Support NeoGAF

[AlteredBeast]

So, it's okay that he says my response is retarded which implies it as worthless and wrong and I point out the hard truth and that's wrong? You make no sense. They were irresponsible and drains on society which fits his generalization of welfare recipients and yet it's too harsh? Seriously?

Dude, you have got to tone it down.

I am aware of the many, programs the government offers and I am still for abolishing many of them, as I have stated many, many times. Even the ones I have and do take. Why the hell is my mortgage interest deductible? It isn't deductible pretty much anywhere else and people still buy houses all over the world.

I did answer why my parents had that many kids, they always felt like they were supposed to have ten. That will sound ridiculous to 99% of people, I am aware, but if you get off your pedestal and realize that people do things for a variety of reasons, none of them really matter in the end.

Education and accountability are the two problems that this country is facing on the grandest scale and what is making and will continue to make e biggest differ ce between rich and poor. Rich parents can clothe and feed their kids while being active participants in the learning process. They go to parent-teacher conferences, they care about grades and are typically two-parent households.

Poor parents are often single-parent households or ones where both parents work in blue-collar or service oriented jobs. The parents are not educated and have little interest or time in making sure their kids' education is making a difference. What is worse, add in the fact that the kids see their parents without education, on welfare or SSI and, while they probably don't live in a nice neighborhood, they still find money for flat screen TVs, cable and Internet, the newest cell phones, and brand-name clothing. What incentive is there for that kid to work hard? Even if the single parent was a hard worker ( as the great majority are) when do they have time between two or more jobs to study with their kids, go to school functions, and so on?

How are you going to fix that scenario? More education spending? Firing underperforming teachers? Bus kids to schools where teachers and parents give a crap? I would love to hear your ideas.

For that reason, I don't think tons of welfare benefits help many people to progress with anything other than forcing them to buy food instead of entertainment with their money. Funnel that money more into education and after-school activities and other things to encourage kids to be around learning environments as much as possible. Give kids more incentive to study, work hard and truly succeed. I am totally and one hundred percent for free education (as I have stated) without it, the kids in poverty that truly do want to get ahead will have their chance. Keep up with the free meals, too.

Sorry if my views are a bit skewed, but working in inner city and seeing the same people without regard for hygiene, education, common courtesy, respect for education, and a desire to improve their situation in life has made me a cynic. People honestly look at their money I. Front of me and go " should I pay the cable bill or the water bill..." and damn if they don't always pay that cable bill. Why not take another DVR while you are at it? Budgeting and finance classes should be taught throughout school years, for that matter, too.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

Dude, you have got to tone it down.

Tone what down? The discussion? I still see your rank hypocrisy as nothing short of amazing. You take the welfare yet you deem it worthless and a waste and should be abolished. This is unbelievable.

 

[Salazar]

I don't see it as a drain at all, but I take issue with someone bemoaning welfare and yet they have had success in their life because of that welfare.

Not that welfare: not the welfare that lets or helps kids go to school.

That's not the welfare that was being bemoaned. And bemoaned isn't even the right word. Government assistance doesn't obtain a general, monolithic moral character whereby to object to one element or program is to lock oneself into objecting to all others, or vice versa.

Pretty sure that suggesting a cut on unnecessary or less necessary programs isn't rank hypocrisy just because someone went to public school with their brothers and sisters.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Writing on an iPad takes time, didn't get to see the other 10 responses or so before mine.

Nothing hypocritical about it. I wouldn't be able to use it if it were abolished... I just think that so many of the government subsidies and credits are unnecessary or overdone. Everyone from the wealthiest of billionaires to the poorest homeowner gets to credit their mortgage interest, but I think it is a silly program.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

Not that welfare: not the welfare that lets or helps kids go to school.

That's not the welfare that was being bemoaned. And bemoaned isn't even the right word. Government assistance doesn't obtain a general, monolithic moral character whereby to object to one element or program is to lock oneself into objecting to all others.

Pretty sure that suggesting a cut on unnecessary programs isn't rank hypocrisy just because someone went to public school with their brothers and sisters.

