Scores by kind of claim
Each kind of claim is scored on its own, out of 100: the share that held up, with the range it likely falls in. Fewer resolved claims give a wider range.
-
Factual claims
Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
75 61 88 -
Predictions
Statements about events outside the person's control, checked once they fell due: did they come true?
Insufficient record: 2 predictions resolved, 5 needed for a score.
All types combined: 75 (likely 61 to 88, low confidence), from 12 claims: 12 factual claims. It mixes kinds of claim in different proportions for different people, so compare people kind by kind.
Jim Cramer's claims
30 claims
“Even though we ultimately got a deal and averted the worst-case scenario, the standoff was enough to make Standard & Poor's downgrade our government's credit rating”
Jim Cramer, CNBC host 24 May 2023 As debt ceiling talks flounder, Cramer says lawmakers' actions will cost you (CNBC)
In 2011 the US reached a debt ceiling deal, but the standoff led Standard & Poor's to downgrade the US government's credit rating.
Resolved true The record shows it happened or was so.
What would count as true or false
True: in 2011 the US enacted a debt-ceiling agreement (for example the Budget Control Act, August 2011), and Standard & Poor's then downgraded the US long-term sovereign credit rating, citing the political brinkmanship or standoff among its reasons. Mostly true: the deal and the downgrade both happened, but S&P's stated rationale emphasised other factors more than the standoff, or a minor detail such as the timing is off. Mostly false: S&P downgraded the US in 2011 but not after a debt-ceiling deal, or for reasons unrelated to the standoff. False: S&P did not downgrade the US in 2011, or there was no debt-ceiling deal that year.
Evidence
- S & P statement on U.S. debt downgrade CBS News (republishing Standard & Poor's statement) · 5 August 2011
“We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress”
- US loses AAA credit rating after S&P downgrade BBC News · 6 August 2011
“"The first thing it could have done is raise the debt ceiling in a timely manner so the debate would have been avoided to begin with," he said.”
- US loses AAA credit rating after S&P downgrade BBC News · 6 August 2011
“The bill - which also raises the federal debt ceiling by up to $2.4tn, from $14.3tn, over a decade - was passed on Tuesday just hours before the expiry of a deadline to raise the US borrowing limit.”
- US loses AAA credit rating after S&P downgrade BBC News · 6 August 2011
“S&P cut the long-term US rating by one notch to AA+ with a negative outlook, citing concerns about budget deficits.”
Reasoning
BBC reported on 2011-08-06 that a bill raising the federal debt ceiling passed hours before the borrowing-limit deadline (E3), and that S&P then cut the US long-term rating to AA+ (E4). In its own statement, republished by CBS on 2011-08-05, S&P said it lowered the rating partly because of "the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling" (E1). The BBC also quotes a speaker saying the debate could have been avoided by raising the debt ceiling in a timely manner (E2). The deal and a downgrade that cited the standoff are both confirmed.
Cite this claim
Jim Cramer, “In 2011 the US reached a debt ceiling deal, but the standoff led Standard & Poor's to downgrade the US government's credit rating.” (said 24 May 2023). Verdict: resolved true. Reliability API, claim c_d448e565f320, method 0.1.0+c876030c. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_d448e565f320
Claims without a verdict
Is a verdict here wrong, or do you speak for Jim Cramer? Reply on the claim's own page, with the form at its foot (how replies work). Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts and scores are made.