, escape this intellect you think you have. Sooner or later you are going to have to face reality. The reality is that you really don't understand the physical, political, or economic realities in a coherent manner. Go back to your 20 sided die, or whatever you do to escape yourself, and build up your id, because you need to spend your time somewhere other than reality, for your own safety.

txradioguy
08-06-2011, 10:01 AM
The only thing that the S&P accomplished was that it cut its own credibility.

S&P assigned a AAA rating to the toxic assets that started this whole mess in the first place.

What the S&P is attempting to say right now is that they assessed that packaged sub-prime mortage loans were less risky than the US Debt.

There is very little risk to the US defaulting on its loans, and the market (with yields approaching 2% on 10 year bonds) still believes that US debt is the safest investment in the world.

I understand the "negative" outlook. I do not understand S&P's line of thinking or logic, unless this was businesses firing back at government. In which case the underlying factors are a lot more complex than what is hitting the news right now.


Nope sorry but you're wrong.

What the S&P did was confirm what the rest of us already knew.

The President and the Socialist Democrats in this country and driving us to social ruin.

What S&P has done is sound the alarm...loudly.

namvet
08-06-2011, 10:13 AM
_68GjR6V6zI

a balanced budget ??? WTF is that ??

the director
08-07-2011, 11:52 PM
I don't know you, I've been away for a while, but your post is either through ignorance or dishonesty. Ignorance isn't a bad thing, unless it's intentional, because we can't all know everything about all. Dishonesty is another story.

Either way, I'd like to straighten out a few things. Your post casts credit rating agencies like Moody's and S&P as players in the game. Players that need to upkeep some sort of batting average or ERA in order to stay relevant. That's just not true. These credit rating agencies aren't players, they are umpires. Their calls stick, regardless of past call history. Investors are now going to demand more money for their risk, which means a rise in interest rates which translates to a rise in maintenance payments on the debt. No investment firm, broker, analyst or adviser is going to question the validity of S&P's rating when their other option is the validity of the U.S. Treasury's rating of itself. It's just not going to happen.

Ho boy.

To use your umpire analogy, the subprime mortgage investment was a slider that was three feet out of the zone and the S&P called it a strike. US Debt was a fastball down the middle and it called it a ball. One has to be concerned about the umpire, hmm?

The US Debt has bounced up and down since it got its AAA rating (including going over 100% of GDP at times) so what is so different about this time?

What I see is two camps scrambling to play the blame game. What I see is a shitton of finger pointing and name-calling. What is it going to take to bring Democrats and Republicans to the table and talk like grown ups and fix this damn problem rather than continue on a course for destruction? Is it going to take a recession so bad we are foraging in the forest for food? Is it going to take a systemic collapse? When will the politicians say enough is enough and stop being ideologically stubborn and start acting like the founding fathers - talking across divides and finding solutions?

I'll tell you when. When Mr. and Mrs. Dumbass American wakes the fuck up and puts away their Democratic banners, their Republican banners, their Tea Party banners and their progressive banners and start demanding that their politicians provide solutions. As long as I see Democratic and Republican forums filled with kids, this shit will continue.

So continue to talk about usury and debt to income ratio and all that bullshit like it actually is the problem. Continue to have a "no compromise" outlook. See what happens. The AA+ rating is the fault of everyone who acts like a fking five year old in the playground who won't share the toy truck.

Maybe that's why the S&P downgraded the debt. Not debt-to-income ratio, not because there wasn't 4 trillion cut in debt, but because the country is filled with non-compromising immature brainwashed idiots and our politicians reflect that.

Rockntractor
08-08-2011, 12:33 AM
Ho boy.

To use your umpire analogy, the subprime mortgage investment was a slider that was three feet out of the zone and the S&P called it a strike. US Debt was a fastball down the middle and it called it a ball. One has to be concerned about the umpire, hmm?

The US Debt has bounced up and down since it got its AAA rating (including going over 100% of GDP at times) so what is so different about this time?

What I see is two camps scrambling to play the blame game. What I see is a shitton of finger pointing and name-calling. What is it going to take to bring Democrats and Republicans to the table and talk like grown ups and fix this damn problem rather than continue on a course for destruction? Is it going to take a recession so bad we are foraging in the forest for food? Is it going to take a systemic collapse? When will the politicians say enough is enough and stop being ideologically stubborn and start acting like the founding fathers - talking across divides and finding solutions?

I'll tell you when. When Mr. and Mrs. Dumbass American wakes the fuck up and puts away their Democratic banners, their Republican banners, their Tea Party banners and their progressive banners and start demanding that their politicians provide solutions. As long as I see Democratic and Republican forums filled with kids, this shit will continue.

