Thought this (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/no-debt-limit-deal-your-investments-plummet-2011-07-12) was a good walkthrough of what we can expect if the debt ceiling isn't raised. It certainly isn't encyclopedic, but it should be enough to scare the bejesus out of anyone. Worth reading through the whole thing.
QuoteBOSTON (MarketWatch ) — It's no joke. The sky over the investment world and everything under it, including bonds, stocks, money markets, commodities, you name it, will fall unless lawmakers raise the $14.3 trillion Federal debt ceiling by Aug. 2.
It could be nothing less than catastrophic and worse than the financial meltdown of the late 2000s should Uncle Sam fail to raise the legal limit on government borrowing and default on U.S. debt, according to Greg McBride, a CFA charterholder and senior analyst with BankRate.com. "There will be no safe haven," said McBride, from his perch in Florida.
In a press conference Monday, President Obama called for compromise as party leaders seek to craft a deal that raises the legal limit on how much the U.S. government can borrow while slashing projected deficits over the next decade. Democratic and Republican leaders held talks Sunday, but discussions broke down over taxes.
Obama said he would keep convening with party leaders every day until a debt-limit deal is reached. He also said he would reject a stopgap measure of 180 days or less. Congress has to raise the federal government's legal debt limit by Aug. 2 or the nation could be in danger of defaulting on its debt, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has said. A U.S. default could put the economy back into recession and create panic in global financial markets.
And the sad part is that most Americans (and lawmakers for that matter) don't realize just how bad things will get if the U.S. fails to pay any of its obligations, even if it's the teeniest, tiniest bill.
The crux of the matter, according to BankRate's McBride, is that people on Main Street don't understand the connection with, and the unintended consequences of, lawmakers not raising the debt ceiling.
According to McBride, here's what's likely to happen should the Obama administration and Congress fail to agree on a plan to raise the debt ceiling and compromise on deficit reductions over the next 10 years. "It's not an uplifting conversation," McBride said.
Rapid repricing
First, there will be what McBride calls a "rapid repricing" of all financial assets, not just Treasuries. In other words, the value of your 401(k) plans, IRAs, 529 plans, gold and real estate will all collapse.
And the reason for that is this: What is fundamental to the pricing of financial assets is the notion that U.S. Treasuries are risk-free. All financial assets are priced based on this assumption (or hope). If Treasuries are no longer risk-free, then all financial assets have to be repriced against another a benchmark.
And this time, investors won't have a safe haven to which they can flock as they did during collapse of 2008. "There will be no place to hide," said McBride. "Treasuries will no longer be safe in the event of a default." Ditto real estate, gold, and farm land. In short, there will be no flight to safety because no asset will be safe. "Even cash might not be a safe haven."
Credit crunch redux
Should Uncle Sam renege on its promises, McBride predicts that interest rates on all forms of debt — mortgages, car loans, government — will spike, resulting in a renewed credit crunch. Borrowing will come to a halt. Business will come to a halt. And even more troubling is the possibility that a halt in the flow of credit will cause commercial paper markets to dry up and that will result in a run on money funds.
Only this time, there won't be a federal backstop like we had in 2008, said McBride. At the time, the Federal Reserve took action on several levels to support the money markets, and raised the insurance level on deposit accounts to $250,000 per person, per account category, per bank. But what if there was a run on banks? McBride said, "What good is FDIC insurance if the government is not paying its bills?"
If the scenario plays out, even in the case of a brief default, it will permanently tarnish the U.S.'s credit rating and usher in period of permanently higher interest rates. "There will forever be a risk premium attached to U.S. government debt," said McBride.
Unemployment will rise
According to McBride, Uncle Sam defaulting on its debt could also result in massive job losses as companies slash expenses to conserve cash. And therein lies yet one more reason why lawmakers should do all they can to resolved the debt-ceiling issue. The U.S., which reported last week that unemployment rose to 9.2%, can't afford any more bad news. "We're in a bind and we can't afford to raise the cost of borrowing," said McBride.
Call, email your representatives
According to McBride, there is no safe place to put your money should Uncle Sam default. And the only good investment move to make right now just might be U.S. postage stamps on envelopes addressed to your representatives in Congress. And inside those envelopes should be requests, no — urgent pleas — asking lawmakers to deal with the debt ceiling now or run the risk of forever changing the landscape of the U.S. as we know it.
To me, the idiocy of this whole discussion is that we're willing to throw away the huge premium we enjoy for being the Indispensible Nation based on something that
doesn't need to happen.
How can someone who is so intelligent as Obama be so damn stupid?
Every time he surrenders to the GOP, instead of working together, all they do is demand more. >:(
That is very scary stuff.
I heard Boehner on NPR this morning saying he wants to raise the ceiling.
I'm not sure if that's an about face for him but it's sure a different tune I've been hearing on my crazy lefty liberal stations.
That really is scary. It's truly sad that the lawmakers have not come together and found a solution by now. Raise taxes cut spending. Everybody will have to make sacrifices, but none of those will come close to the sacrifices everyone will have to make in the case of a U.S. default.
I don't think Boehner has the last say, I'd bet Cantor is the one stalling a deal.
Quote from: we vs us on July 12, 2011, 11:11:01 AM
Thought this (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/no-debt-limit-deal-your-investments-plummet-2011-07-12) was a good walkthrough of what we can expect if the debt ceiling isn't raised. It certainly isn't encyclopedic, but it should be enough to scare the bejesus out of anyone. Worth reading through the whole thing.
To me, the idiocy of this whole discussion is that we're willing to throw away the huge premium we enjoy for being the Indispensible Nation based on something that doesn't need to happen.
That is not correct. That would only be correct if we opt to default (which of course we won't). Both sides need the american people to think that the sky is falling for different reasons. This is theater.
Reaching the debt limit is not the same as defaulting on the federal debt. No less an authority than a Treasury Department fact sheet claims, "If Congress fails to increase the debt limit, the government would default on its legal obligations." This is simply not true. The two things are distinct, and it's unnerving as hell (though hardly surprising) that the government department in charge of minding the books either is wilfully misleading people or just out to lunch. When the debt limit is reached, that doesn't mean that the U.S. will default on its debt payments. Unless it chooses to. There's a huge difference between reaching your limit and not paying your bills. Let's say you max out your credit cards. You may not be able to put any more purchases on plastic, but that doesn't mean your creditors are going to come after you. As long as you cough up your minimum payment amounts, you're OK. The same basic rule applies here. What's more, the government has a number of assets, ranging from cash on hand to gold reserves to TARP assets it could sell to cover all or part of its debt obligations through the end of the current fiscal year. It can also prioritize government payments to take care of debt-related bills first (indeed, it may be constitutionally required to).
Most estimates for total federal revenues in fiscal 2011 have about $2.2 trillion flowing in versus about $3.77 trillion flowing out. In the out-flow figure is about $200 billion in interest payments (which represent the absolute minimum amount that would need to be paid to avoid a technical default). Given that we're in the final quarter of fiscal 2011, let's assume that we've got about $50 billion left in debt payments to go for this year (I'm guessing here, as the schedule of payments could vary considerably). That seems to be well within the government's ability to pay one way or another, at the very least to buy some time to sort through things.
--Nick Gillespie, Reason Magazine
In fact, if we were to preserve the debt ceiling at it's current level, and then show real action in reducing spending to bring our excess down, this would signal to national and international markets that we are willing to be responsible.
We are however, in no way willing to be responsible from either the Democrat or Republican side, so we will get an increase before the 2nd. Part of this will be in the form of changing the way we calculate debt (basically changing the rules), and part will be the $2 trillion that Bohener is pushing.
We will then have this debate again before the election in 2012.
Quote from: carltonplace on July 12, 2011, 12:01:04 PM
I don't think Boehner has the last say, I'd bet Cantor is the one stalling a deal.
Time agrees with you.
http://news.yahoo.com/gops-hardliner-eric-cantor-thwarted-obama-boehner-debt-081407212.html (http://news.yahoo.com/gops-hardliner-eric-cantor-thwarted-obama-boehner-debt-081407212.html)
QuoteDuring the high-stakes summit at the White House on Sunday evening, Eric Cantor was the primary voice speaking on behalf of Republicans interests, according to several accounts of the meeting. A senior Democratic aide briefed on Monday's talks told TIME that Cantor again "dominated" much of the negotiations on the Republican side, while Boehner "hardly spoke."
Cantor's stated resistance to a grand bargain freighted with revenue increases - and the perception that his position reflected the pulse of the GOP conference - likely influenced Boehner's decision to scuttle his pursuit of a "big deal" with Obama. Weeks earlier, Cantor's abandonment of the Biden-led negotiations were the death knell for those talks. Speculation about palace intrigue is a Washington tradition, but the rumored frost between the top two Republicans in the House could have significant impact on whether the two parties can craft an agreement to raise the debt-limit by August 2. That's particularly true if personal ambition leads either lawmaker to elevate political calculations over policy imperatives.
Now, if anything you hear from the president resonates with you, let it be what he just announced on CBS:
"I cannot guarantee Social Security checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it."
Mr. Obama told Pelley "this is not just a matter of Social Security checks. These are veterans checks, these are folks on disability and their checks. There are about 70 million checks that go out."
He is willing to prey on the emotions of the weakest among you. Debts associated with CURRENT Social Security, Medicare, and Interest payments will not be affected, and he knows it. This is the most disrespectful thing I think he has ever done. He assumes you don't know any better, and for the majority of the public he is probably right.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20078789-503544.html
Are you angry yet?