It's all government welfare and there is no changing that and bemoaned is the right word. He admits to accepting government help such as Pell Grants and even goes as far to say he accepts benefits from programs that should be cut. That is rank hypocrisy. I don;t care if someone takes advantage of handouts to better themselves and in turn society. I love it. I think it is the best thing that this country has going for it. But, I will never reconcile someone who thinks that these programs should be cut and then proceeds to take form those very same programs. That makes no sense and never will.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Geez... You are getting a bit ridiculous. I never said about cutting anything about school, in fact I have said all school should be free or ridiculously affordable...I am not talking about those programs.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

Geez... You are getting a bit ridiculous. I never said about cutting anything about school, in fact I have said all school should be free or ridiculously affordable...I am not talking about those programs.

Yet again, you belittle what I'm saying and miss the point.

 

[TacticalFox88]

The fuck happened to this threa? >.>

 

[AlteredBeast]

Yeah, I am actually responding to what you are saying while you keep saying, " it's all government welfare. Hypocrisy!"

Saying I have benefited from something doesn't mean I cannot be against it. Telling people they are dishonest and lazy if they used the mortgage interest deduction, telling people I am no lazy, and then saying that I take interest deduction would be hypocrisy.

Wanting something abolished that I benefit from is not hypocrisy. That is a sacrifice to help the budget of the federal government. Imagine millions of homeowners (many of which are those wealthy people you hate so much) not writing off thousands of dollars in interest every year. That is a huge amount of money.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

Yeah, I am actually responding to what you are saying while you keep saying, " it's all government welfare. Hypocrisy!"

Saying I have benefited from something doesn't mean I cannot be against it. Telling people they are dishonest and lazy if they used the mortgage interest deduction, telling people I am no lazy, and then saying that I take interest deduction would be hypocrisy.

Wanting something abolished that I benefit from is not hypocrisy. That is a sacrifice to help the budget of the federal government. Imagine millions of homeowners (many of which are those wealthy people you hate so much) not writing off thousands of dollars in interest every year. That is a huge amount of money.

When did I say I hated wealthy people? And you taking that money which you believe you shouldn't get is hypocrisy. And saying I'm ridiculous or my statements are retarded is not a reasoned response.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Damn, 100 billion dollars is what the mortgage interest deduction plan costed the government last year. That is a massive chunk of change. Imagine the textbooks and drains on the economy that could pay for!

 

[Salazar]

Imagine the textbooks and drains on the economy that could pay for!

As someone looking at a career in educational publishing, I approve this post.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

Damn, 100 billion dollars is what the mortgage interest deduction plan costed the government last year. That is a massive chunk of change. Imagine the textbooks and drains on the economy that could pay for!

Yet again, twisting my words doesn't prove your point. I don't consider you or your siblings a drain on the economy, or for that matter anybody who partakes in welfare.

 

[AlteredBeast]

As someone looking at a career in educational publishing, I approve this post.

I will get your textbook bought when I am a teacher as long as I get a cut of the proceeds.

 

[Mortrialus]

Yeah, I am actually responding to what you are saying while you keep saying, " it's all government welfare. Hypocrisy!"

Saying I have benefited from something doesn't mean I cannot be against it. Telling people they are dishonest and lazy if they used the mortgage interest deduction, telling people I am no lazy, and then saying that I take interest deduction would be hypocrisy.

Wanting something abolished that I benefit from is not hypocrisy. That is a sacrifice to help the budget of the federal government. Imagine millions of homeowners (many of which are those wealthy people you hate so much) not writing off thousands of dollars in interest every year. That is a huge amount of money.

Bullshit unless you can lay down specifically why you should benefit from the program while others shouldn't, which you haven't.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Yet again, twisting my words doesn't prove your point. I don't consider you or your siblings a drain on the economy, or for that matter anybody who partakes in welfare.

I wasn't quoting you, just making an observation. Sounds like you have a guilty conscience for looking down on all those poor kids in school all those years...

 

[NathanMcMahon]

I wasn't quoting you, just making an observation. Sounds like you have a guilty conscience for looking down on all those poor kids in school all those years...

You were referencing my statement I made earlier but that's okay. As far as the second part of your childish statement, it makes no sense.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Bullshit unless you can lay down specifically why you should benefit from the program while others shouldn't, which you haven't.

Everyone benefits from it right now. It should be abolished because it is unnecessary. This line of thinking is why temporary government programs are never temporary at all. "if the neighbors got x a year ago when that storm hit, then I deserve y when that tree fell over last night." nobody deserves anything, in my opinion, I sure as hell could use the money come April from my interest deduction, doesn't make it any more necessary and deserving.

