What I find pathetic is that the USA politicians always pointed to the AAA rating as proof that everything was fine. Now that one agency has changed the rating they blame the agency. Well, why were they using the agency rating as proof before then? The agency ratings are only good when they say what the politicians want them to say?
It's not just the USA that's the problem here, not by a long shot.
Also, I don't recall any predominant rhetorical meme put forth by politicians that cited S&P with any measure of assurance. I'd assign more credibility to bond ratings given by Bozo the clown.
The main argument I've heard lately (by many, not just politicians) is that the US economy is the largest and most powerful in the world. If its government debt is AA+ then the rest of the world is AA+ or worse.
IOW, if the US defaults, then the entire world goes down the drain.
But the US won't default. That's a non issue. The world won't go down the drain. But discussions about it are good for News TV ratings.
It's like saying the sun won't rise tomorrow.
The main issues are related economic growth and how to stimulate that, plain and simple. Sadly, that discussion is more involved than most people have time or willingness to listen.