Quote from: Gaspar on July 12, 2011, 01:07:01 PM
Are you angry yet?
Yes. Over Eric the Schmoe and Odumba strategy! :(
Quote from: Teatownclown on July 12, 2011, 01:10:30 PM
Yes. Over Eric the Schmoe and Odumba strategy! :(
Apparently he's off prompter. Everyone is rushing in to clarify now. . .he said "I cannot guarantee". . .
Well, he cant guarantee the world won't end tomorrow, but it would be rather irresponsible for him to announce that!
This was a really stupid thing to say. I don't think it's going to have the effect he hoped it would. :o
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 12, 2011, 11:29:33 AM
That is very scary stuff.
I know it's scary. Here's a pic I snapped of myself:
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTQsM3qwFiRDOccGGXagIvUs1NHMPljCSmirynUox2PM4t_96ZP)
I wish everyone would seriously calm down and focus on what's really important. Like maybe 9.2%, trade deficits, or U.S. women soccer.
Quote from: guido911 on July 12, 2011, 01:26:52 PM
I know it's scary. Here's a pic I snapped of myself:
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTQsM3qwFiRDOccGGXagIvUs1NHMPljCSmirynUox2PM4t_96ZP)
I wish everyone would seriously calm down and focus on what's really important. Like maybe 9.2% unemployment or U.S. women soccer.
The unknown idiot? One of too many.....
Quote from: ZYX on July 12, 2011, 11:51:51 AM
That really is scary. It's truly sad that the lawmakers have not come together and found a solution by now. Raise taxes cut spending. Everybody will have to make sacrifices, but none of those will come close to the sacrifices everyone will have to make in the case of a U.S. default.
Seriously, what sacrifices will you be making?
Quote from: Gaspar on July 12, 2011, 01:19:44 PM
Apparently he's off prompter. Everyone is rushing in to clarify now. . .he said "I cannot guarantee". . .
Well, he cant guarantee the world won't end tomorrow, but it would be rather irresponsible for him to announce that!
This was a really stupid thing to say. I don't think it's going to have the effect he hoped it would. :o
Really. What was the point of that, I mean other than to scare retired people.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/12/debt.talks/index.html
OK, maybe the Odumba strategy is to turn our patriotic citizens who are still holding out into GOP haters like the rest of us.
Quote from: guido911 on July 12, 2011, 01:36:50 PM
Really. What was the point of that, I mean other than to scare retired people.
Or to actually tell the truth about what a default would mean?
Quote from: we vs us on July 12, 2011, 01:57:45 PM
Or to actually tell the truth about what a default would mean?
Why would we choose to default? If the debt ceiling is not raised, it does not mean we default.
It means we have to curtail spending, and recognize priorities. Entitlements like SS, Medicare, and veterans benefits are entitlements backed by treasuries. They would be the last thing to ever be affected by spending limits.
But you know this.
This threat was wrong when Newt used it in the 90's to get Clinton to sign a budget, and it's wrong now! You don't take advantage of the old or of those who sacrificed too much for this country just for some twisted political gain.
I anticipate that this will backfire on him in a very big way. I don't think he thought this out. I think this was frustration on his part. No one wants to eat the smileburger any more, and he's flustered.
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2011/07/12/the-u-s-treasury-will-not-default/
Despite all the rhetoric and posturing we see in the media and in Washington D.C., it is safe to say categorically that the U.S. Treasury will not default on its debt after August 2nd, even if the debt ceiling is not raised. Not only will the Treasury be able to pay interest on U.S. debt obligations, but there is money for other essential programs as well. However, there will be some serious cutting that has to happen because spending clearly exceeds revenues.
^ hope thingy doesn't work....you need to figger on another angle. Like no checks issued and the ire of the co dee's forcing the GOP into their holes.
According to Harry Reid, the wold is indeed going to end " Troops will not get paid; stock market will crash and your holdings devaluated!"
Wow, economic terrorism.
Well that'd curtail spending.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 12, 2011, 02:46:11 PM
According to Harry Reid, the wold is indeed going to end " Troops will not get paid; stock market will crash and your holdings devaluated!"
Wow, economic terrorism.
We're all terrorists if that happens.
"Never before have so few with so much promised to take away so much from so many and then laugh their asses off as the so many with so little vote for the so few with so much."
James Pence
Quote from: guido911 on July 12, 2011, 01:35:36 PM
Seriously, what sacrifices will you be making?
Other than not being able to have as many clothes, as much food, possibly no vacations, my family wouldn't upsize from our small house, it would be harder for ME to get a job, and that it would be harder for ME to go to college, there really aren't many.
Quote from: Townsend on July 12, 2011, 11:30:50 AM
I heard Boehner on NPR this morning saying he wants to raise the ceiling.
I'm not sure if that's an about face for him but it's sure a different tune I've been hearing on my crazy lefty liberal stations.
Boehner has been relatively reasonable throughout the whole thing, but he's in a bind thanks to the know nothing Tea Partyists.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 12, 2011, 01:07:01 PM
He is willing to prey on the emotions of the weakest among you. Debts associated with CURRENT Social Security, Medicare, and Interest payments will not be affected, and he knows it. This is the most disrespectful thing I think he has ever done. He assumes you don't know any better, and for the majority of the public he is probably right.
You want to tell me where in the law it differentiates between debt owed to the Social Security Trust Fund and debt owed to the public? You want to tell me how the federal government is going to issue $500 billion in new bonds to retire the ones coming due. It may be a rollover of debt, but we have to issue new debt before we can retire the old debt.
Edited to add: Telling the truth about the likely consequences of the GOP's hostage taking is not "economic terrorism," it's laying all the cards on the table. Which of course you don't want to happen because it makes your side look bad.
Quote from: nathanm on July 12, 2011, 03:34:42 PM
Boehner has been relatively reasonable throughout the whole thing, but he's in a bind thanks to the know nothing Tea Partyists.
My bad. I grouped 'em all together.
Quote from: ZYX on July 12, 2011, 03:14:57 PM
Other than not being able to have as many clothes, as much food, possibly no vacations, my family wouldn't upsize from our small house, it would be harder for ME to get a job, and that it would be harder for ME to go to college, there really aren't many.
I'm not knocking you. I just don't want you to get caught up with the hand-wringing over this debt crisis. I think what the nation needs in another Y2K-like frenzy.
So in case you haven't heard, the GOP has staged a "strategic" retreat. O'Connell suggested that maybe they abandon wrangling over the debt ceiling in entirety and vote to give Obama the sole responsibility for raising. In exchange for this power he suggested a convoluted Roberts'-Rules-of-Order-style path to allow the GOP to save as much face as possible, all the while making Obama take the heat for raising the ceiling.
This is a trial balloon and there's no real sense that it can make it through the House, but it's pretty clear that he's making a suggestion that the GOP walk away from the fight entirely, rather than either go for the gusto with Obama's $4T cuts + tax increases or even Biden's negotiated $2T of cuts + increases. In other words: if taxes are any part of the solution whatsoever, it's better to walk away from the negotiations entirely than compromise.
Which leaves me speechless, really. Does this mean that the leadership knew this was an empty exercise all along? Does it mean that the GOP caucus is really too fractured to offer any votes at all? And does it mean we won't raise the ceiling at all anyway (since negotiations are at a stalemate, anyway)?
I can't get over the level of cynicism this takes.
Also @Gassy: Heard this on NPR from a Bush I era budget undersecretary who's done some number crunching on the exact amount of pressure this sort of thing would put on the budget. Meaning, sure, we might not default, but our system would have to immediately have to learn how to deal with 44% less revenue than before. A sample of his addition: yes, Social Security checks and medicare bennies and VA bennies could go out, but that would mean that the Pentagon gets NO money at all. Or you could add some funding to the Pentagon, but the Dept of Education and the Dept of Justice grind to a halt and get NO money.
This isn't a discount, or starving the beast. It's depriving the body politic of nearly half of its fighting weight. Which is still crazy and radical.
http://www.npr.org/2011/07/12/137799686/what-happens-if-we-dont-make-the-debt-ceiling-deadline
EDIT: here's the link to the study's actual page:
http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/library/staff-paper/debt-limit-analysis
See this one about how Rupert Mudoch's News Corp not only had a $0 tax burden but they also were paid nearly $50 bil by the US?
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=137811869&m=137811860 (http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=137811869&m=137811860)
Quote from: we vs us on July 13, 2011, 11:34:43 AM
So in case you haven't heard, the GOP has staged a "strategic" retreat. O'Connell suggested that maybe they abandon wrangling over the debt ceiling in entirety and vote to give Obama the sole responsibility for raising. In exchange for this power he suggested a convoluted Roberts'-Rules-of-Order-style path to allow the GOP to save as much face as possible, all the while making Obama take the heat for raising the ceiling.
This is a trial balloon and there's no real sense that it can make it through the House, but it's pretty clear that he's making a suggestion that the GOP walk away from the fight entirely, rather than either go for the gusto with Obama's $4T cuts + tax increases or even Biden's negotiated $2T of cuts + increases. In other words: if taxes are any part of the solution whatsoever, it's better to walk away from the negotiations entirely than compromise.
Which leaves me speechless, really. Does this mean that the leadership knew this was an empty exercise all along? Does it mean that the GOP caucus is really too fractured to offer any votes at all? And does it mean we won't raise the ceiling at all anyway (since negotiations are at a stalemate, anyway)?
I can't get over the level of cynicism this takes.
