Microsoft has a higher credit rating than the US government

In case you haven't been keeping up with the news lately, the United States government just lost its AAA credit rating from Standard and Poor's late on Friday. The lowering of the credit rate to AA+ is the first ever for the government in history, even though Standard and Poor's did admit to a $2 trillion accounting mistake. The decision is basically just one company's opinion (two other credit agencies, Moody's and Fitch, still rate the US as AAA at least for now), the financial aspects will likely affect the economy for years to come.

Credit ratings are not just given to countries but also to corporations. As Business Insider reports the US used to have a whopping 60 companies that had a AAA rating. In 1995 that number went down to about 30 or so. Today, just four US corporation have a AAA credit rating and one of them happens to be Microsoft. Yes, the company that Bill Gates built, now has a higher credit rating, at least according to Standard and Poor's, then the US government (Exxon Mobile, Johnson and Johnson and Automatic Data Processing are the other three AAA US-based companies).

Basically, having an AAA credit rating from an agency means that if you have a bill that is supposed to be paid by a government or company you have the best chance of getting your bill paid back in full. The US government's lowering of its credit rating to AA+ is still a fairly safe bet but not as safe as having the AAA rating. Indeed, the US Treasury Department is already disputing Standard and Poor's decision, calling it "flawed."

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

EA confirms PC version of Battlefield 3 won't be sold on Steam

Next Story

iOS 5 beta 5 now available

56 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Using this math, my company, with only 200 employees, has a higher credit rating than the US Government, but it don't mean sh**t!!!. I 'll invest 100 times faster in the US than in some other Asian country I don't know about. Having said that, these boneheaded congressmen need to go. The fact that they were willing to tank the US economy just so that they could stick it to Obama makes me sick. They rather have a middle class worker pay more in social programs(medicare, education, sports) than the billionaire pay $10,000 more in taxes. The problem is that the economic progress of a multi-trillion economy id decided by lawyers, who only care about the deal they can strike and if they can win the argument, no matter how stupid it is.

All my 40 years of life i hear the US was in trillions of debt, you get were you not even think about it. then this last year its the number one thing talked about in the political news. I work in a job were i speak to over 100 people all over the country a day and the majority think it must be Obama's fault. This got me to think. What has changed ... well lets see we or spending more then before true, but that was before he became president. O wait Most in congress can not stand most of what Obama has proposed. I even watched C span and realized most of congress were worse then kids yelling about who was right. This made me realize That this hole thing was blown up to make Obama look worse so he would not get re-elected. Since the majority will fallow what big media says as gospel and not really investigate anything them selves. its a sure bet Obama will not get re-elected. so or credit rating dropped all because Congress not being able to find the dirt they needed to oust Obama had to create there own smear campaign. ( need an example look up the recording of the health bill he first proposed the year he took office on YouTube you will fall out of chair laughing or may cry that they were so dumb)

Those S&P, Fitch, Moody's and rest ratings merely means anything. They are highly prejudiced, west-centralized and discredited as highly unprofessional.

coth said,
Those S&P, Fitch, Moody's and rest ratings merely means anything. They are highly prejudiced, west-centralized and discredited as highly unprofessional.

They might not "mean anything", but they are a good indication of how confident the other countries/businesses are that you can be trusted to pay back that which you borrow.

Also, the majority of the worlds liquid wealth is "west-centralized".. as for unprofessional, I agree, if they were professional this would have been done ages ago.

Ryoken said,
They might not "mean anything", but they are a good indication of how confident the other countries/businesses are that you can be trusted to pay back that which you borrow.

Then how it did happened countries with largest reserves and minimum of external debt balance rated so low. And how did it happened Greece rated CCC/CC, while USA rated AAA/AA in absolutely same situation.

The problem is that those ratings made mainly based on stereotypes and prejudices.

Why the hate on the rich? How many poor people do you know that hire people for jobs?
And TBH, I think the Dems in here can see the writing on the wall on how the 2012 election is going to play out.

speedstr3789 said,
Why the hate on the rich? How many poor people do you know that hire people for jobs?

Not all that many rich people hiring now, either. So what good are they?

Brandon said,
How is Apple not AAA with all of that cash on hand?

Apple at one point was a POS almost worthless company, it takes time to rebuild that

Brandon said,
How is Apple not AAA with all of that cash on hand?