 

[Salazar]

Bullshit unless you can lay down specifically why you should benefit from the program while others shouldn't, which you haven't.

If it were abolished, he wouldn't benefit from it.

 

[Piecake]

Bullshit unless you can lay down specifically why you should benefit from the program while others shouldn't, which you haven't.

I think he is saying that as long as its offered he is going to take advantage of it, because it would be stupid not to, but would be glad when its abolished. Personally, I wouldn't call that hypocritical since you'd have to have some stupid pride/principles not to take advantage of that.

 

[AlteredBeast]

I think he is saying that as long as its offered he is going to take advantage of it, because it would be stupid not to, but would be glad when its abolished. Personally, I wouldn't call that hypocritical since you'd have to have some stupid pride/principles not to take advantage of that.

No, no, I am just a hypocrite looking to take away welfare from the poor.


Rank hypocrisy...

 

[Mortrialus]

I think he is saying that as long as its offered he is going to take advantage of it, because it would be stupid not to, but would be glad when its abolished. Personally, I wouldn't call that hypocritical since you'd have to have some stupid pride/principles not to take advantage of that.

Actually that is exactly what he needs in order to make his case without being a hypocrite.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

No, no, I am just a hypocrite looking to take away welfare from the poor.


Rank hypocrisy...

Yes, you are a hypocrite. I'm glad you've come to accept it. Your arguments hold no solid ground and because of that you start to repeat what I say and avoid the point I'm making while never making one yourself. It's really pathetic.

Actually that is exactly what he needs in order to make his case without being a hypocrite.

Thank you for pointing this out. It still amazes me that this isn't seen as hypocrisy.

 

[SlipperySlope]

I see a definite downside. Those schools that the students are fleeing will remain abandoned shit holes and the students who are stuck there will suffer for it. Unless you think we should just create a bunch of new schools, but what is exactly the point of that? Seems like a waste of money. Better to just take funding up to the state level and fund public schools properly.

If a school starts to rapidly lose students, it would have to radically change or close down. If it's losing students, it's losing students for a reason. Why should that school be allowed to survive via direct public funding?

The market will dictate a proper amount of schools. If schools in an area are overcrowded, you bet a venture capitalist will jump in and absorb the extra students. Why wouldn't he, when there's profit to be had? If not a VC, a non-profit would jump in, or some other institution.

 

[Piecake]

Actually that is exactly what he needs in order to make his case without being a hypocrite.

Well, in this case I guess its better for him to be a hypocrite than a complete idiot, because you would have to be for not talking advantage of an available tax deduction. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with taking advantage of an existing program/deduction, but want to eliminate it in the future to increase government tax revenues.

 

[Piecake]

If a school starts to rapidly lose students, it would have to radically change or close down. If it's losing students, it's losing students for a reason. Why should that school be allowed to survive via direct public funding?

The market will dictate a proper amount of schools. If schools in an area are overcrowded, you bet a venture capitalist will jump in and absorb the extra students. Why wouldn't he, when there's profit to be had? If not a VC, a non-profit would jump in, or some other institution.

Why should it be allowed to survive? Well, ummm, because it is not getting enough funding due to the way public schools are funded in America and that is why its struggling, and if it receives more funding than it will survive? Pretty simple concept here.

And just what we need tied up in the public school system, venture capitalists trying to make a profit. I'm sure that will bring costs down...

 

[Salazar]

The market will dictate a proper amount of schools.

The market will by and large operate to benefit the market. It's not enough for me that its operations might sometimes be coincident with the interests of its subjected participants.

 

[SlipperySlope]

Why should it be allowed to survive? Well, ummm, because it is not getting enough funding due to the way public schools are funded in America and that is why its struggling, and if it receives more funding than it will survive? Pretty simple concept here.

And just what we need tied up in the public school system, venture capitalists trying to make a profit. I'm sure that will bring costs down...

Again, the funding would be through the children. If the parents deem it a bad school, it should not stay open. The school would have to compete or GTFO. Pretty simple concept here.

Regarding costs, the blank checks public schools (mostly) currently receive is really doing wonders </sarcasm>

I do have some other ideas. One of which is to disband the teachers union. Making it nearly impossible to fire a bad teacher is NOT good.