Don't think he will take it because it requires him to detail spending cuts over time to equal the increase in debt ceiling. Both President Obama and his party know that there is no chance they will cut enough to make up for the increase, therefor setting a devastating trap. The only mantra they will have left is "Increase Taxes."
In the plan the Republicans agree to accept President Obama's cuts but, they get the opportunity to present their own cuts as well that the president may choose not to accept. The trap is what you and I both know, that the president has
no intention of cutting a damn thing, and even if he does, the cuts will never match the increases in spending he has in store. Meanwhile the Republicans will grandstand by proposing cuts on a daily basis and then just be flabbergasted and shocked when they are denied by the administration.
By 2012 with little or no cuts and more massive increases in spending, plus the gargantuan burden of Obamacare looming, President Obama will lose whatever teensy tiny shred of fiscal responsibility he may have retained, and the Republicans will look like real budget hawks. He's already campaigning for Carter's second term, if he accepts this compromise he might as well pack his bags.
I for one will be mad at the Republicans though for turning this into a campaign strategy rather than taking advantage of a serious opportunity to reverse the path to ruin.
Here are the steps of the plan:
1. The Republicans agree to a plan that allows President Obama to raise the debt ceiling by as much as $2.3 trillion in three installments within the next year.
2. The President would be required to submit to the congress a list of proposed spending cuts equaling the amount of the debt ceiling increase. Apparently these would not have to be REAL spending cuts --- they could simply be cuts in spending increases. Which is exactly what President Obama would propose because he has no intention of ever cutting spending.
3. Congress would have the opportunity to present additional spending cuts to the president which he would of course ignore. This would then trigger a vote to approve or disapprove of his debt increases.
4. Congress would vote to disapprove based on lack of corresponding spending cuts. Obama would then veto the resolution of disapproval.
5. Neither house would be able to come up with the two-thirds vote necessary to override Obama's veto, so the debt ceiling increase would take effect.
6. Republicans then get to blame Obama and the Democrats for the increases in the debt ceiling.
I don't think the country can afford to play this game just for Republican political gain.
Here's today's best read on the budget from a paper that seems to have remained objective despite the News Corp tag....
JULY 13, 2011
Budget Solution: Squeeze the Middle
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304584404576440250900783950.html
"Neither President Barack Obama nor Republicans say they want to target the middle class. But budget gaps projected for the next decade are so large they can't be reined in without hitting those in the middle. There simply isn't enough income at the top to tax, nor enough spending on people at the bottom to cut."
Quote from: Gaspar on July 13, 2011, 12:47:48 PM
The trap is what you and I both know, that the president has no intention of cutting a damn thing, and even if he does, the cuts will never match the increases in spending he has in store. Meanwhile the Republicans will grandstand by proposing cuts on a daily basis and then just be flabbergasted and shocked when they are denied by the administration.
The "grand plan" that Boehner was going to agree to had nearly 4 trillion in cuts. How can you say that he doesn't intend to cut...he has stated clearly that America has to get its financial house in order.
I know that it's a stupid question, but dont other Countries owe us a ton of Money ?
What kind of Seal Team 6 do we need to send in to collect ?
Quote from: DolfanBob on July 13, 2011, 02:56:38 PM
I know that it's a stupid question, but dont other Countries owe us a ton of Money ?
What kind of Seal Team 6 do we need to send in to collect ?
Well I've heard "debts forgiven" a lot over the years when talking about aid for other nations.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 13, 2011, 12:47:48 PM
the president has no intention of cutting a damn thing
I don't know any such thing. He came up with $2T in cuts via the Biden negotiations, and was actually offering up to $4T based on last week's discussion. Unless you think he's flat out lying to the country then he's put an astronomical amount of cuts on the table -- to the point where he has his own caucus freaking out and declaring they won't/can't support his cuts.
But it's not about facts, though, and that's obvious. You seem to think Obama lies about everything all the time, and that if it goes against your side it must be a fakeout, or a lie, or sociopathy, or some sort of double dealing, rather than the truth.
Quote from: we vs us on July 13, 2011, 03:42:06 PM
I don't know any such thing. He came up with $2T in cuts via the Biden negotiations, and was actually offering up to $4T based on last week's discussion. Unless you think he's flat out lying to the country then he's put an astronomical amount of cuts on the table -- to the point where he has his own caucus freaking out and declaring they won't/can't support his cuts.
But it's not about facts, though, and that's obvious. You seem to think Obama lies about everything all the time, and that if it goes against your side it must be a fakeout, or a lie, or sociopathy, or some sort of double dealing, rather than the truth.
Name a single cut that he presented.
As usual he pontificated about broad strokes, but when it came down to it was not able to offer a single thing he would be willing to put his name on.
Exactly like his budget "framework speech," he is very willing to talk, but not to deal.
Quote from: carltonplace on July 13, 2011, 12:30:02 PM
See this one about how Rupert Mudoch's News Corp not only had a $0 tax burden but they also were paid nearly $50 bil by the US?
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=137811869&m=137811860 (http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=137811869&m=137811860)
Oopsie.
QuotePlease be advised that the David Cay Johnston column published on Tuesday stating that Rupert Murdoch's U.S.-based News Corp made money on income taxes is wrong and has been withdrawn. News Corp's filings show the company changed reporting conventions in its 2007 annual report when it reversed the way it showed positive and negative numbers. A new column correcting and explaining the error in more detail will be issued shortly.
http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2011/07/13/advisory-david-cay-johnston-column-on-rupert-murdoch-is-withdrawn/
Perhaps this graphic will dispel Gaspar's notion about the "gigantic" spending increases we've supposedly seen from Obama.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_VgJQTp0Bsf0/TbXiFKpobBI/AAAAAAAAAfo/0eVTJ_mKHM4/safetynet_spend.jpg)
Yeah, income security is up, which is exactly what should happen when unemployment is high.
We now know that Mitch McConckel is a shell er, shil for teabaggers....a real chicken sh!t to put us through this drama....come on GOP, show some leadership.
Don't Cry For Me Mitch McConnell
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/14/us/politics/14fiscal.html?_r=2&nl=us&emc=politicsemailema1
btw, nice graph Nate...
Quote from: nathanm on July 13, 2011, 04:33:29 PM
Perhaps this graphic will dispel Gaspar's notion about the "gigantic" spending increases we've supposedly seen from Obama.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_VgJQTp0Bsf0/TbXiFKpobBI/AAAAAAAAAfo/0eVTJ_mKHM4/safetynet_spend.jpg)
Yeah, income security is up, which is exactly what should happen when unemployment is high.
Enough with the graphs, I am a real dollars kinda person. And I thought the stimulus was supposed to stop rising unemployment.
Quote from: guido911 on July 13, 2011, 10:32:40 PM
Enough with the graphs, I am a real dollars kinda person. And I thought the stimulus was supposed to stop rising unemployment.
Kinda like how cutting taxes for the rich would increase revenue?
The Lame One is trying to scare the old folks.....
Was it guido or TTAC that wanted to cut breaks for the top income earners and cut entitlements (welfare) tothe states with the lowest tax returns?
Who ever it was wanted tocut off the benefits to the states withthelowest tax returns compared with the benefits paid. That would create a third world enviroment in the US, and create an enviroment worse than what we have now.
Why is it that Europe has a plan 'A' and a plan 'B' tosupport the Euro depending on what happens in Greece and Italy, and it should not have an effect on Ireland and other countries, and if Europe has to go to plan 'B' that China will step in to help bolster the economies of Europe? Where is our plan 'A' and plan 'B'? There is nothing from DC other than garbage. There is nothing from our leaders other than generic rhetoric. QUIT THE BS AND TELL US SOME PLAN!!!
Maybe I'm just to stupid to undrestand, but it seems that so much of where we are now goes back to when Regan was elected, and the breaking of the PATCO strike, and following that is the continued deregulation of US Industies, banking, oil, and stocks to create 'Trickle Down' economics. It has not worked, and has led to where we are now. In 1980 we had three commercial aircraft manufacturers. We now have one. We had a half dozen military manufactures, and a half dozen companies supporting NASA. Now cut all of those to one, and NASA is now done and 10 to 20 thousand are now unemployed. As much as I was a fan of Regan, we have deregulated ourselves to where we are now. I'm off my soapbox.
Unless Obama can avoid the constitutional requirement of checks an balances, or he has rewritten the constitution, he can say what he wants.
But he has no control over those items, and he does not control the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, or amendments it's not important.
Quote from: guido911 on July 13, 2011, 04:21:59 PM
Oopsie.
http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2011/07/13/advisory-david-cay-johnston-column-on-rupert-murdoch-is-withdrawn/
Yea, I just heard him fall on the sword on the radio.
Quote from: dbacks fan on July 14, 2011, 12:39:34 AM
it should not have an effect on Ireland and other countries
lol, that's the most hilarious thing I've heard in days. Bond traders are already driving up yields on Spanish debt over 6%. Spain, the one that was running a surplus before the financial crisis, and whose current deficit is reasonably manageable. Right now, I give the Euro less than 50/50 odds. I don't think the Germans have it in them to throw enough money down the sinkhole to keep it all going. Last I read they were talking about letting Greece default. ("Oh, but it won't be so bad, just a little default, not a big one!")
I guess they never heard of credit default swaps.
Quote from: nathanm on July 13, 2011, 04:33:29 PM
Perhaps this graphic will dispel Gaspar's notion about the "gigantic" spending increases we've supposedly seen from Obama.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_VgJQTp0Bsf0/TbXiFKpobBI/AAAAAAAAAfo/0eVTJ_mKHM4/safetynet_spend.jpg)
Yeah, income security is up, which is exactly what should happen when unemployment is high.