Because they're far more volatile than Microsoft. Virtually all their revenue is tied up in consumer spending, which can go up and down at the drop of a hat. Microsoft is much more stable since it gets most of its money from what are essentially annuities.

Majesticmerc said,
Do we really need political flamebait on the Neowin front page? We get enough of that garbage in the Domestic Politics forum

^this

Majesticmerc said,
Do we really need political flamebait on the Neowin front page? We get enough of that garbage in the Domestic Politics forum
I agree completely, this is suppose to be a tech site right?

war said,
I agree completely, this is suppose to be a tech site right?

You know, if the economy goes down the last thing that matters is new technology…

fenderMarky said,
Let the rich pay... if someone has 2 bilion dollars, he can live well even with a bilion...

Yeah...I bet they stash their billions under the bed. Oh wait, these billions are invested so that individuals can obtain capital to start businesses and provide jobs. The simpleton solution of taxing the people (derived from the fallacy of a zero-sum market) does not match the sophistication of the free market system.

DClark said,

Yeah...I bet they stash their billions under the bed. Oh wait, these billions are invested so that individuals can obtain capital to start businesses and provide jobs. The simpleton solution of taxing the people (derived from the fallacy of a zero-sum market) does not match the sophistication of the free market system.

The people with the billions usually invest it so they can earn even more money... (I.E. ultimately benefitting themselves)
If part of that money instead goes to the government, couldn't it be put to better use there? That would be benefitting everybody (but the person with a billion, but he/she already has enough money as it is).

xnederlandx said,

The people with the billions usually invest it so they can earn even more money... (I.E. ultimately benefitting themselves)
If part of that money instead goes to the government, couldn't it be put to better use there? That would be benefitting everybody (but the person with a billion, but he/she already has enough money as it is).


Since government has spent trillions of dollars into debt attempting to do "what is best" (which is entirely subjective, since each individual values things differently), it clearly has not worked.

And yes, each one of us makes decisions for our own benefit, such as billionaires investing their money to make more money. But that is the principle of the free market system - to create more capital through the act of trade. As stated in my original post, the market system is not a "zero-sum game." Rather, new capital is created through trade and it represents the utility gained by both parties in an act of trade. Obviously, as it is a free market system, you would only be engaged in a trade if you benefit. Otherwise, you shouldn't be engaged in that trade. Unfortunately, when government taxes and spends, we are not capable of executing the choices of our own desire. The government, incapable of knowing the wants and desires (the subjective value) of each individual, decides to make a decision that "benefits everybody" - but only idealistically. All good intents indeed - but unfortunately we fail to acknowledge the consequences of such policies.

fenderMarky said,
Let the rich pay... if someone has 2 bilion dollars, he can live well even with a bilion...

Wow, Communism much?

You think because they are rich, the Government has the right to walk in and say "Hmm, you can live well enough on $XXX, We're taking the rest, for the good of the people you understand"

fenderMarky said,
Let the rich pay... if someone has 2 bilion dollars, he can live well even with a bilion...

Here is why:

The total net worth of US billionaires as of March 2011 is $1.06 trillion (http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/...009-billionaires-intro.html). Most of this worth is in investments. For example, Bill Gates has $40 billion of net worth. But most of that is wrapped up in Microsoft stock. So let's say, rather than the generous 50% tax rate you propose, the US government confiscates %100 of their worth. That will really show those rich people, wouldn't it? Of course, that means that we have truly entered an era of socialism, since the government would now own a large portion of companies such as Microsoft (Gates', Ballmer's, and a few other's shares), Oracle, Apple, Berkshire-Hathaway, etc. If the government were to sell those shares, then it would cause a glut of shares on the market, driving the shares down (supply/demand) and cause those companies to become relatively worthless - if they were not already because the government owns the companies. That would cause many other companies to drop since other non-billionaire investors would first be concerned that the government would confiscate their investments, but they would also lose faith in the market as a whole. The people who received shares for working at those companies (you know, those not making billions, the regular working folk) would also have their worth destroyed, and people who have investments for retirement would lose their savings and be ruined. Think of the elderly, you don't want them to be eating dog food, do you? With that many people losing their savings, there would be even more people on food stamps and other government assistance, causing the amount paid out by the government to go up even further.

