Moody's? Schmoody's!
The latest inductees into the Obama Chicken Little Club.
Any memories here about the ratings given to bundled subprime mortgages ? Read the Big Short folks, and put down that little plastic cup with the brightly colored liquid.
Who are they downgrading to? Goldman Sachs? The folks who just cleaned up selling QE2 bonds back to seller with commissions? That's a bit like hiring a pimp to come into your house, walk your wife around the block and back into your bedroom for connubial bliss and you have to pay him .
Where were these guys when they were rating GM secured bonds ? hummm............
Demagogic pile-on. All hands on deck for the faux disaster. Strike up the band and God Save the Queen! Papier mache icebergs and all.
Status quo = disaster. Withhold the funds until the speakers go hoarse and go home.
- Comment (6)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments :
Sep '10
Re: Moody's? Schmoody's!
Apparently, people are so scared of Moody's they won't comment on your thread. Since Mitt Romney doesn't have a position on this mess, it falls to Nicole Gelinas.
Nicole?
Jun '10
Re: Moody's? Schmoody's!
You should combine this with the previous thread, perhaps. But, since you and I share a mutual friend in Ben Stein, Please let me cross post here from there:
Assuming the interest on the debt is paid, which the Constitution, I believe, requires, and which our tax revenues are large enough to accommodate, does anyone find it strange that a ratings agency would downgrade our debt because we refuse to borrow more? I would be curious as to who is wanting to buy this extra debt anyway? Is the Bernanke just going to print money so that the USA buys its own bonds? Would that make Mr Moody feel all warm and fuzzy, or would it give him a huge case of ulcers? If it were me, it would be the latter. So my curiosity begs, why make these headlines, Mr. Moody? What's your angle? Perhaps someone here can explain how owing the Chinese or whoever another 3 to 4 trillion dollars is sound policy.
Jun '10
Re: Moody's? Schmoody's!
It might mean more if a clutch of Vegas bookies had said it...
May '10
Re: Moody's? Schmoody's!
Yeah, con is over with these clowns. After assigned AAA ratings to junk CDO they claimed first amendment protection on this "opinions". We the people shouldn't care as rating agencies have proven their opinions meaningless.
Let the country to into default — we're not too big to fail. Turn Cloward-Piven back on them and shove it down Obama's throat. This is what spending non-existent trillions gets you. He loses, liberty wins.
Aug '10
Re: Moody's? Schmoody's!
sweeeet....
Feb '11
Re: Moody's? Schmoody's!
Do you understand exactly how irrational your argument is? Warning against Goldman Sachs, etc. wouldn't have been chicken little. It would have been prudent. So how is this not a prudent act? The US can pay its debts by virtue of being able to print money and having congressional authority to issue debt. Both of those are reasons for concerns and it matters to the extent that this causes higher interest rate payments. If Obama is far removed from reality, he's no farther away than those who say there should be no increase in the debt limit because of the ramifications it will mean. Reality trumps ideology every day of the week.