How does that dispel any myths? It's simple arithmetic. Sad you choose not to use it.
Spending is up, regardless of what he's spending it on. It would appear he's spending it on sustaining lower productivity amongst American workers instead of spending it on sustainable job growth opportunities. It proves the president has no idea how jobs are created so he's simply doing 4th down conversions until it can become someone else's problem and he can say he didn't strand the American worker.
To date, what has the president done in the way of trade negotiations or offering incentives for companies to hire more Americans to take them off of "income security" programs?
Quote from: Conan71 on July 14, 2011, 03:16:27 PM
How does that dispel any myths? It's simple arithmetic. Sad you choose not to use it.
Spending is up, regardless of what he's spending it on. It would appear he's spending it on sustaining lower productivity amongst American workers instead of spending it on sustainable job growth opportunities. It proves the president has no idea how jobs are created so he's simply doing 4th down conversions until it can become someone else's problem and he can say he didn't strand the American worker.
To date, what has the president done in the way of trade negotiations or offering incentives for companies to hire more Americans to take them off of "income security" programs?
And say what you will about ole 'Bubba', he was good with that part of it. This President has spent so much time trying to placate to the right that he's lost his way. Am I saying that the liberal way of trying to reign in spending is the wrong or right way? No. Neither is the math-challenged right's way (cutting spending but no revenue increases, better known as that conservative bad word: taxes).
Some middle ground on BOTH sides needs to happen here. It sounds like Boehner wants to play. His boy Cantor, however....
Quote from: Conan71 on July 14, 2011, 03:16:27 PM
How does that dispel any myths? It's simple arithmetic. Sad you choose not to use it.
Spending is up, regardless of what he's spending it on. It would appear he's spending it on sustaining lower productivity amongst American workers instead of spending it on sustainable job growth opportunities. It proves the president has no idea how jobs are created so he's simply doing 4th down conversions until it can become someone else's problem and he can say he didn't strand the American worker.
It dispels the myth that Obama is largely responsible for the ballooning budget deficit (in the sense of creation, as opposed to the sense in which, as the executive, he is responsible for all that goes on in government) . Social programs are precisely for the purpose of getting people through bad times. That you seemingly blame the existence of unemployment and health care for the indigent on the current President is telling.
Well, that's not entirely true. It dispels the myth that Obama created the budget deficit through spending. Obama is in fact largely responsible for giving the Republicans and large business interests what they asked for in more and more tax cuts that were supposed to induce employers into expanding.
As far as incentives to hire, there was a tax credit for that as part of ARRA. I believe there were others, also. Doesn't seem to have done a lot of good. If you're going to attack Obama for not having tried something, at least be sure it hasn't been tried.
Quote from: nathanm on July 14, 2011, 04:18:25 PM
It dispels the myth that Obama is largely responsible for the ballooning budget deficit (in the sense of creation, as opposed to the sense in which, as the executive, he is responsible for all that goes on in government) . Social programs are precisely for the purpose of getting people through bad times. That you seemingly blame the existence of unemployment and health care for the indigent on the current President is telling.
Well, that's not entirely true. It dispels the myth that Obama created the budget deficit through spending. Obama is in fact largely responsible for giving the Republicans and large business interests what they asked for in more and more tax cuts that were supposed to induce employers into expanding.
As far as incentives to hire, there was a tax credit for that as part of ARRA. I believe there were others, also. Doesn't seem to have done a lot of good. If you're going to attack Obama for not having tried something, at least be sure it hasn't been tried.
With your penchant for spin and making great excuses for the President, I'm still miffed why you don't have a job in the administration.
You seem to understand as much as POTUS Obama does about what
creates jobs. He thinks it's feeding unions, spending money on temporary construction projects, and public assistance helping to keep the workers at Kraft, Anheuser-Busch, Pepsi, and Kimberly Clark in jobs with every box of mac & cheese, 12 pack of Bud or Pepsi, or package of toilet paper it buys. A stagnant unemployment rate of 9 to 9.2% would seem to indicate not many jobs are being
created.
Publicly-traded corporations work to keep share-holders happy by staying profitable and returning value to the investor. Privately-held corporations and small business exist at the pleasure of their owners. They are free to keep the business as small as they want or grow as much as their ambitions and resources will allow them to. If small business owners view the Obama administration as anti-business (right, wrong, or entirely imagined) they won't invest any more than necessary until they feel there's a more business-friendly administration in power. There's been so much fear whipped into them about new taxes, new regulations, Obamacare, etc. a lot of business owners are content to not grow right now. We are within 1 1/2 years of the next election. I suspect not much growth will happen until after that.
Regardless of whatever right-wing spin those business owners may listen to on a daily basis, Obama has done this to himself with his left-wing pandering like: "You make enough already" "Spread the wealth around", etc. Even Clinton was bright enough to appear business-friendly even when raising taxes and imposing new regulations.
The economy isn't all about fiscal policy. It's also about having political leaders who can inspire confidence that the actions of the government are in the best interest of business prosperity and job creation.
What sort of positive environment has President Obama endeavored to create, via his words and actions? Please identify them. They've been precious few, IMO.
So now you fall back on feelings? The economy is bad because Obama hasn't been cheerful enough? Seriously? It's not a lack of demand, but a lack of cheer. ::)
Quote from: nathanm on July 14, 2011, 07:44:24 PM
So now you fall back on feelings? The economy is bad because Obama hasn't been cheerful enough? Seriously? It's not a lack of demand, but a lack of cheer. ::)
Obviously you cannot think of anything he's done to inspire the economy so you choose to mock me. The POTUS is crucial to setting a positive or negative feel about the business environment. A good deal of an economy is psychological.
You could create a real recession by doing nothing more than feeding the press with the news a recession is looming. People will stop spending, stop hiring, laying people off, and the inevitable will happen.
The president is a leader. Part of leadership is management, part of it is innovation and brilliance, part of it is inspiration and motivation.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 14, 2011, 08:05:53 PM
The president is a leader. Part of leadership is management, part of it is innovation and brilliance, part of it is inspiration and motivation.
And yet, we still here the praises to Baby Bush from the RWRE Murdochians. Yeah...I guess giving a back massage to the Chancellor of Germany is a totally inspirational leadership position.
And giving all his rich buddies a massive tax break was also inspirational, innovative, and motivational. Did I mention inspirational??
Just not for real people.
It is well known and proven beyond any doubt that the problems we have now started back in 1981 and massively escalated in 2001. $800 billion debt in 1980 (just a little more than we pay each year for interest now). $14 trillion today. All because of irresponsible spending and tax policy. Brought to you by 20 years of Republicontins and 11 years of Dummycrats.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 14, 2011, 11:40:45 PM
It is well known and proven beyond any doubt that the problems we have now started back in 1981 and massively escalated in 2001.
So, it's not Bushes fault?
In 1981 MTV was launched. Can we blame it on the Buggals!
Never said it was all Bush's fault. He just had the biggest hand in it. The previous residents of 1600 at least had a minimal understanding concerning the use of tax cuts/hikes. Baby Bush was too busy being drunk in public to listen to his advisors - if he had any.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 15, 2011, 01:25:33 PM
Never said it was all Bush's fault. He just had the biggest hand in it. The previous residents of 1600 at least had a minimal understanding concerning the use of tax cuts/hikes. Baby Bush was too busy being drunk in public to listen to his advisors - if he had any.
;D
You rock!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 15, 2011, 01:25:33 PM
Never said it was all Bush's fault. He just had the biggest hand in it. The previous residents of 1600 at least had a minimal understanding concerning the use of tax cuts/hikes. Baby Bush was too busy being drunk in public to listen to his advisors - if he had any.
No ! No ! That wouldnt be prudent....At this Juncture !
Quote from: DolfanBob on July 15, 2011, 02:21:52 PM
No ! No ! That wouldnt be prudent....At this Juncture !
Classic!
Quote from: Gaspar on July 15, 2011, 02:18:31 PM
How about I tell you why the obstructionist point of view is full of it? We have to roll over around $500 billion in debt in the next two months. You got $500 billion laying around? I don't. The government doesn't. So it has to borrow temporarily. If it can't borrow, it can't pay off the maturing bonds, thus the default.
Apparently reason is incapable of reason these days. They don't understand the difference between personal and sovereign (or even corporate) finance. Or that unexpectedly high tax receipts earlier in the year have enabled us to go longer without being flat broke. Or that the Treasury has been raiding pension funds and the like for months now.
So if you intended to post something for us to all point and laugh at, it was complete pwnage. If not, that was one of the failingest failboat fails I've seen in a long time.
Quote from: nathanm on July 15, 2011, 04:30:05 PM
How about I tell you why the obstructionist point of view is full of it? We have to roll over around $500 billion in debt in the next two months. You got $500 billion laying around? I don't. The government doesn't. So it has to borrow temporarily. If it can't borrow, it can't pay off the maturing bonds, thus the default.
Apparently reason is incapable of reason these days. They don't understand the difference between personal and sovereign (or even corporate) finance. Or that unexpectedly high tax receipts earlier in the year have enabled us to go longer without being flat broke. Or that the Treasury has been raiding pension funds and the like for months now.
So if you intended to post something for us to all point and laugh at, it was complete pwnage. If not, that was one of the failingest failboat fails I've seen in a long time.
Lemme translate that. "Reason TV is not advocating tax increases=fail". I thought it was a very reasonable view of this problem. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean its wrong.
