Talk:United States federal government credit-rating downgrades

Article name
The new name is an improvement, but because only S&P downgraded the credit rating, it's somewhat misleading. Perhaps United States federal government S&P credit rating downgrade, 2011. We don't want to imply this was a downgrade by all the major ratings companies. 99.50.188.77 (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I considered such a name, and I see what you mean. However, I think this title sufficiently captures the events we are referring to (which is the initial downgrade by S&P, but also the events surrounding it (responses etc.)). In a way, we need to avoid too overbearing a title, whilst providing a title that is easily understood what events it is referring to. I'd say an important note in the lead that only S&P have (so far) issued a downgrade should be sufficient. It then gives us some room to expand the article, if needed, beyond the single fact that S&P issued a downgrade, I think. —JeevanJones (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hum, S&P is not the only credit agency to had downgraded USA's credit... There is also an agency in China which cut the US credit rating twice, I think it's Dagong but I'm not sure. 142.30.225.226 (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The article name is more accurate, but we do have to add another prepositional phrase, "by Standard & Poor's," because the Chinese credit rating agencies don't matter here, because that's not the story we're telling.

I know it makes the article name longer, but the alternative is to reinsert this whole thing into the US Public Debt article, which is too long. Sorry, didn't sign my post:Randnotell (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

General comment
I added a link from the S&P article (which already had a section on the downgrade) after I noticed Google News is lining to it rather than the WP public debt or this article. There may be other articles which could use a link, so please think about possibilities. 99.50.188.77 (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Politico
This article is like an advertisement for Politico. Bond Head (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It's important to maintain a balance of quotes, or at least ones from different sources. I'm not going to edit, perhaps the originator can think about it. You know it makes sense.


 * I went ahead and removed Mike Allen's quotes. Mike is not sufficiently authoritative to provide so many quotes on this matter. 70.50.200.96 (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Finally, here's my whole point. Mike talked to either Barack Obama, Tim Geithner, or someone very close to both of them this weekend (probably Jay Carney, Obama's press secretary), and got their side of the story. He cites his source, he simply says "the administration" rather than "Jay Carney," and he says it all throughout the quotes.


 * Random person who didn't sign his comment, doesn't it make more sense that the story should be told than that the quotes should be removed, so long as we're trying to tell the story of what happened? Simply because a writer uses "weasel words" doesn't mean that editors are.

And rather than an advertisement for Politico, it's an advertisement for Playbook, which ultimately is an advertisement for Mike Allen. And you know what? Mike Allen does good work. Thus, he is sufficiently authoritative to provide so many quotes in this manner, because Barack Obama didn't provide quotes until today, and Wikipedia can't wait for the President to actually say what Barack Obama's thinking. I'm putting the quotes back in. You can replace them with quotes from Obama's speech if you feel that to be necessary. Randnotell (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I put the quotes from the Republicans back in for the same reason. And just because you don't like Michele Bachmann doesn't mean she's not running for President.

Simultaneously, just because Buddy Roemer's said he's running for President doesn't mean he has any chance of winning. Randnotell (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've taken a shot at cleaning this up. I'll check in from time to time to help out.01:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There you go, Random Guy. As someone said in the edit history, "made biased statement less biased" is probably the best way to go about this. It's just that you have to recognize that all statements are biased, as language is biased, as people are biased.Randnotell (talk) 03:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The two articles are moving in the right direction, it just needs more work from everyone, myself included.Randnotell (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

2 trillion mistake
Don't forget to look for info about the bad assumptions 10 years out that led to the 2 trillion $ mistake, hence to the downgrade, suggesting that S&P did the downgrade without sufficient justification. Look up info on John Bellows who caught the mistake. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/06/business/us-debt-downgraded-by-sp.html 4.249.63.138 (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

insider trading
Follow the issues on insider trading that the SEC is investigating, including that single $805 million trade right after the announcement. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/12/us-sec-sp-idUSTRE77B0KW20110812 4.249.63.79 (talk) 12:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:Summary Style and WP:Splitting, I trimmed this from History of the United States public debt. If anything fits, please add it to this article. Darx9url (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Together with the budget deficit, the political climate at the time was one of the reasons given by Standard & Poor's to revise the outlook on the US sovereign credit rating down to negative on April 18, 2011. Standard and Poor's downgraded the credit rating by one notch from AAA to AA+ on August 5, 2011, for the first time ever. The long-term outlook is negative and it could lower the rating further to AA within the next 2 years. The downgrade was met with severe criticism from the Obama administration, commentators, and other political figures. The US still has a AAA rating from other ratings agencies.


 * What changes are you proposing to this page?Michaelmalak (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Credit Rating.
The united states credit rating is based on having other nations foot their bill, and has defacto a severity of monopolistic enslavement and international indenture build in.

At 3% inflation per annum, an international debt of 20 trillion (4:1 rating), would drop to to 75% of its internal credit valoration over a period of 10 years. Pension and saving plans, international, take more then 40 years to build up, which makes the first dollar saved have a value of 30 cents, with a none recuperable 70%, none using the united states dollar internally.

I doubt that that promotion of credit worthyness on an international level has any valoration except for that what is their own self promotion for self perpetuation of a way of life, that has all facets of populism, communism, militarism, facism, and racism, lacking merely some of the social graces that would be socialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.92.224.46 (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on United States federal government credit-rating downgrades. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110505171422/http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Fact_Sheets/Economic_Policy/drivers_federal_debt_since_2001.pdf to http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Fact_Sheets/Economic_Policy/drivers_federal_debt_since_2001.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110708140539/http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10840 to http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10840

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)