So continue to talk about usury and debt to income ratio and all that bullshit like it actually is the problem. Continue to have a "no compromise" outlook. See what happens. The AA+ rating is the fault of everyone who acts like a fking five year old in the playground who won't share the toy truck.

Maybe that's why the S&P downgraded the debt. Not debt-to-income ratio, not because there wasn't 4 trillion cut in debt, but because the country is filled with non-compromising immature brainwashed idiots and our politicians reflect that.

I'll just betcha you have our solution all wrapped up in one man.

malloc
08-08-2011, 12:40 AM
Ho boy.

To use your umpire analogy, the subprime mortgage investment was a slider that was three feet out of the zone and the S&P called it a strike. US Debt was a fastball down the middle and it called it a ball. One has to be concerned about the umpire, hmm?

The US Debt has bounced up and down since it got its AAA rating (including going over 100% of GDP at times) so what is so different about this time?

What I see is two camps scrambling to play the blame game. What I see is a shitton of finger pointing and name-calling. What is it going to take to bring Democrats and Republicans to the table and talk like grown ups and fix this damn problem rather than continue on a course for destruction? Is it going to take a recession so bad we are foraging in the forest for food? Is it going to take a systemic collapse? When will the politicians say enough is enough and stop being ideologically stubborn and start acting like the founding fathers - talking across divides and finding solutions?

I'll tell you when. When Mr. and Mrs. Dumbass American wakes the fuck up and puts away their Democratic banners, their Republican banners, their Tea Party banners and their progressive banners and start demanding that their politicians provide solutions. As long as I see Democratic and Republican forums filled with kids, this shit will continue.

So continue to talk about usury and debt to income ratio and all that bullshit like it actually is the problem. Continue to have a "no compromise" outlook. See what happens. The AA+ rating is the fault of everyone who acts like a fking five year old in the playground who won't share the toy truck.


Oh I guess you are one of "those" characters then. You could have just answered with "ignorance", it would have saved time. :rolleyes:



Maybe that's why the S&P downgraded the debt. Not debt-to-income ratio, not because there wasn't 4 trillion cut in debt, but because the country is filled with non-compromising immature brainwashed idiots and our politicians reflect that.

You know, you could just go read their press release and the report the drafted for the Treasury explaining the situation. There's nothing stopping, and then you wouldn't have guess and say, "maybe" anymore. It's not like it's a big secret or anything.

the director
08-08-2011, 01:03 AM
I'll just betcha you have our solution all wrapped up in one man.

Look in the mirror - that is who I think has the solution. The voter has to become smarter, more pragmatic, and less susceptible to propaganda.

That and the media is atrocious.

I'm curious as to who you think I believe has the answer.

Rockntractor
08-08-2011, 01:08 AM
I'm curious as to who you think I believe has the answer.

Curious my ass.

lacarnut
08-08-2011, 01:58 AM
Look in the mirror - that is who I think has the solution. The voter has to become smarter, more pragmatic, and less susceptible to propaganda.

That and the media is atrocious.

.

I betcha you did not parrot that after Obama was elected. You probably voted for the community organizer who was less qualified than any (D & R) politician that has every ran for President in the last 50 years. He was elected to Congress and the Presidency because he is black and gives pretty speeches. His qualifications as a legislator were slim to none. It is obvious that he is not qualified and has little skills in negotiating unless you are talking about shaking down corporations and hitting unions up for donations. He is an empty suit and it is rather hard to negotiate with a person of his limited abilities.

You should try your liberal spin over at DU cause it is not working here.

the director
08-08-2011, 02:20 AM
Oh I guess you are one of "those" characters then. You could have just answered with "ignorance", it would have saved time. :rolleyes:

You know, you could just go read their press release and the report the drafted for the Treasury explaining the situation. There's nothing stopping, and then you wouldn't have guess and say, "maybe" anymore. It's not like it's a big secret or anything.

Fair enough, let's look at the press release together than, shall we? Here are a few general rules about press releases that have served me well:

1. Press releases are less about fact and more about sending a message. The key is reading between the lines to find that message.

2. Press releases are extremely difficult to decipher without knowing what is being discussed in back room conversations. However, it is still possible to assess, but only a fool would be 100% certain in their assessments.

3. The most important information and the key message is at the top of the press release. Facts are then used to back up the main message.

4. Facts are not the message itself.


Standard & Poor’s took the unprecedented step of downgrading the U.S. government’s “AAA” sovereign credit rating Friday in a move that could send shock waves through global. The following is a press release from Standard & Poor’s:

– We have lowered our long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America to ‘AA+’ from ‘AAA’ and affirmed the ‘A-1+’ short-term rating.

– We have also removed both the short- and long-term ratings from CreditWatch negative.