Quote from: guido911 on July 15, 2011, 06:31:38 PM
Lemme translate that. "Reason TV is not advocating tax increases=fail". I thought it was a very reasonable view of this problem. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean its wrong.
You might want to brush up on your translation skills.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 13, 2011, 04:12:08 PM
As usual he pontificated about broad strokes, but when it came down to it was not able to offer a single thing he would be willing to put his name on.
You must not understand politics. He's put his name on all of it. He's put his name on $4T in deficit reduction, to be a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. That's a massive amount of cabbage to throw out there.
Unfortunately for you and for me, we won't get to know which lines they cross out and which ones they don't until after it happens. That's representative democracy for you.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 14, 2011, 03:16:27 PM
To date, what has the president done in the way of trade negotiations or offering incentives for companies to hire more Americans to take them off of "income security" programs?
Well, he loaned billions of dollars to the American auto industry, and they are, only a couple of years later not only solvent but all almost totally free of government funding/ownership. That saved a ton of jobs right there. He's repeatedly tried to reduce payroll taxes but the GOP has vetoed each one of his bills. ARRA had about $300B in it for infrastructure upgrades, keeping construction people in work. He's put packages for green infrastructure, small business lending, rural entrepreneurship, manufacturing, minority and women owned business, and R&D out there.
What sort of incentive are you envisioning? Because giving out further tax cuts across the board is flat ridiculous (though that wouldn't stop Obama from doing it, if the Republicans would let him.)
Quote from: we vs us on July 16, 2011, 11:04:03 PM
He's repeatedly tried to reduce payroll taxes but the GOP has vetoed each one of his bills. ... He's put packages for green infrastructure, small business lending, rural entrepreneurship, manufacturing, minority and women owned business, and R&D out there.
SS is in financial difficulty and you want to reduce revenue?
The company I work for is often compelled to buy from minority owned businesses and we have to pay a premium to do so. Since we do defense work, you pay for it. OK if that's what "we" want to do but just be aware it is not cost free.
(http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/beeler-barrypotter.jpg)
Quote from: Breadburner on July 17, 2011, 10:33:45 PM
(http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/beeler-barrypotter.jpg)
Hilarious!
Though it should read more like this:
GOP: Do something Barry!
Barry: Ok, 2 trillion in cuts!
GOP: Do something else, Barry!
Barry: 4 trillion in cuts!
GOP: Do something else, Barry!
Barry: Um, 2 trillion in cuts?
GOP: Do something else, Barry!
etc.
Quote from: we vs us on July 18, 2011, 06:01:19 AM
Hilarious!
Though it should read more like this:
GOP: Do something Barry!
Barry: Ok, 2 trillion in cuts!
GOP: Do something else, Barry!
Barry: 4 trillion in cuts!
GOP: Do something else, Barry!
Barry: Um, 2 trillion in cuts?
GOP: Do something else, Barry!
etc.
The funnier part is that no one can name a single cut that President Barry Soetoro has established. You see, the president never said he would be willing to cut 4 trillion. That number was part of a series of leaks targeted at MSNBC and CBS rehashing old numbers that the president threw out in a speech in April. Now, when asked, the president will not mention a single cut.
The $4 Trillion number came from a budget speech back in April (April 13th), where he alluded to a reduction OVER 12 YEARS that wouldn't start until 2014 (after Obamacare becomes irreversible). The speech was in response to the GOP's call for a $6.2 Trillion dollar cut to include many of the Obamacare outlays.
If you remember, this was another speech (like his February budget outlay) that frustrated the republicans, and the CBO because there were again no specifics and the impact was incalculable and in-actionable. Much like your bowls after a meal at Chipotle, this president will not present anything solid.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 18, 2011, 07:16:01 AM
The funnier part is that no one can name a single cut that President Barry Soetoro has established. You see, the president never said he would be willing to cut 4 trillion. That number was part of a series of leaks targeted at MSNBC and CBS rehashing old numbers that the president threw out in a speech in April. Now, when asked, the president will not mention a single cut.
Watch out, the New World Order is coming to getcha! :-*
Already got him.
I've replaced Gaspar's post with the image of five mysterious black helicopters. Let's see if he can tell the difference!
Quote from: Gaspar on July 18, 2011, 07:16:01 AM
The funnier part is . . . . .
(http://www.titanicuniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/black-helicopters.gif)
. . . . .this president will not present anything solid.
Gaspar, what is the Republican end game here? I don't understand what they want to accomplish other than to repeat the no tax mantra over and over again at ever increasing volumes.
Instead of a plan they are presenting a balanced budget amendment that they know will fail, its designed to fail, its designed to make a statement.
We have a real problem and the real sollution is cut spending and increase revenues. Repeating your dogma over and over again is not a sollution.
The two parties are deeply polarized, but the American people are not. That's why we're witnessing a market breakdown in our politics. A rising tide of voters might describe themselves as fiscally conservative but socially liberal, but because of the disproportionate influence of special interests like the religious right and public-sector unions, the two parties cannot meet this market demand. They are polarized and paralyzed—incapable of reasoning together to solve long-term problems, absent a crisis.
This was quoted off the Daily Beast. An article by John Avlon about the rise of third parties. It was to good of a quote to just let pass by.
Quote from: TulsaMoon on July 18, 2011, 09:23:39 AM
The two parties are deeply polarized, but the American people are not. That's why we're witnessing a market breakdown in our politics. A rising tide of voters might describe themselves as fiscally conservative but socially liberal, but because of the disproportionate influence of special interests like the religious right and public-sector unions, the two parties cannot meet this market demand. They are polarized and paralyzed—incapable of reasoning together to solve long-term problems, absent a crisis.
My early vote for post of the week.
Quote from: carltonplace on July 18, 2011, 09:22:01 AM
Gaspar, what is the Republican end game here? I don't understand what they want to accomplish other than to repeat the no tax mantra over and over again at ever increasing volumes.
Instead of a plan they are presenting a balanced budget amendment that they know will fail, its designed to fail, its designed to make a statement.
We have a real problem and the real sollution is cut spending and increase revenues. Repeating your dogma over and over again is not a sollution.
Why would a balanced budget amendment fail. Sure it failed back when Clinton refused to sign it several times, but ultimately it was signed and Clinton was celebrated because of it. I think we need a return to the policies that led to those surpluses. Yes, you are right he will never sign anything that outlines a reduction in spending, because that is not what he wants. He wants more money so that he can continue to increase spending.
I also think it would be wise to force the president to present something. . .anything. . .just show that he actually has a role in this. His tax and spend mantra is the tune that is leading the dance. The economy responds to his music, and so far he's been marching the band straight to hell without even giving any details of the layers of taxation he wishes to add. He is Jello.
Quote from: we vs us on July 16, 2011, 11:04:03 PM
Well, he loaned billions of dollars to the American auto industry, and they are, only a couple of years later not only solvent but all almost totally free of government funding/ownership. That saved a ton of jobs right there. He's repeatedly tried to reduce payroll taxes but the GOP has vetoed each one of his bills. ARRA had about $300B in it for infrastructure upgrades, keeping construction people in work. He's put packages for green infrastructure, small business lending, rural entrepreneurship, manufacturing, minority and women owned business, and R&D out there.
What sort of incentive are you envisioning? Because giving out further tax cuts across the board is flat ridiculous (though that wouldn't stop Obama from doing it, if the Republicans would let him.)
Other than the loans to GM and Shysler, there's nothing new or novel that hasn't been done by previous presidents in his approach. Wait, even Shysler has gotten a loan before.
To further the point: from 2002 to 2007 alone black-owned businesses increased by 61% across America. Open a federal bid package from any point in the last 30 some years and you will see preference for minority, women-owned, or disabled vet business written all over them. Rural entrepreneurship is manifested in terms of the usual farm subsidy programs but with a different wrapper (think bio-fuels).
Why doesn't it appear to be working for President Obama when approaches like that seem to have worked in the past?
Quote from: carltonplace on July 18, 2011, 09:22:01 AM
Gaspar, what is the Republican end game here? I don't understand what they want to accomplish other than to repeat the no tax mantra over and over again at ever increasing volumes.
Instead of a plan they are presenting a balanced budget amendment that they know will fail, its designed to fail, its designed to make a statement.
We have a real problem and the real sollution is cut spending and increase revenues. Repeating your dogma over and over again is not a sollution.
The "NO TAX!" mantra is reminding me of a child holding his breath until he turns blue.
(http://rationalsecurity.typepad.com/blog/images/2007/09/26/holding_breath.jpg)
It wouldn't piss me off near as much if Boehner and the rest of the GOP weren't feeding their own personal interests out of the treasury while they keep refusing to discuss tax increases. Everyone needs to contribute something to getting revenue and spending under control. Once we've got a balance, then fine, start lowering tax rates again.
What ever happened to Gramm-Rudman and other "balanced budget" bills. Why not a Contstitutional balanced budget amendment so we can keep Congress and the president in check?
Quote from: Gaspar on July 18, 2011, 10:04:39 AM
Why would a balanced budget amendment fail. Sure it failed back when Clinton refused to sign it several times, but ultimately it was signed and Clinton was celebrated because of it.
Uh what? The Constitution has never before required the federal government to never run a deficit. And the "several times" Clinton refused to allow a balanced budget amendment was actually zero times. The one time Congress tried to pass it, the proposal failed in the Senate.
Conan, I agree with your general sentiment. No economic good comes from government running a surplus, aside from the never-before-seen instance of runaway inflation not being controllable by the Fed manipulating the money supply itself. It could actually happen what with the Fed's balance sheet so gigantic right now forestalling their ability to raise rates by normal means, but it's exceedingly unlikely.
