Moodys Downgrades U.S. Credit Rating

[JimmySpeaks]

9 minutes ago, Caveira said:

He’s a pretty horrible person isn’t he … for the people.  For the working class etc 

Talks out of his wokester winger, anti semitic terrorist supporting, men should be allowed in the same bathroom as little girls while being allowed to play girls sports a$$hole everyday.  He only cares about the working class if they’re minority unlawfuls.   

Edited yesterday at 12:35 AM by JimmySpeaks

[Offthemat]

45 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

 He only cares about the working class if they’re minority unlawfuls.   

Even then it’s only as long as he can get his stuff cheap. 

[Scouts Honor]

THE RICH SHOULD PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE!!!!

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

I will ask the question I have not seen asked.

Does it matter that Moody's downgraded the US to Aa1?

After all they are the third of three major rating agencies to do this, and the first one did it 14 years ago. And it is not like it affects anyone's ability to hold US government debt. And with the ability to print money it is not like a default is likely either (though for brinksmanship reasons it is sometimes threatened).

So what does it really matter? If your answer is that it will make the cost of borrowing higher, that isn't true either. In 2011 interest rates on treasuries went down after S&P downgraded. If you are a corporate issuer it would be true, but the official rating of US government debt does not have any meaningful impact on demand for the securities, so rates are not affected by the rating. 

For sovereign credits ratings are mostly a trailing indicator. Moody's is just confirming what we all already know. Debt is too high, and the latest budget proposal only adds to the problem.

[red viking]

24 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I will ask the question I have not seen asked.

Does it matter that Moody's downgraded the US to Aa1?

After all they are the third of three major rating agencies to do this, and the first one did it 14 years ago. And it is not like it affects anyone's ability to hold US government debt. And with the ability to print money it is not like a default is likely either (though for brinksmanship reasons it is sometimes threatened).

So what does it really matter? If your answer is that it will make the cost of borrowing higher, that isn't true either. In 2011 interest rates on treasuries went down after S&P downgraded. If you are a corporate issuer it would be true, but the official rating of US government debt does not have any meaningful impact on demand for the securities, so rates are not affected by the rating. 

For sovereign credits ratings are mostly a trailing indicator. Moody's is just confirming what we all already know. Debt is too high, and the latest budget proposal only adds to the problem.

It's more than a lagging indicator. The latest GOP budgets greatly increase both the deficit and debt. I doubt the timing was pure coincidence. Soaring bond yields are one of the consequences, which equates to more interest on the debt. Yes, bond yields have been shooting up as of late. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

37 minutes ago, red viking said:

It's more than a lagging indicator. The latest GOP budgets greatly increase both the deficit and debt. I doubt the timing was pure coincidence. Soaring bond yields are one of the consequences, which equates to more interest on the debt. Yes, bond yields have been shooting up as of late. 

Those are two different time frames. Yields are basically unchanged since the Moody's downgrade.

[red viking]

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Those are two different time frames. Yields are basically unchanged since the Moody's downgrade.

They're up about 0.05 since then, overall.  Were even higher yesterday. Trend is upward the past 3 months. That's a VERY bad sign when they are supposed to be going down. People and countries are ditching the dollar. GOP budget is part of the picture, zero doubt. 

[Scouts Honor]

so why won't rich liberal New yorkers pay their fair share? 

[red viking]

Just now, Scouts Honor said:

so why won't rich liberal New yorkers pay their fair share? 

They will but you gotta change the tax brackets first

[scourge165]

On 5/16/2025 at 6:34 PM, VakAttack said:

Let's ask a business genius his thoughts: 

 

You know...through all the stupid things he's done, I could make a bit of a defense for him IF he was going to take the money he got from the tariffs and then...of course, stop lying about the deals he's getting done(about half the things he got done in the Middle East are...years in the works, had nothing to do with him and were negotiated under Biden and given he actually did some things, there was really had ZERO need to lie about them)...but, if he was going to take the tariffs and use that to DIRECTLY attack the deficit, they'd still be a net negative and a bad idea, but I could understand the agenda.

Instead, they're going add trillions to the debt.

 

You are getting what you voted for.

[scourge165]

2 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

so why won't rich liberal New yorkers pay their fair share? 

Why don' Republicans have the balls to save our Country like they did under the likes of Eisenhower? 