– The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government’s medium-term debt dynamics.

So we have pretty basic stuff at the top. The S&P is pissed, they downgraded the debt, and they were unhappy with the debt limit resolution.



– More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.

– Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government’s debt dynamics any time soon.


Bingo. We have the message. Their downgrade likely has less to do with the fundamentals and more to do with the dysfunction of the central government. The S&P likely views the inability of the Dems, progressives, Repubs, and Tea Party to work together which creates an environment of instability.

Here is another gem in the body of the press release:


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.

So there we go. The S&P is saying the fiscal situation sucks, and government is dysfunctional and unable to come up with a real solution, and as a result, downgrade.

The S&P lists off many reasons why, all of which are familiar to the posters of this forum. Entitlement spending, runaway debt, and so on. But I think the S&P is saying that the dysfunction of the government is leading to its fiscal problems. And who "hires" the government? We do.

I could be wrong. Again, reading between the lines isn't an exact science. I'd have to know more about the personalities behind the decision as well as their interation with the Treasury, Congress and the White House to be any more sure.

the director
08-08-2011, 02:23 AM
I betcha you did not parrot that after Obama was elected. You probably voted for the community organizer who was less qualified than any (D & R) politician that has every ran for President in the last 50 years. He was elected to Congress and the Presidency because he is black and gives pretty speeches. His qualifications as a legislator were slim to none. It is obvious that he is not qualified and has little skills in negotiating unless you are talking about shaking down corporations and hitting unions up for donations. He is an empty suit and it is rather hard to negotiate with a person of his limited abilities.

You should try your liberal spin over at DU cause it is not working here.

I've noticed a tendancy of liberals to call me a rightwingnut and conservatives call me a liberal moonbat. I take these accusations with pride.

I'm not defending the liberal position - actually I agree with conservatives on the budget. I only disagree on how they go about it. Continue to bang your fist on the podium and demand no concessions while dismissing me as a liberal - I'll continue to see right through it.

the director
08-08-2011, 02:25 AM
Curious my ass.

No I really am. I think Paul is absolutely insane and I'm not a liberal.

So, who then?

lacarnut
08-08-2011, 07:04 AM
I've noticed a tendancy of liberals to call me a rightwingnut and conservatives call me a liberal moonbat. I take these accusations with pride.

I'm not defending the liberal position - actually I agree with conservatives on the budget. I only disagree on how they go about it. Continue to bang your fist on the podium and demand no concessions while dismissing me as a liberal - I'll continue to see right through it.

That is because you are like a yo yo. You defend the liberal side and then defend the half ass conservative side but offer no resolution or a solution. So, let's hear your platform for cuts. I will be all ears.

FYI, I do not want compromise. I have already explained it to you but it seems you are too dense to understand. I will try one more time. In the previous budget battle, the Democrats wanted zero cuts and the Repubs wanted 100 billion. They settled on 37 billion. However, it was mostly smoke and mirrors and later we found out that only a few hundred million were actual cuts. That is called a very bad compromise, and a bad faith effort by Obama and the Democraps to cut squat. Did the Democrats compromise on the health care bill. Nope. Pisslosi ruled with an iron fist when Democrats had the majority. That is what I want the Repubs to do so that much of the bad legislation, regulations and spending increases will be reversed.

The S & P did what it threathened to do and that is cut the bond rating of the US if they did not make 4 trillion in cuts. 2 trillion were made. However, those cuts are iffy at best cause they are way, way off in the future. 70% are after Obummer leaves office. Capiche. Therefore, the S & P saw right thru the bogus plan for spending cuts. That is the reason for the downgrade. The S & P was negligent in the housing mess but they got this part right for a change. I you do not understand these facts, I can not help you.

the director
08-08-2011, 08:51 AM
That is because you are like a yo yo. You defend the liberal side and then defend the half ass conservative side but offer no resolution or a solution. So, let's hear your platform for cuts. I will be all ears.

FYI, I do not want compromise. I have already explained it to you but it seems you are too dense to understand. I will try one more time. In the previous budget battle, the Democrats wanted zero cuts and the Repubs wanted 100 billion. They settled on 37 billion. However, it was mostly smoke and mirrors and later we found out that only a few hundred million were actual cuts. That is called a very bad compromise, and a bad faith effort by Obama and the Democraps to cut squat. Did the Democrats compromise on the health care bill. Nope. Pisslosi ruled with an iron fist when Democrats had the majority. That is what I want the Repubs to do so that much of the bad legislation, regulations and spending increases will be reversed.