I only disagree in that I don't think now is the best time to be slashing the government's budget. It will only lead to a worsening of our present situation. I do think we need to shift our spending from blowing smile up and bailing out banks into things that most help stimulate demand and set binding deficit reduction goals that will automatically take effect when the economy improves.
Conan, nothing seems to be working because we're in an economic situation we haven't been in literally since the Great Depression. The main reasons we're not yet seeing Depression level economic dislocation are the FDIC, Unemployment Insurance, and the novel methods used by both Paulson and Geithner to keep (most of) the big banks afloat.
And I learned something very interesting over the weekend. The Fed has apparently been propping up the Euro and many Eurozone banks for the past several months.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 18, 2011, 10:04:39 AM
Why would a balanced budget amendment fail. Sure it failed back when Clinton refused to sign it several times, but ultimately it was signed and Clinton was celebrated because of it. I think we need a return to the policies that led to those surpluses. Yes, you are right he will never sign anything that outlines a reduction in spending, because that is not what he wants. He wants more money so that he can continue to increase spending.
I also think it would be wise to force the president to present something. . .anything. . .just show that he actually has a role in this. His tax and spend mantra is the tune that is leading the dance. The economy responds to his music, and so far he's been marching the band straight to hell without even giving any details of the layers of taxation he wishes to add. He is Jello.
The republicans are changing the debate. The current debate should be: How can we raise the debt limit AND reduce the deficit. The answer to the debate is to decrease spending drastically and increase revenues intelligently.
Should we change the tax code? Sure, but can we get that done now? probably not
Should we manage a ballanced budget? Probably so, but does it need to be a mandate written into the constitution? I don't think so.
The president has stated implicitly that we need to cut spending...do you think he is lying?
Quote from: Conan71 on July 18, 2011, 10:54:45 AM
The "NO TAX!" mantra is reminding me of a child holding his breath until he turns blue.
(http://rationalsecurity.typepad.com/blog/images/2007/09/26/holding_breath.jpg)
It wouldn't piss me off near as much if Boehner and the rest of the GOP weren't feeding their own personal interests out of the treasury while they keep refusing to discuss tax increases. Everyone needs to contribute something to getting revenue and spending under control. Once we've got a balance, then fine, start lowering tax rates again.
What ever happened to Gramm-Rudman and other "balanced budget" bills. Why not a Contstitutional balanced budget amendment so we can keep Congress and the president in check?
49 out of 50 states have a balanced budget requirement (you can guess who the one without is). So I agree. . .Why would it be a bad idea for our federal government to live within such a budget requirement?
Also, Conan, our revenue situation is fragile, and it gives us a choice that could result in disaster or triumph. The wisest decision would be to call on past experience and established economic performance models based on history rather than theory.
At this point in the fiscal year, we've managed to acquire a $971 billion deficit. That's more than an entire year's worth of federal DEFICIT spending before President Obama. The CBO estimates that the cumulative deficit over the next decade will be about $11 trillion. If our economy continues to grow at the current 2.25% of GDP, rather than the 3% that Obama predicts, our cumulative deficit will be closer to $13.7 trillion. So basically $2 Trillion in cuts (in increased spending) over 10 years will do nothing for us.
Now. . . If we were to grow that economy by 5% this year rather than 2.25%, we would have $734 billion in economic growth. Our government historically takes about 18% of GDP so that gives us $131 billion in tax revenues. Over 10 years with compounding, that's $1.72 Trillion. We've spurred growth like this before through policy changes. There is no reason to believe we cannot do it again.
Now on the other side of the spectrum we have the NON-Private Sector Growth "framework" the president has hinted at. This would include eliminating some deductions for businesses and the wealthy and eliminating those pesky Bush tax cuts. This would return $30 billion a year, or $300 billion over 10 years. If we get really hardassed and pull the tax cuts for corporate jet owners that's going to give us an extra $3 billion, so we would have a return of $303 Billion over 10 years as compared to $1.72
Trillion.
So, the question would be, how do we get the economy to add an additional 2.75% growth?
1. Incentivize business by lowering taxes
2. Increase depreciation on capital goods
3. Decrease energy costs (fastest direct influence on industry)
4. Relax regulation on lending
The problem with the above is that they work directly against the policies that the administration has put forth over the last three years. So, that makes the challenge for this president to raise taxes enough to overcome the growth of the deficit without any provisions to increase revenue. Even at his imagined 3% growth, this would mean either slashing entitlements in the budget or decimating business through tax hikes and creating a very temporary spike in revenue followed by a decline in GDP.
I would sure hate to be in his seat.
I get their "no tax" stance; they are republicans.
But really...they can't even capitulate to close egregious loopholes. That is where they part ways with most Americans and look intransigent.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 18, 2011, 11:54:45 AM
At this point in the fiscal year, we've managed to acquire a $971 billion deficit. That's more than an entire year's worth of federal spending before President Obama. The CBO estimates that the cumulative deficit over the next decade will be about $11 trillion. If our economy continues to grow at the current 2.25% of GDP, rather than the 3% that Obama predicts, our cumulative deficit will be closer to $13.7 trillion. So basically $2 Trillion in cuts (in increased spending) over 10 years will do nothing for us.
You've got me confused. We've had a federal budget of > $1 trillion since 1987.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 18, 2011, 12:09:18 PM
You've got me confused. We've had a federal budget of > $1 trillion since 1987.
I thought we were presently operating without a budget. It's difficult to bust a budget if you don't have one.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 18, 2011, 12:09:18 PM
You've got me confused. We've had a federal budget of > $1 trillion since 1987.
Deficit spending!
Quote from: Gaspar on July 18, 2011, 12:24:25 PM
Deficit spending!
Thank you, I knew I was missing something.
The world will come to end if we do not raise the debt ceiling. But Obama has time to crack a joke.
Or not.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 18, 2011, 11:54:45 AM
1. Incentivize business by lowering taxes
2. Increase depreciation on capital goods
3. Decrease energy costs (fastest direct influence on industry)
4. Relax regulation on lending
Do you have bucking amnesia or something? Did you already forget how relaxed regulation on lending led to an enormous housing bubble, which directly precipitated our present economic situation? Even if you are of the mind to blame it on the borrowers, clearly the banks need to be protected from being morons with our money. The problem isn't a lack of regulation, it's a lack of incentive. The banks can make more money investing than they can lending, so they don't do much lending these days. (at the large end, anyway)
Every one of those things but the third has already been done. I'd really love to see #3 tackled, but the reason energy prices are so high is the amount of money that's been dumped into commodities recently. I don't think we have the political will to go back to keeping everybody but the bona fide hedgers out of the commodities market. Too many people enjoy getting screwed by the ETFs, and too many others enjoy screwing the ETFs. (easy to do since they roll their contracts on a predictable schedule and therefore are vulnerable to front-runners)
Since the name of the thread is "consequences of a US default," I thought I might post more predictions, this time by Simon Johnson, former chief economist at the IMF. I think you'll agree, nothing but the finest awfulness awaits us.
Quote"The Republicans are right about one thing: a default would cause government spending to contract in real terms. But which would fall more, government spending or the size of the private sector? The answer is almost certainly the private sector, given its dependence on credit to purchase inputs. Indeed, take the contraction that followed the near-collapse of the financial system in 2008 and multiply it by ten."
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/johnson22/English
Quote from: we vs us on July 18, 2011, 09:33:44 PM
Since the name of the thread is "consequences of a US default," I thought I might post more predictions, this time by Simon Johnson, former chief economist at the IMF. I think you'll agree, nothing but the finest awfulness awaits us.
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/johnson22/English
Just what the GOP/TEAhackers want
Quote from: Teatownclown on July 18, 2011, 09:36:59 PM
Just what the GOP/TEAhackers want
It's nothing more than cheap political theater. The ceiling will be raised by Aug. 2.
As usual the Repugs want to make the Dims look like spendthrifts and the Dims want old people to believe they will be living on the street eating Alpo courtesy of Boehner and Co.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 18, 2011, 10:13:51 PM
It's nothing more than cheap political theater. The ceiling will be raised by Aug. 2.
As usual the Repugs want to make the Dims look like spendthrifts and the Dims want old people to believe they will be living on the street eating Alpo courtesy of Boehner and Co.
And the republicans want to create fear over running a deficit ignoring the investments in infrastructure and make the country default so they can make Obama look bad. Let's quit rehashing....
I will throw my support to Tom Coburn's plan until I see what it does to public education. Yes, I'd throw my support to Senator Tom's latest proposal. :o
Quote from: Teatownclown on July 18, 2011, 10:29:29 PM
And the republicans want to create fear over running a deficit ignoring the investments in infrastructure and make the country default so they can make Obama look bad. Let's quit rehashing....
I will throw my support to Tom Coburn's plan until I see what it does to public education. Yes, I'd throw my support to Senator Tom's latest proposal. :o
If it makes sense, why would anyone NOT support it? Have you started reading any of the text of it or a credible summary yet? I'd picked up the story this afternoon that he had a big reduction plan written, but no specifics. I'm anxious to hear the details.
Again, I still think line-item budget cutting is never going to work in this day and age. The only way to remove politics and insert common sense is to simply tell every department they are all taking an equal percent funding cut.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 18, 2011, 10:34:27 PM
Again, I still think line-item budget cutting is never going to work in this day and age. The only way to remove politics and insert common sense is to simply tell every department they are all taking an equal percent funding cut.