Ignoring all that, you now have $1.06 trillion dollars now to cover the amount the government pays. The deficit in 2010 was $1.29 trillion. So even with that confiscation, we are still $230 billion in debt for the year. The next year rolls around, and who are you going to take money from now? You don't have billionaires to steal from, so that leaves millionaires. Repeat the theft again with them, and all that is left for the next year are the people who make a few hundred grand a year, you still have not paid off the yearly outlays, you have grown the debt, and you have an economy that is infinitely worse than it is now since there is no big business because it was taken over by the government. I know, I know, big business is evil, but they also employ hundreds of thousands of people directly and even more indirectly, who now are not making money. 9.1% unemployment is not good enough; it would be much, much higher.

But hey, it is only a few billion.

fenderMarky said,
Let the rich pay... if someone has 2 bilion dollars, he can live well even with a bilion...

oh shut up your idiot. The richest %5 of the population pays %50 of all tax paid. The richest %20 pay %80 of all taxes paid. Yea lets tax them more.

vcfan said,

oh shut up your idiot. The richest %5 of the population pays %50 of all tax paid. The richest %20 pay %80 of all taxes paid. Yea lets tax them more.

Yes lets do just that.

fenderMarky said,
Let the rich pay... if someone has 2 bilion dollars, he can live well even with a bilion...

Who is John Galt?

vcfan said,
oh shut up your idiot. The richest %5 of the population pays %50 of all tax paid. The richest %20 pay %80 of all taxes paid. Yea lets tax them more.
That reminds me of a Quote from The West Wing

Sam : Henry, last fall, every time your boss got on the stump and said, "It's time for the rich to pay their fair share," I hid under a couch and changed my name. I left Gage Whitney making $400,000 a year, which means I paid twenty-seven times the national average in income tax. I paid my fair share, and the fair share of twenty-six other people. And I'm happy to because that's the only way it's gonna work, and it's in my best interest that everybody be able to go to schools and drive on roads, but I don't get twenty-seven votes on Election Day. The fire department doesn't come to my house twenty-seven times faster and the water doesn't come out of my faucet twenty-seven times hotter. The top one percent of wage earners in this country pay for twenty-two percent of this country. Let's not call them names while they're doing it, is all I'm saying.

McKay said,

You think because they are rich, the Government has the right to walk in and say "Hmm, you can live well enough on $XXX, We're taking the rest, for the good of the people you understand"

People seems to forget that there would be no rich without workers. Usually all wealth of rich is accumulated by stripping workers who ACTUALLY creates material goods. Another popular way is to steal natural resources with help of politicians who makes it "legal" (oligarchs). Its not good when rich confuse money with absolute power. In history there always a point when greedy were killed and resources returned to those who actually gathered and made them.

vcfan said,
The richest %5 of the population pays %50 of all tax paid. The richest %20 pay %80 of all taxes paid.

If I had 10 slaves, paid them nearly nothing then I could pay all their taxes too. Never forget who actually creates material goods. Let's remind ourselves of Lenin's four conditions for revolution:

1. The regime is split; there is a crisis in the regime.
2. The middle class is wavering between the revolutionary forces and the ruling class.
3. The working class is ready to fight and make the greatest sacrifices.
4. The existence of a revolutionary party and leadership.

Of course as long as people have something to eat or loose then there will be no revolution. But gap between rich and poor is growing and people have less things to loose. History tends to repeat itself. Its unavoidable. Question is: Which country will snap first so other countries can watch in horror while trying to prevent same things happening to them.

I just wonder how many billions the US government gives out to other countries every year.... Maybe it's time to stop that, trim up the government, and stop the tax breaks for "rich" crowd. But there are so many agendas going around that everyone is in someone that makes 7+ figures a year.

KnightWolf said,
I just wonder how many billions the US government gives out to other countries every year.... Maybe it's time to stop that, trim up the government, and stop the tax breaks for "rich" crowd. But there are so many agendas going around that everyone is in someone that makes 7+ figures a year.

Yeah, they give that money, because the US is a charity and they don't have any benefits out of it.

KnightWolf said,
I just wonder how many billions the US government gives out to other countries every year.... Maybe it's time to stop that, trim up the government, and stop the tax breaks for "rich" crowd. But there are so many agendas going around that everyone is in someone that makes 7+ figures a year.

Foreign aid is up for debate, the corporate spending and welfare is through the roof though, and I truly don't think Exxon needs 'tax cuts/incentives' to keep selling oil to the US population, nor do they need the free land access they get, etc.

We need to invest in our 'population' not the people hoarding money until things get 'better'. Things will never get better the majority of the population can spend and create credit, which is how our economic system works.