The S & P did what it threathened to do and that is cut the bond rating of the US if they did not make 4 trillion in cuts. 2 trillion were made. However, those cuts are iffy at best cause they are way, way off in the future. 70% are after Obummer leaves office. Capiche. Therefore, the S & P saw right thru the bogus plan for spending cuts. That is the reason for the downgrade. The S & P was negligent in the housing mess but they got this part right for a change. I you do not understand these facts, I can not help you.

If recognizing that liberals have a right to representation in government is me "being like a yo-yo" and "defending the liberal side" then so be it.

The Democrats enjoy a majority in the Senate and can still muster support in the House. They have the presidency. Do you really think, from a conservative point of view, that a no-compromise position would really work? The quick death of the Tea Party-favored bill shows just how tenuous conservative power in the government is right now.

Pragmatism, if embraced by conservatives, would generate a ton of political capital in a time where Democrats are struggling. If conservatives were smart, they could have agreed to some Democratic demands while positioning themselves as the party that is "getting things done" while putting some real road blocks in Obama's way for re-election:

1. Agree to the repeal of the Bush Tax cuts. The conservatives could have secured significant government spending cuts by conceding in this area. I admit it isn't optimal, but conservatives would have been able to demand a lot in return for this concession such as: at least 4 trillion in cuts, a significant cut up front during the Obama administration, language that guarantees the cuts, and so on.

2. An aggressive post-deal IO campaign that paints the Democrats in a corner. The Tea Party bill, although doomed from the beginning, was an excellent start. Conservatives could have pointed to that and said "we had an effective plan that wouldn't have raised taxes, but Democrats refused. So we decided to take the high road and get a deal done that saves the future for our kids." Something like that. Whoever receives the nod as the conservative presidential candidate could have a field day with that in every debate. Additionally, the up-front cuts would have demoralized the liberal base even more than it is after a two trillion dollar cut.

In the end, the conservatives could have shown themselves to be the party for America. I think the American public would respond positively to that, but I could be naive here. Either way, the solution would have been a hell of a lot better than the situation we are in right now.

The S&P called for4 trillion in cuts as a benchmark as to whether or not the American government was willing to put aside politics and work together to find an acceptable solution that also recognized the fact that our debt is out of control. That is why they cut our debt rating, at least that is my take on their press release.

I view you, a person who is unwilling to compromise, as being part of the problem and not part of the solution. If conservatives were willing to compromise and the democrats weren't - then that should be broadcast out loud on every network. But instead, the Tea Party is being blasted for its no-compromise stance and as a result, the public polls on the Tea Party have plummeted. It was a miscalculation by the base and its leadership. I'm interested to see how it plays out in 2012.

Odysseus
08-08-2011, 09:55 AM
The only thing that the S&P accomplished was that it cut its own credibility.

S&P assigned a AAA rating to the toxic assets that started this whole mess in the first place.
In all fairness to S&P, the toxic assets were hidden through multiple layers of derivatives and bookkeeping fictions whose sole purpose was to hide the risks and evade the kind of scrutiny that S&P does. This was especially true of Fannie and Freddie, which issued fraudulent reports that vastly overstated the value of their holdings and the risks of their toxic loans. The S&P AAA ratings were not caused by a failure on S&P's part, but deliberate fraud on the part of the financial managers.

John Boehner got 98% of what he wanted and so downgrading the US credit rating is the natural next step.
LAcarunut nailed this with his Corvette analogy. The fact is that the Boehner plan fell short of what was needed to prevent this, but his plan was still far more fiscally responsible than the Reid plan, much less the Obama budget that was defeated 97-0 in the senate.

1. Agree to the repeal of the Bush Tax cuts. The conservatives could have secured significant government spending cuts by conceding in this area. I admit it isn't optimal, but conservatives would have been able to demand a lot in return for this concession such as: at least 4 trillion in cuts, a significant cut up front during the Obama administration, language that guarantees the cuts, and so on.
The Bush tax cuts were followed by record increases in revenues (as were the Reagan tax cuts two decades earlier). Writing in National Review, Byron York provides the numbers:

Revenues fell in Bush's first two years because of a combination of the tech bust and the start of the tax cuts. But then things took off. After taking in $1.782 trillion in tax revenues in 2003, the government collected $1.88 trillion in 2004; $2.153 trillion in 2005; $2.406 trillion in 2006; and $2.567 trillion in 2007, according to figures compiled by the Office of Management and Budget. That's a 44 percent increase from 2003 to 2007. (Revenues slid downward a bit in 2008, and a lot in 2009, when the financial crisis sent the economy into a tailspin.) "Everybody talks about how much the Bush tax cuts 'cost,'" says one GOP strategist. "We're saying, no, they led to a huge increase in revenue."