Yes, what we need is more people not spending money to fix the problem of people not spending money.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 18, 2011, 10:34:27 PM
Again, I still think line-item budget cutting is never going to work in this day and age. The only way to remove politics and insert common sense is to simply tell every department they are all taking an equal percent funding cut.
No way. Military is still on a 1958 design. A drone needs to focus on waste there and Coburn's plan trims 1 trillion in that area...but over how many years? 10?
The wars need to end and if we must fight then do it with precise technologies and specialty forces. Much lower costs through efficiency. But hands off education and environment and transportation percentile equivalent cutting. When it comes to our children lower costs will not lead to efficiency.
Just raise the SS age to 70 for kids under 40 and restrict BigPharma from gouging Medicare funds and we will be back in balance in no time.
Quote from: Teatownclown on July 18, 2011, 10:53:11 PM
No way. Military is still on a 1958 design. A drone needs to focus on waste there and Coburn's plan trims 1 trillion in that area...but over how many years? 10?
The wars need to end and if we must fight then do it with precise technologies and specialty forces. Much lower costs through efficiency. But hands off education and environment and transportation percentile equivalent cutting. When it comes to our children lower costs will not lead to efficiency.
Just raise the SS age to 70 for kids under 40 and restrict BigPharma from gouging Medicare funds and we will be back in balance in no time.
Agreed-- in a perfect world. Problem is, the military said they did not need (crap, I keep referencing this incident, I need to go find the link) one of their whizz-bang toys anymore or at least did not need to order more for x amount of years. What happened? The Congresspeople who
are on the payroll represent districts of those major defense suppliers raised holy hell and claimed to know better than the military did and demanded those programs not be cut because of the devastating effects for jobs in their districts. It's not just the military which is overly-dependent on the treasury. Everyone wants something out of the government these days whether its in the form of full healthcare benefits, safe banking, safe food, safe water, safe cars, or a paved cul-de-sac.
What ever happened to JFK's plea in his inaugural speech? I think he'd be appalled to see what a welfare state we've turned into (corporate and personal).
You see, you have your sacred cows, Nate the Keynesian has his, and I've got mine. That's why across the board cuts are the
only viable solution because you will have conservatives who will want cuts in Planned Parenthood if military spending is cut. Someone will want school lunch programs cut if you come after their oil tax credits, etc. ad nauseum. You will have to take prejudice out of the process for it to be successful, unfortunately.
Really, I do agree with you in a perfect world, but this world ain't close to perfect. Yes, even education could figure out how to become better and less demanding on $$$. You'll have to forgive me on that one after reading about the graft that arose out of Skiatook. It's made me even more cynical toward public schools and how much waste goes on that is never caught.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 18, 2011, 11:52:58 PM
What ever happened to JFK's plea in his inaugural speech? I think he'd be appalled to see what a welfare state we've turned into (corporate and personal).
What is the most tragic and by far the biggest cost is not personal welfare, but the corporate welfare.
At one time way back in the 90's...when Newt and Company were performing their "Contract On America", his home county (Cobb County) was the recipient of over $4 billion per year in all the various Federal Funds that flowed. Home of Martin Marietta - now merged with Lockheed to become Lockheed Martin.
You wanna bet on how much the poor folks of Cobb County got versus how much went to Martin Marietta?
Back then, when the budget was only about a trillion or so, that means if each county got 4 billion, only 250 counties in the entire nation would get money. Since Georgia has 159 counties, if Oklahoma with 77 got that kind of loot, would put us at 236. So 1 more state would get money - and only part of that state!
Not bad money if you can get it. And Speaker of the House gets it.
Conservative Republicans in the House don't have a clue on how to govern. There are times when you drop you ideology and do what has to be done. Whether it was done last December or later this week, it needs to be a clean bill raising the debt limit and letting the world know we pay our bills as the 14th Amendment says.
If Congress won't do it, then I hope Obama will. Obama's using the 14th Amendment, most likely causing a constitutional crisis, probably won't placate the world markets. Hopefully conservative ignorance won't put the American and world economy in the tank for generations.
Just Days To Go, And GOP Lawmakers Still Downplay Consequences Of Default
http://www.thewashingtoncurrent.com/2011/07/just-days-to-go-and-gop-lawmakers-still.html
Quote from: Teatownclown on July 18, 2011, 10:29:29 PM
And the republicans want to create fear over running a deficit ignoring the investments in infrastructure and make the country default so they can make Obama look bad. Let's quit rehashing....
I will throw my support to Tom Coburn's plan until I see what it does to public education. Yes, I'd throw my support to Senator Tom's latest proposal. :o
I'm sticking to my earlier comment. Get the damn deal done. Congress is so inept.
Quote from: Teatownclown on July 20, 2011, 11:19:53 AM
I'm sticking to my earlier comment. Get the damn deal done. Congress is so inept.
A deal for the sake of making a deal is not a good deal!
Remember the bills that we had to pass first so that we could see what was in them?
this is my stance on raising the debt, do you agree with it?
How can this Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars in new debt is good for our economy? How can they explain that they think it's fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes? That's what it will have to be. Why is it right to increase our nation's dependence on foreign creditors?
They should explain this. Maybe they can convince the public they're right. I doubt it. Because most Americans know that increasing debt is the last thing we should be doing. After all, the Baby Boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist would tell you we should be
reducing debt, not increasing it. This legislation will weaken our country.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 20, 2011, 01:06:14 PM
How can this Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars in new debt is good for our economy? How can they explain that they think it's fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes? That's what it will have to be. Why is it right to increase our nation's dependence on foreign creditors?
They should explain this. Maybe they can convince the public they're right. I doubt it. Because most Americans know that increasing debt is the last thing we should be doing. After all, the Baby Boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist would tell you we should be reducing debt, not increasing it. This legislation will weaken our country.
You do realize we control the money supply, right? 15 trillion dollars of debt is worth exactly what we say it is and no more. And why should I care if foreigners buy our debt? It's nothing more than a representation of all the stuff they've sent to us over the years. If they didn't buy our debt instruments, they'd just have actual dollar bills (or their electronic equivalent), which is essentially the same thing, just without interest.
We are no longer on the gold standard and no longer have fixed exchange rates. As long as we don't go stupid and start borrowing in someone else's currency, it's not the big problem everyone makes it out to be.
Austerity is more of a tax on future generations as the debt is. The growth that is proposed that we forego is a significant cost to them. Choosing to be Japan was one of the worst decisions we could have made for our future.
Quote from: nathanm on July 20, 2011, 09:32:06 PM
You do realize we control the money supply, right? 15 trillion dollars of debt is worth exactly what we say it is and no more. And why should I care if foreigners buy our debt? It's nothing more than a representation of all the stuff they've sent to us over the years. If they didn't buy our debt instruments, they'd just have actual dollar bills (or their electronic equivalent), which is essentially the same thing, just without interest.
We are no longer on the gold standard and no longer have fixed exchange rates. As long as we don't go stupid and start borrowing in someone else's currency, it's not the big problem everyone makes it out to be.
Austerity is more of a tax on future generations as the debt is. The growth that is proposed that we forego is a significant cost to them. Choosing to be Japan was one of the worst decisions we could have made for our future.
So it's just a big game of Monopoly!!! Right on!!!
Quote from: Conan71 on July 20, 2011, 11:21:51 PM
So it's just a big game of Monopoly!!! Right on!!!
Pretty much. But we insist on acting like we're still on the gold standard, so here we are arguing about whether or not we should let foreigners give us more stuff in exchange for essentially nothing. They export goods, we export green paper. They can complain about having too much green paper, but what are they going to do, stop sending us stuff? To whom would they sell their stuff? The non-manufacturing Europeans are flat out of capacity for more debt. The Chinese want to be exporters.
The rest of the BRIC bloc is still a long way from being a market big enough to prop up the exporting economies. Hell, they all want to be exporting economies. That's simply not possible.
It IS Monopoly game. Literally, figuratively, spiritually, and any other way you want to call it. There is NO other way to play this game though. All the KRMG "buy gold" advertisements to the contrary, there aren't enough ounces of gold (or any other 'precious' metal) to prop up the world's economy. There have only been about $ 5 trillion worth of gold mined in the history of the world (at today's prices). Wouldn't be much of an economy with so little available.
Quote from: nathanm on July 20, 2011, 09:32:06 PM
You do realize we control the money supply, right? 15 trillion dollars of debt is worth exactly what we say it is and no more. And why should I care if foreigners buy our debt? It's nothing more than a representation of all the stuff they've sent to us over the years. If they didn't buy our debt instruments, they'd just have actual dollar bills (or their electronic equivalent), which is essentially the same thing, just without interest.
We are no longer on the gold standard and no longer have fixed exchange rates. As long as we don't go stupid and start borrowing in someone else's currency, it's not the big problem everyone makes it out to be.
Austerity is more of a tax on future generations as the debt is. The growth that is proposed that we forego is a significant cost to them. Choosing to be Japan was one of the worst decisions we could have made for our future.
Oh poop! My bad, these were not my words. . .
QuoteHow can this Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars in new debt is good for our economy? How can they explain that they think it's fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes? That's what it will have to be. Why is it right to increase our nation's dependence on foreign creditors?
They should explain this. Maybe they can convince the public they're right. I doubt it. Because most Americans know that increasing debt is the last thing we should be doing. After all, the Baby Boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist would tell you we should be reducing debt, not increasing it. This legislation will weaken our country.
