Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Forget Syria I want you to focus on it simply because you know it's just a matter time before we are probably -- -- that under.
But I do want to worry more about the very real war already going up against the ratings agency because -- -- to downgrade this country.
More troubling or more menacing -- although no chemical weapons were used -- as these guys.
Political weapons that are far far more when it.
Welcome everybody I'm real Canada when does this good sound familiar independent -- challenges administration and gets -- Now I could -- -- about texas' voter ID law that triggered a Justice Department lawsuit -- Arizona's crackdown on illegals that triggered another Justice Department lawsuit but I'm not talking about a stay here.
I'm talking about it about a company here and in about a company that made the mistake.
Of challenging the White House and now it's paying dearly for that company is standard and -- it's -- ratings agency.
Not much different and other agencies like Moody's and Fitch investors -- that completely -- the financial meltdown at some argue.
Might it even helped trigger by -- pristine credit ratings to less than pristine debt that end up.
But we know is they -- so why is the government going after just one -- Just doesn't pay to hear S&P -- here's why because the -- had the audacity to downgrade this country's AAA rating a couple of years back.
Odd because of the time that's and he argued it was because of the hopeless and hapless and out against -- -- Parties stumbling and bumbling through yet another budget mess that made a mockery of our financial standing over team to which we've also has become.
Very accustomed but it was doesn't need to pull the triggered -- And now faces a loaded gun at its temple.
The Justice Department says there is no connection.
That the reason why -- seeking five million dollars and civil penalties.
Is because -- sins are uniquely egregious that it -- aren't too many into investigate securities that -- well marked -- jumped.
But rated as anything but still still -- that whatever your thoughts about that's -- -- then ask yourself why it is the one being singled out right now.
Because Moody's in state schools and past ones but then again they didn't downgrade the US did.
Just like other states questioned the administration's stance against voter ID requirements but only Texas up and enacted a voter ID law did.
And other states challenged our hapless federal immigration policy but we Arizona had the -- to first initiate a crackdown on illegals of its own.
Both got served with federal lawsuits as a result of their efforts are not so subtle reminder that those who challenged the White House.
They're going to regret it.
Because elect the message being agreed there will be -- lots of legal -- and a quick Chicago's south this from any at all.
Who will be of -- mind.
To challenge to the judges says none of this a surprise.
-- out -- front senate should I expect that Chicago style fist look.
S -- Standard and Poor's is a rating agency they look at assets.
And they look at credit history and they give an opinion underscore opinions around on the credit worthiness of the entities are examining.
Was there opinion truly their opinion.
When they gave it or did they give it for some nefarious reason.
Look there's no such thing as a false opinion as long as the speaker of the opinion truly holds the opinion under the First Amendment they can express it.
The government didn't like what S&P said about it at the time S&P said it.
The president was talking about hole the fourteenth amendment might allow me to cancel the national debt or it might allow me to print money to pay.
Bills even if the government won't raise the debt Republicans were saying we might not raise that that at all and -- just let the country going to default the Democrats are saying we have to spend more money than we can possibly generate from tax revenue.
Who wouldn't come up.
With the opinion that investing in the federal government of the United States of America in 2010.
Was not investing in pristine debt and -- You know we're gonna AAA rating but now the administration's argument that just aren't -- does is nothing to do -- that it has everything to do with the child's behavior.
Right up to the financial meltdown when it was assigning high ratings to dubious credit I it acknowledges much today.
They screwed up but they had plenty of companies grew up by the way with congress and other ratings agencies as -- Having said that the only thing I could think that would single -- is that that moved to downgrade our.
So if if three ratings agencies.
All say -- -- credit default swaps you know they might work out what the future's gonna bring but it might be a worthy investment.
And people put their money in credit default swaps and they all lose money.
And all of those ratings were bad and they were all based on faulty data or they were all based on self dealing.
One and only one of the credit ratings get sued by the -- because that credit rating company Standard and Poor's.
As you pointed out in your very articulate an opening statement.
Had the temerity to say look twice before you -- federal bonds because if the government isn't going to pay those bonds back you're going to be stuff.
And let's and they were the only ones pulled the trigger I should stress that both Fitch and Moody's and you Dario and and battled drama was going on a couple years back.
They were threatening to do something like that base that said you know we might have to put these on credit watch -- of the step you take -- -- -- they never pulled the trigger.
On -- and he did and it's sort of shocked the world.
And the defense we've heard at the time was well the US will always make good on its that's because we can just print.
Money which was an asinine lover but but having said that.
S and be so all the lunacy of that and whether it's into the test on its own.
Is it is completely disconnected so.
Absolutely look if SMP decided that Cavuto -- prices sank.
That renowned -- New Jersey corporation was unworthy of investment and Cavuto enterprises think suffered Cavuto consume less and pay.
But -- S&P says about the government.
The government is restrained by the First Amendment which basically has been interpreted by the courts -- meaning there's no such thing as a false opinion.
If you give an opinion and everybody knows it's an opinion.
You can say what you want so -- SNPs -- pin in the federal government was not worthy of the triple A status that a separate.
The government he had added this -- -- -- -- continuity you suspect though that there that was the driving force.
It's sleek it's the only explanation for why the government -- after S&P.
And not after Fitch and Moody's who essentially made the same generalizations.
About the credit default swaps before 2008 that S&P -- as well.
Very good point it's great having you get my friend question in the meantime though.
Filter by section