And deficits shrank. After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus in 2001, the Bush administration ran up deficits of $158 billion in 2002; $378 billion in 2003; and $413 billion in 2004. Then, with revenues pouring in, the deficits began to fall: $318 billion in 2005; $248 billion in 2006; and $161 billion in 2007. That 2007 deficit, with the tax cuts in effect, was one-tenth of today's $1.6 trillion deficit.

Deficits went up in 2008 with the beginning of the economic downturn -- and, not coincidentally, with the first full year of a Democratic House and Senate.

The federal government doesn't have a revenue problem. It has a spending problem.


2. An aggressive post-deal IO campaign that paints the Democrats in a corner. The Tea Party bill, although doomed from the beginning, was an excellent start. Conservatives could have pointed to that and said "we had an effective plan that wouldn't have raised taxes, but Democrats refused. So we decided to take the high road and get a deal done that saves the future for our kids." Something like that. Whoever receives the nod as the conservative presidential candidate could have a field day with that in every debate. Additionally, the up-front cuts would have demoralized the liberal base even more than it is after a two trillion dollar cut.

Any public discussion of the debt and deficits has to start from two basic facts, which are what our revenues actually are, and what our spending is. Notice that these two critical facts are absent from almost all of the media reporting. Here's why:


Federal Taxes by Type:
Total Direct Revenue: $2,173.7 billion
Income Taxes: $1,154.5 billion
Social Insurance Taxes: $806.8 billion
Ad-valorem Taxes: $132.9 billion
Fees and Charges: $0.0 billion
Business and Other Revenue: $79.5 billion

Remember that first number. Federal revenues were $2.173 Trillion in FY 2011. For FY 2012, they are estimated at $2.628 trillion.

Obama's proposed total spending for 2011 was $3.818 trillion, which entailed a deficit of $1.645 trillion, or roughly 40% of the overall budget. The FY ends in September. Had congress simply raised the debt limit for the remainder of the FY, it would have allowed us to start FY 2012 with a clean slate and forced the congress to address the deficit in the budget deliberations, rather than in a series of continuing resolutions that obscured the numbers. However, a short term debt limit increase would have meant that Obama would have had to justify his spending binge during the run-up to the election. He demanded, and got, and extension that takes it off the table until he is either reelected or defeated. That was his sole goal, and it did not warrant compromise, especially when you view the items that he refused to cut or reduce in order to demand tax hikes for the next ten years:


ObamaCare $1.5 trillion
Planned Parenthood (annually) $330 million
Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac $145 billion
Amtrak $1.9 billion
Unspent Stimulus/ War Chest $60 billion
National Endowment for the Arts $133 million
National Endowment for the Humanities $140 million
The Post Office $1.0 billion
Vacant Federal Properties $25.0 billion
Medicare Fraud $47.0 billion
National Broadband Coverage Map $350.0 million
Federal Employee Flight Upgrades $146.0 million
Beach Re-sanding $3.0 billion
Payments Not to Use Land (conservation) $2.0 billion
International Abortions/Population Control $650.0 million
Libya Kinetic Military Action $750.0 million
Consumer Protection Bureau $329.0 million
United Nations $6.4 billion
NPR/Corporation for Public Broadcasting $451.0 million
Renewable Energy Tax Credits (mostly wind) $6.9 billion
Tax Credits to IRS employees/Others $513.0 million
Federal Weatherization Programs $5.0 billion
99 Week Unemployment Benefits $100.0 billion

Total $1.9 - 2.0 trillion.

Simply not funding Obamacare would have eliminated $1.5 trillion in future debt. Pulling back unspent (and useless) stimulus funds would have saved $60 billion. These were off the table, but the Democrats demanded tax hikes. Would you have compromised with that position?

Molon Labe
08-08-2011, 12:19 PM
Well... I guess in looking for a silver lining, it'll be harder for us to find money to spend on useless shit now.

Yeah...but that will also come back to haunt us in the end. This doesn't just end at domestic spending. Won't be long till we can't project the military outside of the old Monroe doctrine.

Can't say we didn't sees this coming though....we've been treading this path for 10 years now. Obama and this shat for brains congress helped give it the last shove.

lacarnut
08-08-2011, 01:33 PM
If recognizing that liberals have a right to representation in government is me "being like a yo-yo" and "defending the liberal side" then so be it.

The Democrats enjoy a majority in the Senate and can still muster support in the House. They have the presidency. Do you really think, from a conservative point of view, that a no-compromise position would really work? The quick death of the Tea Party-favored bill shows just how tenuous conservative power in the government is right now.