Back when we were trying to repay the debt we'd built up after WWII and the Great Depression?

 

Of course you can go back and look at who is responsible for adding to the debt and you find out VERY quickly the Republicans don't actually care. 

[scourge165]

2 hours ago, red viking said:

They will but you gotta change the tax brackets first

Yeah, the 'why doesn't Warren Buffett just pay more if he wants to,' is...yet another intellectually dishonest argument.

 

The people talking about how much they care about the future of this Country are just...so clearly frauds. 

At what point do we care about the debt? When it's 2X the GDP(which contracted last quarter, Trump's first)? 

3X? It used to be the debt shouldn't exceed 25%, then 50%, then 75%...now the total debt of the United States and it's people is 700% of the GDP. That's all debt held by the United States. 

I think our debt to GDP ratio...well, before the last GDP reading was in the 140% range while China was in the 80s. 

Big difference;

Quote

China's debt supports infrastructure and industrial projects, but raises concerns about financial stability. The U.S. debt reflects federal spending and tax policies, with debates on sustainability and economic impact.

China is at least building...MASSIVE infrastructure projects. We're just...giving it back to the uber wealthy. 

And I'm at the point where...I'm starting to not care. 

Cutting the corporate tax rate is going to really help the market and I've got enough in the market that I'll be fine, my kids will be fine and...I guess I'll stop worring about the rest.

 

I will note, I did give a couple stock tips. QBTS, AVGO and...the obvious, NVDA. That was following Trump's moronic tax. 
QBTS is up to ~17 a share from 6 a share(and .76 cents a share just a year ago). AVGO up from ~145 to ~230 and NVDA from 87 back to 135...though most people FOMO'd into that one already. 

[GreatWhiteNorth]

On 5/19/2025 at 2:00 PM, mspart said:

Red Viking has one thing right.   The deficit is still going to be there (even though he never complained under Biden) and that is not good.   He wants to tax his way out of it while increasing spending.   That doesn't work. 

What is the current spending level?   $6.8 Trillion. 

What is proposed spending level?    It should not be  more than $6.8 Trillion.

What is projected treasure receipts?    This year $5.2 Trillion.   That  means they need to cut 30% of the proposed spending to make ends meet.   Or they could cut 15% this year, and let income grow the next year.   Then cut another 15% the next year and we are balanced.   No auto increases in the budget.   Hold to current levels and cut that to meet the projected amount of income.  

Then Moodys will be happy and we will be on the way to better fiscal discipline. 

mspart

 

You're not wrong - but the trick is what new spending do we NOT introduce and what spending do we CUT/LIMIT?

I'll start:

• NOT introduce new spending
  • The ultra-expensive 'Golden Dome' that is mostly in the idea phase with budget killing costs for years to come
    (We don't have to kill it - but it can wait. We can't afford more defense dept contracts right now.)
• CUT tax breaks to the wealthy - let them pay their fair share of taxes
  • SALT - It's a tax break that primarily benefits the wealthy. 
  • New tax breaks - No more breaks for the very wealthy. Let them tighten their belt just like everyone else
• NOT CUT the things that were promised to be not touched during the Presidential campaign
  • Social Security - don't touch it. This was a clear mandate from the voters and a presidential promise.
  • Medicaid - don't touch it. This was a promise by the president that he should keep
  • If you think there's a good reason you can't keep your promises, be honest and tell the country.
    Good people don't make promises and then pretend they didn't when it suits them. Tell the truth.

I'll add something more - some of which I've already mentioned in an earlier post:

• The White House has been clear that the ongoing tariff problems are going to be painful and could last a while before it starts to pay off. What they haven't said is that it could backfire and become a huge problem. The US citizens have been asked to tighten their belts, limit doll count for their kids, and be ready to feel some pain.
• The White House has also been clear about telling corporate America to be ready and accept the pain. Walmart most recently being told by the WH to 'eat' the added cost the tarrifs cost rather than raise prices to reflect them.
• The White House needs to tighten their belts, limit their expenses and be ready to feel some pain, too.
  • Politicians aren't better than citizens - it's time they stop acting like they are.
  • Boeing is on contract to build the next gen AF-1 ... full stop. Leave it alone. No more spending
  • CUT Military parade for ~$90 million
  • Redecorating the Oval Office with 24k gold? Seriously? We don't need that right now either.
  • "Read the room"... or in this case "Read the country"
    • CUT every single piece of non-essential luxury spending the WH has planned
    • Regular Americans are tightening our belts. You have no legitimate excuse not to.

