What Does the U.S. Credit Downgrade Mean for YOU?

Are you confused about the possible effects of the downgrade of our country’s credit rating and what it could mean for you, your family, community or business, Save Jerseyans?

The short answer: nothing good. A worse rating, however modest, means higher interest rates for federal borrowing, initiating a sadly ironic cycle that will only serve to exacerbate the staggering debt load that catalyzed this downgrade in the first place. Corporations, credit card holders, student loan borrowers, small businesses, pensioners, U.S. states and local governments may all soon feel the effect of a rate spike, too, which certainly doesn’t help an already crippled economy.

I’ve linked the S&P report here but, for those of you who didn’t major in economics or don’t have long attention spans, please watch this EXCELLENT, straightforward explanation of the downgrade’s genesis and anticipated effects from the Washington-based CATO Institute:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbOO3w43AJc

Brian McGovern
About Brian McGovern 748 Articles
Brian McGovern wears many hats these days including Voorhees Township GOP Municipal Chairman, South Jersey attorney, and co-owner of the Republican campaign consulting firm Exit 3 Strategies, Inc.

4 Comments

  1. As if the deficits aren't going to be large enough, our Congress has failed to reign in the free spending Obama administration. It's a disgrace! Once again the little guy will suffer while the rich just keep on getting richer, but those who will suffer the most are the children for a long time to come.

  2. It is so funny how everyone blames it on Obama when it was the other ones that held out over damn taxes raising on the rich. uhm you must be rich uh?

  3. Both sides held out over different things. The only difference was that the Dems were holding out for an idea that would hurt the economy, while the GOP held out to push for more fiscal responsibility.

  4. The idea that "the free spending Obama administration" is solely at fault here has been thoroughly debunked. This chart from The Atlantic puts matters in perspective: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/

    Short form: For eight-year windows of impact of both tax cuts and committed spending, Bush racked up 5.07 trillion USD in costs from policies enacted (2002-2009), while actuals + projections for Obama (2009-2017) are a still significant 1.44 trillion USD. The chart at that link breaks out the bigger unit chunks of spending, and is most illuminating.

    It's legitimate to have policy beefs where President Obama (or any politician) is concerned, but it's irresponsible given what's facing our nation to rely on jingoism instead of placing full responsibility where it lies.

Comments are closed.