What is your proposal to improve the school system?

Yeah . . . that constitution . . . it is "just a piece of paper". Just toss it aside and let the government start funding religion. Great plan.

The government shits on the constitution every single day. I can't think of a nobler cause to do it than to fix our schooling system however. And again, the government wouldn't be directly funding religion. The money would go to the children, and the parents would direct the money from there. Would it be indirect? Yes. Direct? No.

Thus, I don't see how it would conflict with that.

Edit - There would be a lawsuit. But I'm certain my side would win.

 

[Piecake]

Again, the funding would be through the children. If the parents deem it a bad school, it should not stay open. The school would have to compete or GTFO. Pretty simple concept here.

Regarding costs, the blank checks public schools (mostly) currently receive is really doing wonders </sarcasm>

I do have some other ideas. One of which is to disband the teachers union. Making it nearly impossible to fire a bad teacher is NOT good.

What is your proposal to improve the school system?

Blank check for public schools? What universe are you living in?

As for schools not being able to compete, I sure hope you are in favor of kicking funding up to the state level, paying the same amount of money for every public school student, and then wait a couple of years to see the results of that change. Because if you arent, then that really is not a fair competition since schools in poor districts don't receive adequate funding.

As for what I would propose, I already told you part of it. As for unions and tenure, I have no problem with Unions, but tenure definitely needs to change. Give the power to fire bad teachers to the local principal and superintendent. What should not be done is tie the teacher's job/salary to kid's test scores. That has to be one of the dumbest ideas that I have ever heard

 

[SlipperySlope]

Blank check for public schools? What universe are you living in?

As for schools not being able to compete, I sure hope you are in favor of kicking funding up to the state level, paying the same amount of money for every public school student, and then wait a couple of years to see the results of that change. Because if you arent, then that really is not a fair competition since schools in poor districts don't receive adequate funding.

As for what I would propose, I already told you part of it. As for unions and tenure, I have no problem with Unions, but tenure definitely needs to change. Give the power to fire bad teachers to the local principal and superintendent. What should not be done is tie the teacher's job/salary to kid's test scores. That has to be one of the dumbest ideas that I have ever heard

I said right here that it would have to be taken up to the state level.

Anyway, this is my last post tonight on this topic. Need to get some sleep.

 

[gcubed]

so... first business day after S&P lowered US rating. Treasuries yields actually go lower.

 

[polyh3dron]

The fuck happened to this threa? >.>

An abortion derail and JayDubya is nowhere in sight.

 

[Byakuya769]

The market will dictate a proper amount of schools. If schools in an area are overcrowded, you bet a venture capitalist will jump in and absorb the extra students. Why wouldn't he, when there's profit to be had? If not a VC, a non-profit would jump in, or some other institution.

You're probably right. The market would likely look at drop-out rates and the drain that puts on their profits, then quickly move to limit access to education.

so... first business day after S&P lowered US rating. Treasuries yields actually go lower.

Krugman the Beard will shrug and say "told ya so," and the WSJ will have an article on coming sky-high interest rates.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

If a school starts to rapidly lose students, it would have to radically change or close down. If it's losing students, it's losing students for a reason. Why should that school be allowed to survive via direct public funding?

The market will dictate a proper amount of schools. If schools in an area are overcrowded, you bet a venture capitalist will jump in and absorb the extra students. Why wouldn't he, when there's profit to be had? If not a VC, a non-profit would jump in, or some other institution.

What if they don't? There's no guarentees in the free market. It's the reason the Bush tax cuts were basically throwing money away.

No capitalist ever seems to tell me what happens when someone in the free market just never steps up to fill a basic need such as healthcare or schooling.


And further, do we really want our children going to Pepsi Co High School where they learn the best way to grow up as a consumer without questioning the status quo?

 

[gcubed]

You're probably right. The market would likely look at drop-out rates and the drain that puts on their profits, then quickly move to limit access to education.



Krugman the Beard will shrug and say "told ya so," and the WSJ will have an article on coming sky-high interest rates.

i think its funny that almost every economist has come out attacking S&P

 

[Piecake]

What if they don't? There's no guarentees in the free market. It's the reason the Bush tax cuts were basically throwing money away.

No capitalist ever seems to tell me what happens when someone in the free market just never steps up to fill a basic need such as healthcare or schooling.