 

[Husker_Du]

no, that's not THE trick.

of course that's one part of it, but the other is to cut the massive waste already on the books and the ubiquitous fraud. 

[uncle bernard]

3 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

no, that's not THE trick.

of course that's one part of it, but the other is to cut the massive waste already on the books and the ubiquitous fraud. 

1) Still haven't found any fraud. Fraud is not "stuff I disagree with." 

2) If he was actually serious about cutting waste, he'd start at the Pentagon. I won't hold my breath considering Musk is a major Pentagon contractor. Corruption for me, but not for thee.

[red viking]

3 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

no, that's not THE trick.

of course that's one part of it, but the other is to cut the massive waste already on the books and the ubiquitous fraud. 

People have claimed to be able to balance the budget merely or mostly be eliminating "the fat" or the waste and fraud for over a hundred years now. It never ends. 

It's a complete lie. Sure, there's some waste and fraud and there will ALWAYS be SOME of that. We should try to minimize it but to say we can make even a dent in the budget deficit by doing that is a complete joke and those that believe it are naive to how the govt works. Probably watching too much Faux News. 

Edited 5 hours ago by red viking

[ionel]

12 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

 he'd start at the Pentagon ....Musk is a major Pentagon contractor. 

Please explain. 

[uncle bernard]

1 minute ago, ionel said:

Please explain. 

The Pentagon/Military is by far the largest source of waste and corruption in the government. DOGE isn't likely to look very closely, and they haven't so far, because Musk's companies hold major contracts with the Pentagon.

So you have a government agency that's supposed to eliminate waste and corruption, but has totally ignored the largest source of waste and corruption because the head of the agency is himself involved in that waste and corruption.

[ionel]

1 minute ago, uncle bernard said:

The Pentagon/Military is by far the largest source of waste and corruption in the government. DOGE isn't likely to look very closely, and they haven't so far, because Musk's companies hold major contracts with the Pentagon.

 

What are these major contracts? 

[red viking]

2 minutes ago, ionel said:

What are these major contracts? 

OMG. He has contracts at many federal agencies but military is a huge one. You need to quit listening to Fox News and get up to date on current events. A simple Google search will help you out. 

[Saylors_Tiny_Willie]

9 minutes ago, ionel said:

What are these major contracts? 

Literally the first google hit.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/elon-musks-us-department-defense-contracts-2025-02-11/

 

Literally the second google hit.

https://www.newsweek.com/elon-musk-inking-multibillion-dollar-pentagon-deal-amid-doge-cutsreport-2055663

 

People are going to start thinking you're disingenuous.

Edited 5 hours ago by Saylors_Tiny_Willie

[ionel]

6 minutes ago, red viking said:

OMG. He has contracts at many federal agencies but military is a huge one. You need to quit listening to Fox News and get up to date on current events. A simple Google search will help you out. 

So name the 5 largest ones.

[ionel]

3 minutes ago, Saylors_Tiny_Willie said:

Literally the first google hit.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/elon-musks-us-department-defense-contracts-2025-02-11/

 

Literally the second google hit.

https://www.newsweek.com/elon-musk-inking-multibillion-dollar-pentagon-deal-amid-doge-cutsreport-2055663

 

So who else has a reusable rocket system for launching satellites?  Are you suggesting we should go back to spending multiple times this amount and just have NASA do all the launches.  Or are you suggesting we shouldn't have satellites in space.  I need to know the specific problem so I can write my congressperson.  

[Saylors_Tiny_Willie]

1 minute ago, ionel said:

So who else has a reusable rocket system for launching satellites?  Are you suggesting we should go back to spending multiple times this amount and just have NASA do all the launches.  Or are you suggesting we shouldn't have satellites in space.  I need to know the specific problem so I can write my congressperson.  

Sorry, kiddo. You don't get to assign homework here.

 

[ionel]

Just now, Saylors_Tiny_Willie said:

Sorry, kiddo. You don't get to assign homework here.

 

So nobody actually sees a specific problem here.  We are just back to orange man bad & musk man likes orange man so musk man bad.  Got it.