KnightWolf said,
I just wonder how many billions the US government gives out to other countries every year.... Maybe it's time to stop that, trim up the government, and stop the tax breaks for "rich" crowd. But there are so many agendas going around that everyone is in someone that makes 7+ figures a year.

Foreign aid is a very small part of the budget as well as the deficit. I agree that the Bush tax cuts need to be expired (S&P said that as well in their press release).

US needs to go into Chapter 11, then reorganize, get out of the red ink, and then come out of Chap 11 like GM has done.

speaking from a EU country with an AAA rating , which the government is taking action even if its making them unpopular.

the US debt problem has been growing for decades, and no action. The public is also at font spending more that they earn , getting loans and more loans, so eventually they get into problems. and a society which just wants handouts and don't want to work for it.

DrakeN2k said,
speaking from a EU country with an AAA rating , which the government is taking action even if its making them unpopular.

Which one?

As much as I hate saying this as an American, but they get the rating they deserve. The country was hours away from defaulting, and they expect to keep the AAA credit rating? The feds can dispute it all they want, but the rating should stand regardless until our government can reduce the deficit.

They were never going to default, the Republicans deliberately forcing Obama's hand right to the last moment in order to discredit him and make sure he did not have his policies.

What a shock out of the three agencies that do the rating the most Republican one out of them lower the credit rating. This is all done to get somebody out there wants to tax the rich.

Sean Bradford said,
As much as I hate saying this as an American, but they get the rating they deserve. The country was hours away from defaulting, and they expect to keep the AAA credit rating? The feds can dispute it all they want, but the rating should stand regardless until our government can reduce the deficit.

Why do people buy into these insane political talking points about the deficit?

Do you really think deficits matters?

The same group of people that are NOW telling you they matter are the same ones just a few years ago were telling you they didn't, and were the same ones that were telling you they did when Clinton was president, and the same ones that said they again didn't matter when Reagan was president.

Do you see the pattern? Do you see the con they are sucessfully using on people?

Go look up quotes on deficit from Reagan, Bush Sr, Jr, and Cheney...


It is either deficits do matter and the conservatives lied before, or deficits don't matter and they are lying now.


Especially when faced with a recession and possible depression or double dip recession, they DO NOT matter, as the economic restructuring spending is necessary to keep credit/cash flow.

Here is a simply example of why...

You are running a business, and your profits go to heck because you are using old technology and equipment or hired a really bad manager.

So you can either

a) keep doing the same thing and cut your spending, until your business goes under.

OR

b) Borrow money and invest in new technology and equipment so that your business can once again compete, and then pay back your debt and make even more money than before.


It is obvious that (b) is the correct answer, yet the Tea/Republican/Conservative parties in the USA are wanting (a) aka more Tax Cuts, and are so freaking blinded by failed economic principles they don't care if the country is truly destroyed financially.

Choosing option (a) aka more tax cuts, essentially is giving up your 'faith' in the USA as a country, and saying, ya it should collapse/fall. Choosing (b) spending/debt means you DO HAVE FAITH in the USA and do not want to see it collapse/fall'.


Ironically the same people pushing for example (a) and tax cuts are the first ones to wave their flags with pride, yet don't seem to make the connection that they have no faith in the country of the flag they are waving, as not reinvesting in a business/country is what you do when you want to see it collapse/fall.

thenetavenger said,

Why do people buy into these insane political talking points about the deficit?

Do you really think deficits matters?

The same group of people that are NOW telling you they matter are the same ones just a few years ago were telling you they didn't, and were the same ones that were telling you they did when Clinton was president, and the same ones that said they again didn't matter when Reagan was president.

Do you see the pattern? Do you see the con they are sucessfully using on people?

Go look up quotes on deficit from Reagan, Bush Sr, Jr, and Cheney...


It is either deficits do matter and the conservatives lied before, or deficits don't matter and they are lying now.


Especially when faced with a recession and possible depression or double dip recession, they DO NOT matter, as the economic restructuring spending is necessary to keep credit/cash flow.

Here is a simply example of why...

You are running a business, and your profits go to heck because you are using old technology and equipment or hired a really bad manager.

So you can either

a) keep doing the same thing and cut your spending, until your business goes under.

OR

b) Borrow money and invest in new technology and equipment so that your business can once again compete, and then pay back your debt and make even more money than before.