Pragmatism, if embraced by conservatives, would generate a ton of political capital in a time where Democrats are struggling. If conservatives were smart, they could have agreed to some Democratic demands while positioning themselves as the party that is "getting things done" while putting some real road blocks in Obama's way for re-election:

1. Agree to the repeal of the Bush Tax cuts. The conservatives could have secured significant government spending cuts by conceding in this area. I admit it isn't optimal, but conservatives would have been able to demand a lot in return for this concession such as: at least 4 trillion in cuts, a significant cut up front during the Obama administration, language that guarantees the cuts, and so on.

2. An aggressive post-deal IO campaign that paints the Democrats in a corner. The Tea Party bill, although doomed from the beginning, was an excellent start. Conservatives could have pointed to that and said "we had an effective plan that wouldn't have raised taxes, but Democrats refused. So we decided to take the high road and get a deal done that saves the future for our kids." Something like that. Whoever receives the nod as the conservative presidential candidate could have a field day with that in every debate. Additionally, the up-front cuts would have demoralized the liberal base even more than it is after a two trillion dollar cut.

In the end, the conservatives could have shown themselves to be the party for America. I think the American public would respond positively to that, but I could be naive here. Either way, the solution would have been a hell of a lot better than the situation we are in right now.

The S&P called for4 trillion in cuts as a benchmark as to whether or not the American government was willing to put aside politics and work together to find an acceptable solution that also recognized the fact that our debt is out of control. That is why they cut our debt rating, at least that is my take on their press release.

I view you, a person who is unwilling to compromise, as being part of the problem and not part of the solution. If conservatives were willing to compromise and the democrats weren't - then that should be broadcast out loud on every network. But instead, the Tea Party is being blasted for its no-compromise stance and as a result, the public polls on the Tea Party have plummeted. It was a miscalculation by the base and its leadership. I'm interested to see how it plays out in 2012.

You are dumber than I thought. The Repubs gave away the store and got little in return. Voters wanted deep spending cuts and no new taxes. I already explained that the proposed cuts to you are off in never, never land. So all you can come up with is the repeal of Bush Tax Cuts. Rather pathetic if you ask me.

Donald Trump had the answer. Let Obummer and tiny Tim eat cake and then some real cuts NOW, NOW, NOW could have negotiated. You are a fool if you think the Tea Party has been diminished. Only in your brain addled left wing brain and the Democratic talking heads think so. The media blitz and phony polls against them will just make them stronger. Just because liberals are full of hatred for them will wind up costing the Democraps the Presidency and the Senate in 012. So keep up the hate campaign. That is all the Democrats and Obama have going for them. They sure can not run on the lousy job they have done in the 4 years Congress was controlled by both houses of congress and 2 years of the failed Obama administration. FYI, the majority of voters are against Obamacare and big government spenders which include both parties.

The S & P realized that the economy and employment is stuck, and that this administration is anti-business, pro taxes, pro regulations; they came to the conclusion that there is no way in God's green earth that we can pull ourselves out of the mess with extravagant spending policies. I assume you do not understand that part of the equation which is normal for liberals like yourself that only want to address the tax side of the formula.

The Democrats are so phony. After the downgrade, liars like Obama and Reid are trying to convince voters that it was the Repubs that were against large cuts. There will not be any cuts of this proportion during the Obama Presidency plus the S & P might downgrade us again. Moody is coming next with a downgrade. Then what will liberals say then. I can hear the lies now, "it's all Bush's fault". Ody gave you a list of cuts in the above posts which could be made but liberal are dead set against touching these sacred cows. Compromise you say, I don't think so.

malloc
08-08-2011, 04:28 PM
Fair enough, let's look at the press release together than, shall we? Here are a few general rules about press releases that have served me well:
.......
I could be wrong. Again, reading between the lines isn't an exact science. I'd have to know more about the personalities behind the decision as well as their interation with the Treasury, Congress and the White House to be any more sure.

Well now, I'm glad you read it, and you don't have to guess. It makes explaining the next thing easier:

S&P's major problem and rationale for lowering the rating was most definitely fundamental. The debt, a result of borrowing in order to spend, was too high for our GDP. We aren't producing enough goods and services to have any chance at paying back the raw amount of debt at this point in time. We know this is S&P's real reason for the downgrade, because they were threatening the downgrade long before political gridlock over extending the debt ceiling became alarming.

There were really two items of interest. One was immediate, raising the debt ceiling, the other was short to medium term, making a solid commitment to lower the debt to GDP ratio.


We have taken the ratings off CreditWatch because the Aug. 2 passage of
the Budget Control Act Amendment of 2011 has removed any perceived immediate
threat of payment default posed by delays to raising the government's debt
ceiling. In addition, we believe that the act provides sufficient clarity to
allow us to evaluate the likely course of U.S. fiscal policy for the next few
years.
http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563


So, now we can move on to the long term debt, which was downgraded.