And further, do we really want our children going to Pepsi Co High School where they learn the best way to grow up as a consumer without questioning the status quo?

Well, if they are going to Pepsi Co high school, they'll likely be fat and have diabetes as well

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Well, if they are going to Pepsi Co high school, they'll likely be fat and have diabetes as well

I imagine it'd be cheaper for Pepsi's bottom line to feed the children Fritos and Pepsi for lunch every day than regular lunches. And because this would be for-profit, it'd be in their best interest to go with the cheapest possible way to feed them.

Also, buying new textbooks is expensive and just isn't good for Pepsi's bottom line. Who needs text books anyway? We've made this study that shows most students do just fine without text books.

And if we play ads on tvs in the hall ways, the profits will soar!


I can just imagine a for-profit school devolving into a corporate indoctorinization machine which is nothing more than a glorified day care children go to learn the best ways to give the parent corporations their money when they get older.

 

[Stinkles]

Damn, 100 billion dollars is what the mortgage interest deduction plan costed the government last year. That is a massive chunk of change. Imagine the textbooks and drains on the economy that could pay for!

imagine how cratered the weak real estate market would be and imagine the impact on middle class families in urban and expensive real estate markets. Mortgage deduction is one of the few tax loopholes available to regular people and is generally good for the economy. Wait til interest rates go up. Bloodbath.

 

[eznark]

I read like two posts on this page and scrolled through. I didn't miss anything, right?

i think its funny that almost every economist has come out attacking S&P

The biggest problem I have is that based on their reasoning, the US should have been downgraded months/years ago.

 

[Piecake]

imagine how cratered the weak real estate market would be and imagine the impact on middle class families in urban and expensive real estate markets. Mortgage deduction is one of the few tax loopholes available to regular people and is generally good for the economy. Wait til interest rates go up. Bloodbath.

eliminate it for the people who don't need it?

 

[eznark]

eliminate it for the people who don't need it?

It's funny you think this will help provide text books, which are funded (generally) by local property taxes. Let's increase property tax revenue by killing incentives for property ownership!

 

[Novid]

On having tons of kids and being a big burden on the government and taxpayers:

I am the youngest of 10 kids. My parents never made more than 30,000 combined in a year while all 10 of us were still at home but we never received a dime of welfare, medicare, etc. My parents worked hard and we sacrificed. It is sad that people see no other way but to either hold out their hand or abort their baby. Grow a pair and work. This was an age before all the thousands of dollars that parents could get for having kids under 18 in the household. I don't remember hearing about how miserable people were and how they all suffered in the 70's and 80's before the age of huge tax credits for kids...perhaps it is for that reason that I hate the fact that everybody is so reliant on the government to live their day to day lives. The people with tons of kids that refuse to support them with handwork and self-reliance are irresponsible, plain and simple. What did all of these impoverished people do back in the 50's and 60's? Did the war on poverty do anything at anytime in it's history or is it a bigger joke than the war on drugs?

Everybody, even the extremely wealthy are getting some form of government help nowadays and many programs should probably end. Raise taxes on the wealthy slightly over the next few years, but scale back on a large scale the unnecessary federal benefits that everybody gets. Only way to fix the budget in my eyes. Spending is out of control and if republicans don't want cut spending to a level that current tax rates can cover, than taxes must necessarily be raised. These deficits are ridiculous.

Simple answer is that the Church helped the needy and poor back then. You coiuld raise 10 kids on 30,000 because infalation didnt kick in then as it does now. But i agree wit you wholeheartly that the Government cant be the savior of peoples day to day lives.

 

[gcubed]

I read like two posts on this page and scrolled through. I didn't miss anything, right?



The biggest problem I have is that based on their reasoning, the US should have been downgraded months/years ago.

which is true, although their reasoning is different from the reasoning they are supposed to have.

 

[Novid]

They always felt like they were supposed to have 10 kids. You got me, thank goodness they did or I wouldn't be here!

Government assistance is fine. I cannot dog it completely; being able to write off mortgage interest gave me a better tax return last year ( even though I think that deduction could easily be eliminated) but I fund it unfortunate that people no longer turn to their neighbors, family and churches for help and instead go up to the benefits office.