It is obvious that (b) is the correct answer, yet the Tea/Republican/Conservative parties in the USA are wanting (a) aka more Tax Cuts, and are so freaking blinded by failed economic principles they don't care if the country is truly destroyed financially.

Choosing option (a) aka more tax cuts, essentially is giving up your 'faith' in the USA as a country, and saying, ya it should collapse/fall. Choosing (b) spending/debt means you DO HAVE FAITH in the USA and do not want to see it collapse/fall'.


Ironically the same people pushing for example (a) and tax cuts are the first ones to wave their flags with pride, yet don't seem to make the connection that they have no faith in the country of the flag they are waving, as not reinvesting in a business/country is what you do when you want to see it collapse/fall.

TheNetAvenger - nobody is going to lend to an individual, business, or country that they have little or no confidence in. The ratings of S&P, Moody's, and Fitch reflect the confidence they have in their ability to pay back their debt (just as credit ratings, such as FICO, do for individuals). The rating downgrade is not just sensible, but overdue (in fact, WAY overdue, and should have, realistically, taken place during Bush the Younger's presidency, right after TARP). Note that the nations (and corporations) with AAA ratings do NOT have debt-to-equity ratios as bad as the United States. You cannot rely on your reputation forever.

Sean Bradford said,
As much as I hate saying this as an American, but they get the rating they deserve. The country was hours away from defaulting, and they expect to keep the AAA credit rating? The feds can dispute it all they want, but the rating should stand regardless until our government can reduce the deficit.

If you compare the debt and GDP to Greece for example, USA is several times in the toilet.

thenetavenger said,

Why do people buy into these insane political talking points about the deficit?

Do you really think deficits matters?

The same group of people that are NOW telling you they matter are the same ones just a few years ago were telling you they didn't, and were the same ones that were telling you they did when Clinton was president, and the same ones that said they again didn't matter when Reagan was president.

Do you see the pattern? Do you see the con they are sucessfully using on people?

Go look up quotes on deficit from Reagan, Bush Sr, Jr, and Cheney...


It is either deficits do matter and the conservatives lied before, or deficits don't matter and they are lying now.

Especially when faced with a recession and possible depression or double dip recession, they DO NOT matter, as the economic restructuring spending is necessary to keep credit/cash flow.

Here is a simply example of why...

You are running a business, and your profits go to heck because you are using old technology and equipment or hired a really bad manager.

So you can either

a) keep doing the same thing and cut your spending, until your business goes under.

OR

b) Borrow money and invest in new technology and equipment so that your business can once again compete, and then pay back your debt and make even more money than before.


It is obvious that (b) is the correct answer, yet the Tea/Republican/Conservative parties in the USA are wanting (a) aka more Tax Cuts, and are so freaking blinded by failed economic principles they don't care if the country is truly destroyed financially.

Choosing option (a) aka more tax cuts, essentially is giving up your 'faith' in the USA as a country, and saying, ya it should collapse/fall. Choosing (b) spending/debt means you DO HAVE FAITH in the USA and do not want to see it collapse/fall'.


Ironically the same people pushing for example (a) and tax cuts are the first ones to wave their flags with pride, yet don't seem to make the connection that they have no faith in the country of the flag they are waving, as not reinvesting in a business/country is what you do when you want to see it collapse/fall.

The debt is a problem. Its not conservatives who lied but the politicians (some posing as conseratives and some not) who have and continue to avoid making tough decisions about our budget.

The problem is your analogy is this: the government doesn't produce anything. It is a drain on the productive elements of society: the private sector. The private sector doesn't need the government. The government needs the private sector for one thing: its source of 'income'.

The idea that the government can somehow 'create' jobs is the biggest lie of our day. People with money create jobs by investing that money in business ventures. All the government can do is hijack those people's money and redistribute it to all the Orren Boyles in Washington.

The debt is a problem. Its not conservatives who lied but the politicians (some posing as conseratives and some not) who have and continue to avoid making tough decisions about our budget.

The problem is your analogy is this: the government doesn't produce anything. It is a drain on the productive elements of society: the private sector. The private sector doesn't need the government. The government needs the private sector for one thing: its source of 'income'.

The idea that the government can somehow 'create' jobs is the biggest lie of our day. People with money create jobs by investing that money in business ventures. All the government can do is hijack those people's money and redistribute it to all the Orren Boyles in Washington.

thenetavenger said,

Why do people buy into these insane political talking points about the deficit?

Do you really think deficits matters?