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 view the act's measures as a step toward fiscal consolidation.
However, this is within the framework of a legislative mechanism that leaves
open the details of what is finally agreed to until the end of 2011, and
Congress and the Administration could modify any agreement in the future. Even
assuming that at least $2.1 trillion of the spending reductions the act
envisages are implemented, we maintain our view that the U.S. net general
government debt burden (all levels of government combined, excluding liquid
financial assets) will likely continue to grow.


The debt ceiling was raised, so we were removed from the watch list, but the commitment made by "compromise" isn't solid, and was very difficult for congress to achieve.

S&P is interested in the credit of the United States. Not it's standard of living it's people enjoy, not the amount of purchasing power in the People's pocket's, or the niceties they can afford. That being said, it is up to the Congress to make a sane budget, which will honor the commitments the U.S. has made, without impoverishing the people. One side of this argument is working toward that goal, while the other side is working toward an ideological agenda. That is why compromise is so difficult, and will remain so as long as the party of the left keeps firmly planted way out in ideological left field.

So, when the two parties finally did compromise, all we got was weak tea that didn't do the job. Therefore, it's plain to see that compromise with these bastards that have taken over the Democrat party is an option this country takes at it's own risk. We need to get out of debt, and comprise with socialists is not how one does that.

Madisonian
08-08-2011, 05:46 PM
In all fairness to S&P, the toxic assets were hidden through multiple layers of derivatives and bookkeeping fictions whose sole purpose was to hide the risks and evade the kind of scrutiny that S&P does. This was especially true of Fannie and Freddie, which issued fraudulent reports that vastly overstated the value of their holdings and the risks of their toxic loans. The S&P AAA ratings were not caused by a failure on S&P's part, but deliberate fraud on the part of the financial managers.



Sorry, but with all due respect, I am not buying that.
S&P made millions or billions on the ratings they gave those assets. To now say that they lacked the information needed for an accurate rating smells more than a garbage dump in August.
They pay people millions to know what they are talking about and I don't remember reading any S&P press releases that their execs were giving back any of the hefty bonuses they undoubtedly received based on the profits on selling shit as shinola.

malloc
08-08-2011, 06:04 PM
In all fairness to S&P, the toxic assets were hidden through multiple layers of derivatives and bookkeeping fictions whose sole purpose was to hide the risks and evade the kind of scrutiny that S&P does. This was especially true of Fannie and Freddie, which issued fraudulent reports that vastly overstated the value of their holdings and the risks of their toxic loans. The S&P AAA ratings were not caused by a failure on S&P's part, but deliberate fraud on the part of the financial managers.


Sorry, but with all due respect, I am not buying that.
S&P made millions or billions on the ratings they gave those assets. To now say that they lacked the information needed for an accurate rating smells more than a garbage dump in August.
They pay people millions to know what they are talking about and I don't remember reading any S&P press releases that their execs were giving back any of the hefty bonuses they undoubtedly received based on the profits on selling shit as shinola.




You are both a little right, and both a little wrong.

I can't copy and paste from the damned PDF, because it's locked or something, but go read the 10K filing from 2007 (http://www.fanniemae.com/ir/pdf/sec/2008/form10k_022708.pdf;jsessionid=WP2NA2OD2MMHZJ2FQSHS FGA) submitted by Fannie Mae. Look for the heading Annual Housing Goals and Subgoals. Fannie Mae pats themselves on the back for meeting the low-income (i.e. sub-prime and sub-A) goals set down through regulation by HUD. Then in the very next paragraph they talk extensively about the extra risk incurred by packaging these assets into their MBS products.

They never mention the shady lending products mortgage banks were putting together in order to bring these products to Fannie Mae, because it wasn't really Fannie May's place to scrutinize this area too much. They had to meet HUD quotas on secondary mortgages period. Other agencies, not Fannie Mae was responsible for how the banks brought their products to Fannie Mae, and the mortgage banks had to bring the sub-prime and sub-A products that Fannie Mae wanted to buy to meet the goals.

All the while, there was the underlying knowledge that no matter what, the Government would bail out FNM/FNMC.

So, S&P knew about the risk that Fannie Mae knew about, and no more. They also knew that the risk was largely negated, because FNM/FNMC had a direct line into the U.S. Treasury to secure it's risks. So basically S&P didn't look to hard at where the low-income, HUD mandated, loans came from, and everyone knew that any drop would be backed by the U.S. Government.

That's moral hazard in a nutshell, and that's why S&P gave FNM etc., the thumbs up. This is also a really good example of market distortion.