I work in a store where people come in to pay regular 200 dollar cable bills all while their EBT cards are falling out of their wallets or bra straps. Crap just bothers the hell out of me. You do not need to waste 2500 dollars a year on cable, feed and educate your ****ing family.

You know what being poor and seeing my father work his ass off for us did? Made all of us work hard to be educated and make our way into success. I have immediate family members that are CFOs company presidents, own businesses, and are otherwise professionally employed. We have all managed to break through to at least middle class and we all worked hard to get there. I see a lot of laziness being passed down through generations because of the expectation of benefits. How about everyone that wants to keep longterm government benefits and is physically able, be forced to use some of the money (which would then cover the cost) of some sort of professional training? Sounds like a great idea to me.

Agreed again. The issue I have with S&P (and Moodys/Fitch) is that if they downgraded the US in 1979 we wouldnt be in this mess right now. They didnt do it, and let the free **** army rampage. The riots that happend in Tottingham and the Flash Mobs here in the states are partly the cause of autocratic goverments (Local) and bad parenting.

 

[Novid]

If a school starts to rapidly lose students, it would have to radically change or close down. If it's losing students, it's losing students for a reason. Why should that school be allowed to survive via direct public funding?

The market will dictate a proper amount of schools. If schools in an area are overcrowded, you bet a venture capitalist will jump in and absorb the extra students. Why wouldn't he, when there's profit to be had? If not a VC, a non-profit would jump in, or some other institution.

I dont think a VC can do it correctly (see crunchyroll)

 

[Piecake]

It's funny you think this will help provide text books, which are funded (generally) by local property taxes. Let's increase property tax revenue by killing incentives for property ownership!

wha? When did I ever say that? And I think ive made it pretty clear I know where public schools get their funding. And why do people buying 5 million dollar homes need a mortgage tax deduction?

 

[Novid]

If you see the education of ANY child as a "drain on society", then we have no common conversational territory and I leave you to your puerile rage.

Which I am inclined to do in any case, because your tone is all fucked up.

In a better world, no child should be a drain on any system. Problem is since 1990 they have been and it will continue. Thats the way the Government sees children and how Polticos want to protect them from every bad thing thats coming while given a debt they cant pay.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I shouldcan't stop watching Meet The Press. I don't know if it's the music or what. It irritates me to no end, and it's been ages since I watched it and learned something, but I can't stop.

I was watching this Sunday's episode. The panel is Austan Goolsbee, Alan Greenspan, Rachel Maddow, and this Republican consultant, Alex Castellanos, who most recently led Mitt Romney to defeat. During one exchange, this Republican consultant trots out the "decreased taxes lead to more government revenue" nonsense. Alan Greenspan has said previously (on Meet The Press, no less) that this is false. And no one bothers to correct him. The incredulous look Austan Goolsbee gave him was pretty amusing, but for fuck's sake, David Gregory: why even call yourself a journalist.

Thus concludes my weekly "Bad Journalism" rant.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I shouldcan't stop watching Meet The Press. I don't know if it's the music or what. It irritates me to no end, and it's been ages since I watched it and learned something, but I can't stop.

I was watching this Sunday's episode. The panel is Austan Goolsbee, Alan Greenspan, Rachel Maddow, and this Republican consultant, Alex Castellanos, who most recently led Mitt Romney to defeat. During one exchange, this Republican consultant trots out the "decreased taxes lead to more government revenue" nonsense. Alan Greenspan has said previously (on Meet The Press, no less) that this is false. And no one bothers to correct him. The incredulous look Austan Goolsbee gave him was pretty amusing, but for fuck's sake, David Gregory: why even call yourself a journalist.

Thus concludes my weekly "Bad Journalism" rant.

He's not a journalist, he's a political prognosticator/bullshitter and card carrying member of the Beltway. Gregory's main question almost always boils down to "who's winning, who's losing" and the contestants are never the American people - it's just Dem v Rep.

 

[Stinkles]

The biggest problem I have is that based on their reasoning, the US should have been downgraded months/years ago.

My problem is that the agency has zero credibility and frankly some of its officers should be in jail. One of the main reasons our economy and subsequently our politics, are in the toilet, is the nakedly criminal ratings boosting these fucks gave junk mortgage securities for years.

They are crooks and, without exaggeration, traitors of the highest order. If you are sitting on a depleted 401k and your mortgage is underwater, you can thank S&P for it's venal charade.