The same group of people that are NOW telling you they matter are the same ones just a few years ago were telling you they didn't, and were the same ones that were telling you they did when Clinton was president, and the same ones that said they again didn't matter when Reagan was president.

Do you see the pattern? Do you see the con they are sucessfully using on people?

Go look up quotes on deficit from Reagan, Bush Sr, Jr, and Cheney...


It is either deficits do matter and the conservatives lied before, or deficits don't matter and they are lying now.

Especially when faced with a recession and possible depression or double dip recession, they DO NOT matter, as the economic restructuring spending is necessary to keep credit/cash flow.

Here is a simply example of why...

You are running a business, and your profits go to heck because you are using old technology and equipment or hired a really bad manager.

So you can either

a) keep doing the same thing and cut your spending, until your business goes under.

OR

b) Borrow money and invest in new technology and equipment so that your business can once again compete, and then pay back your debt and make even more money than before.


It is obvious that (b) is the correct answer, yet the Tea/Republican/Conservative parties in the USA are wanting (a) aka more Tax Cuts, and are so freaking blinded by failed economic principles they don't care if the country is truly destroyed financially.

Choosing option (a) aka more tax cuts, essentially is giving up your 'faith' in the USA as a country, and saying, ya it should collapse/fall. Choosing (b) spending/debt means you DO HAVE FAITH in the USA and do not want to see it collapse/fall'.


Ironically the same people pushing for example (a) and tax cuts are the first ones to wave their flags with pride, yet don't seem to make the connection that they have no faith in the country of the flag they are waving, as not reinvesting in a business/country is what you do when you want to see it collapse/fall.

The debt is a problem. Its not conservatives who lied but the politicians (some posing as conseratives and some not) who have and continue to avoid making tough decisions about our budget.

The problem is your analogy is this: the government doesn't produce anything. It is a drain on the productive elements of society: the private sector. The private sector doesn't need the government. The government needs the private sector for one thing: its source of 'income'.

The idea that the government can somehow 'create' jobs is the biggest lie of our day. People with money create jobs by investing that money in business ventures. All the government can do is hijack those people's money and redistribute it to all the Orren Boyles in Washington.

markti said,

The debt is a problem. Its not conservatives who lied but the politicians (some posing as conseratives and some not) who have and continue to avoid making tough decisions about our budget.

The problem is your analogy is this: the government doesn't produce anything. It is a drain on the productive elements of society: the private sector. The private sector doesn't need the government. The government needs the private sector for one thing: its source of 'income'.

The idea that the government can somehow 'create' jobs is the biggest lie of our day. People with money create jobs by investing that money in business ventures. All the government can do is hijack those people's money and redistribute it to all the Orren Boyles in Washington.

Well, try to ask it to Haliburton...............
They not only made huge profits from the war, they overbill everything and the so called "People representatives" allowed them to do so.

Private industries do not need governaments? Yes sure........

markti said,

The debt is a problem. Its not conservatives who lied but the politicians (some posing as conseratives and some not) who have and continue to avoid making tough decisions about our budget.

The problem is your analogy is this: the government doesn't produce anything. It is a drain on the productive elements of society: the private sector. The private sector doesn't need the government. The government needs the private sector for one thing: its source of 'income'.

The idea that the government can somehow 'create' jobs is the biggest lie of our day. People with money create jobs by investing that money in business ventures. All the government can do is hijack those people's money and redistribute it to all the Orren Boyles in Washington.


Well said. I'm glad SOMEONE gets it.

markti said,

The debt is a problem. Its not conservatives who lied but the politicians (some posing as conseratives and some not) who have and continue to avoid making tough decisions about our budget.

The problem is your analogy is this: the government doesn't produce anything. It is a drain on the productive elements of society: the private sector. The private sector doesn't need the government. The government needs the private sector for one thing: its source of 'income'.

The idea that the government can somehow 'create' jobs is the biggest lie of our day. People with money create jobs by investing that money in business ventures. All the government can do is hijack those people's money and redistribute it to all the Orren Boyles in Washington.

Uhh, you do know the Government is one of the biggest employers... and the government also gives tax breaks and subsidiaries for companies to employ people.

Rating or not, after the face that happened last week you really can't fault the markets for not having as much faith in the US Gov't as it once did.

Before they would never even DREAM of defaulting on their loans.. Now there is a powerful and serious group in the gov't that are willing..

It's nice that Canada is AAA, along with 17 other countries..