As a PS: Just so you understand my "a little right/a little wrong" comment. Yes, S&P could have looked more closely into where these sub-prime and sub-a assets were coming from (i.e. how much were sort term ARMs based on shady products which are designed to skirt minimum underwriting requirements, etc.). However, FNM/FNMC could have been a little, actually a lot, more vocal about the real risk of requiring a bailout, but that would have hurt stock values, and MBS sales, as well as pissed off the politicians.

Novaheart
08-08-2011, 06:53 PM
The Chinese bond rating agency has already downgraded the US from A+ to A. I don't think we even deserve that high a rating.

In what country is invested capital safer and better protected under law? I mean serious countries, not offshore banking countries and other criminal enterprises.

lacarnut
08-08-2011, 08:04 PM
In what country is invested capital safer and better protected under law? I mean serious countries, not offshore banking countries and other criminal enterprises.

The S & P is trying to warn the US (call it a wake up call) that we are on the road to too much spending. When you have an idiot like Warren Buffett advising the President that debt does not matter and that we can print all the money we want, that is totally screwed up. The S & P wants to put the brakes on while Obama and this old fool wants to keep on spending. If I was a billionaire or a rich banker, QE 3,4,5 would be great because I could get that much richer. Of course devaluing the dollar makes the rest of us all that much poorer.

malloc
08-08-2011, 08:06 PM
In what country is invested capital safer and better protected under law? I mean serious countries, not offshore banking countries and other criminal enterprises.

I would have to say, at this time Germany. I'm entirely sure if it's safer, and I would probably buy U.S. Bonds before German Bonds, but foreign investors may not have my same American bias.

Novaheart
08-08-2011, 08:26 PM
I would have to say, at this time Germany. I'm entirely sure if it's safer, and I would probably buy U.S. Bonds before German Bonds, but foreign investors may not have my same American bias.

Does Germany have oil reserves?

Does Germany have as much coal as the US does?

Does Germany have as much natural gas as the US does?

Does Germany have the agricultural and industrial capacity that the US has?

Does Germany have a warm water port on one ocean much less several warm water ports on three oceans and several other waterways?

malloc
08-08-2011, 08:34 PM
Does Germany have oil reserves?

Does Germany have as much coal as the US does?

Does Germany have as much natural gas as the US does?

Does Germany have the agricultural and industrial capacity that the US has?

Does Germany have a warm water port on one ocean much less several warm water ports on three oceans and several other waterways?

I have a better question, does any of it matter if Germany is making money? I see that you are trying to make some sort of retarded point about the US having more natural resources. However, we also have a political situation that prevents their use, so big deal. You asked for a country to invest in that is as safe as the United States, you didn't ask for a country with comparable geographic features. Quit moving the goal posts and do some research on German bonds, outstanding debts, and GDP strength for fucks sake. How you pull geographic features into your personal risk assessments when choosing which global debt to purchase is your business I guess.

Rockntractor
08-08-2011, 08:39 PM
I have a better question, does any of it matter if Germany is making money? I see that you are trying to make some sort of retarded point about the US having more natural resources. However, we also have a political situation that prevents their use, so big deal. You asked for a country to invest in that is as safe as the United States, you didn't ask for a country with comparable geographic features. Quit moving the goal posts and do some research on German bonds, outstanding debts, and GDP strength for fucks sake. How you pull geographic features into your personal risk assessments when choosing which global debt to purchase is your business I guess.

It's a moot point, he doesn't have any money to invest, he is already crying for us to pay for his health care.

Big Guy
08-08-2011, 08:40 PM
I have a simplistic view on this subject;

I make X number of dollars.
Which means I only have X number of dollars to spend.

If X nuber of dollars will not cover all my bills I have to either;

1. Make more money.

2. Eliminate some of my Bills.

3. Both 1 and 2.

To me it IS that simple, the KISS system works.

Rockntractor
08-08-2011, 08:45 PM
I have a simplistic view on this subject;

I make X number of dollars.
Which means I only have X number of dollars to spend.

If X nuber of dollars will not cover all my bills I have to either;

1. Make more money.

2. Eliminate some of my Bills.

3. Both 1 and 2.

To me it IS that simple, the KISS system works.

You could call your bank and tell them you are raising your debt ceiling and skip a few payments.:confused:

Big Guy
08-08-2011, 08:52 PM
You could call your bank and tell them you are raising your debt ceiling and skip a few payments.:confused:

Right ! :D

Thats something I'd rather do in person, just to watch them laugh me out of the bank.:D

Odysseus
08-09-2011, 01:35 PM
In what country is invested capital safer and better protected under law? I mean serious countries, not offshore banking countries and other criminal enterprises.

Before Obama, I'd have said none, but after his bailout of GM and Chrysler, in which he used thug tactics to get the preferred bondholders to waive their claims in favor of his union cronies, I'd say that we're dropping fast.