That was Harry Reid on the floor of the Senate in 2006 when we needed to bump up the debt ceiling. I suppose I was channeling Democrats again. ;)
I've repeatedly said that the only way I'm aligned with the Democrats on this issue is that the debt ceiling needs to be raised.
Quote from: nathanm on July 21, 2011, 01:36:03 PM
I've repeatedly said that the only way I'm aligned with the Democrats on this issue is that the debt ceiling needs to be raised.
There is nothing wrong with being a Democrat.
I understand where you are coming from though. You are more aligned with the philosophy and personality of President Obama, not necessarily his party.
I have serious doubts that this "push" liberalism will survive the next election though. The "Change You Can Believe In" mantra has become "Change You Can Step In."
President Obama has forced his party into a corner by leading from behind. Rather than the boldness they were accustomed to with Clinton and Bush, they are now forced to be the ones leading, while he simply offers the pen. Anyone can tell you (and it's the primary reason for an executive branch) that it's hard to get things done by committee!
I am happy that you are an independent thinker, even though your choice in deity may be problematic.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 21, 2011, 02:14:00 PM
I understand where you are coming from though. You are more aligned with the philosophy and personality of President Obama, not necessarily his party.
LOL, no. Obama is far too deferent to special interests for my taste. I don't defend him, I defend sanity. As in, it's insane to call someone who governs somewhere to the right of Nixon a socialist or whatever the epithet du jour is, so I try to inject some reality into the discussion.
The closest I usually come to defending Obama is when I'm either in agreement with a particular policy or when people complain that he isn't as much of a leftist as someone thought he was going to be. In the first case, I defend the policy, while in the second I point out that he has done almost exactly what he said he was going to do. He promised incrementalism, just with high flying language. And that's by and large what we've gotten.
Quote from: nathanm on July 21, 2011, 02:41:41 PM
As in, it's insane to call someone who governs somewhere to the right of Nixon a socialist or whatever the epithet du jour is, so I try to inject some reality into the discussion.
Are you dyslexic?
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 21, 2011, 10:21:37 PM
Are you dyslexic?
Nixon was about --><-- that close to expanding Medicare to cover everyone. As I recall, he also put price controls back into effect, among many other things that people today would consider pinko. When someone is talking about cutting Social Security and Medicare, it's hard for me to call them a leftist, much less a socialist.
Obama is an incrementalist. He did health care, but in the most business-friendly way possible: Giving the health insurance companies a captive audience.
Quote from: nathanm on July 22, 2011, 04:01:58 AM
Nixon was about --><-- that close to expanding Medicare to cover everyone. As I recall, he also put price controls back into effect, among many other things that people today would consider pinko.
Nixon did a lot of things I didn't care for but the Democratic alternatives were worse. I'll never forgive him for the 55 MPH speed limit. The withdrawal from Viet Nam was good though. In spite of some of the things Nixon did, to call Obama potentially to the right of Nixon is still pushing a bit.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 22, 2011, 06:36:07 AM
Nixon did a lot of things I didn't care for but the Democratic alternatives were worse. I'll never forgive him for the 55 MPH speed limit. The withdrawal from Viet Nam was good though. In spite of some of the things Nixon did, to call Obama potentially to the right of Nixon is still pushing a bit.
Oh, you'd be surprised. Nixon may have had an autocratic heart, but a lot of his policy was the equivalent of the modern day Dems. If you get out there and look, you'll be stunned at how far the goalposts have moved in 40 years.
And Nathan's right on the money. Obama's center-right as far as Democratic politics go, which is what makes the "ZOMGSOCIALISM!" thing such a headscratcher. Anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of history would be able to tell you that without hesitation. But: people really DON'T have a rudimentary grasp of history, and there's a huge, moneyed constituency out there with a vested interest in making sure that Obama is seen as a firebreathing redistributionist. It also helps that in times of protracted economic distress -- which we're definitely in -- people are just naturally freaked out.
Quote from: we vs us on July 22, 2011, 06:49:40 AM
Obama's center-right as far as Democratic politics go,
Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure from your perspective he is. I'll agree that Nixon would not fit the Teaparty stereotype.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 22, 2011, 07:50:44 AM
Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure from your perspective he is. I'll agree that Nixon would not fit the Teaparty stereotype.
Not even from my perspective. He's been president now long enough for you to compare his record with the record of people like Nixon and Clinton and Reagan, all the way back to FDR, etc. Especially regarding the content of his achievements and the compromises he's made, he's solidly center right.
There's no political left left in our country, currently. Sure, there's Bernie Sanders, and a few vocal Dem senators, but as an organized force -- outside the netroots -- it's dead in the water. On a personal level, this is why I'm disappointed in Obama. I believed he was going to articulate a compelling version of progressivism for the 21st century. He very much did NOT do that, and has instead played inside ball, worked in many cases without explaining himself, and all around NOT marketing a vision of anything.
Quote from: we vs us on July 22, 2011, 06:49:40 AM
Obama's center-right as far as Democratic politics go
I think that is a perception only held by the most progressive of liberals. He never fails to make a speech that doesn't include some direction towards wealth redistribution, and his crowning achievement, the Obamacare bill, did not turn out as he intended. His original hope was to develop or open the door to a single payer system. Though he failed it still represents the largest distribution of wealth plan since Medicare.
You are correct to some extent. He has become a corporatism liberal because he is beholden to several groups that can pull his political strings, and his close associations with the Gold Mansacks folks and the unions make him politically vulnerable if he does not tow the line for them, and make sure that tax money flows their way. His desire to simply lead from behind makes him weak to such groups.
Based on his past and his writings (or whoever wrote for him), he is a proud liberal with a strong faith in government, and a hatred for the private sector. In his book 'Dreams of My Father' he describes his one and only private sector job, as a financial adviser, as "working behind enemy lines."
His biggest risk is when he goes off prompter and says things that reveal his real philosophy. This makes the liberals love him and the conservatives fear him. Telling people that "you've made enough money", or throwing around the term "pay your fair share." These terms show that he has little understanding of the fact that the American economy is built on the backs of the small business person, not on the backs of the poor. The small business person already pays most of the taxes. Also the term "The Rich" is his favorite term. Reagan, Clinton, Bushes, very seldom used that term, especially in a derogatory sense. Instead they recognized that the majority of people who fall under that slur are actually small businesses responsible for most of the economic horsepower of this country.
The saving grace is that he is not a very good leader. He speaks well, but does not have the ability to execute. So basically his classification by some as "right of center" is due to the fact that he is not very good at leading his own charge and backing up his rhetoric. Though, the rhetoric alone is enough to stifle economic growth. . he indeed has the power to punish this country with his words alone.
Quote from: we vs us on July 22, 2011, 08:45:49 AM
Not even from my perspective. He's been president now long enough for you to compare his record with the record of people like Nixon and Clinton and Reagan, all the way back to FDR, etc. Especially regarding the content of his achievements and the compromises he's made, he's solidly center right.
There's no political left left in our country, currently. Sure, there's Bernie Sanders, and a few vocal Dem senators, but as an organized force -- outside the netroots -- it's dead in the water. On a personal level, this is why I'm disappointed in Obama. I believed he was going to articulate a compelling version of progressivism for the 21st century. He very much did NOT do that, and has instead played inside ball, worked in many cases without explaining himself, and all around NOT marketing a vision of anything.
Are you kidding me? "Hope" and "Change" was so definitive, though! (insert pic of your avatar here)
It was so nebulous, it allowed everyone to have all sorts of their own visions of hope and change. It's truly unfortunate that President Obama seems to have been a disappointment to just about everyone. Maybe next time people will look at real leadership qualities instead of voting for an idealogue with incredibly limited real-world leadership experience.
I would have far rather had Hillary Clinton in office than President Obama merely for the reason that she was probably somewhat of a co-president with former President Clinton (leadership), we know where she stands on issues, and she's a skilled politician who may be despised by quite a few people, but I think even many who despise her do respect her.
I do find characterizations coming from the left pretty funny. Someone who stands unwavering on principle like Speaker Boehner is called an "obstructionist". President Obama compromises and you guys start calling him "center-right". So you expect him to stand firm on left leaning principles, but it's unacceptable for a leader of the opposition to stand on his or her right leaning ones?
Quote from: Conan71 on July 22, 2011, 09:03:55 AM
I do find characterizations coming from the left pretty funny. Someone who stands unwavering on principle like Speaker Boehner is called an "obstructionist". President Obama compromises and you guys start calling him "center-right". So you expect him to stand firm on left leaning principles, but it's unacceptable for a leader of the opposition to stand on his or her right leaning ones?
Compromise does not mean giving one side everything it wants and telling the other one to sod off. To use HCR as a glaring example, compromise would have been a public option. One side wants pure free market, the other wants single payer. An individual mandate is not a compromise. Or take the current situation. Compromise is agreeing to some spending cuts in return for getting some tax increases, not being to the right of the average Republican voter by agreeing to cut Social Security and Medicare to the tune of a couple trillion dollars and agreeing to no actual bracket increases, just some loophole closing and offseting even that with another damned tax holiday on repatriated profits.
And, speaking of the debt ceiling issue, since when did it become liberal to pay for the things you've already said you're going to pay for?
Quote from: nathanm on July 22, 2011, 09:09:39 AM
And, speaking of the debt ceiling issue, since when did it become liberal to pay for the things you've already said you're going to pay for?
We are responsible for paying entitlements and interest. We are not yet responsible for future outlay. Reduce that outlay and you have
no need to lift the debt ceiling. We are already far beyond the % of GDP that we should be spending.
Sorry for the simple answer but that's how I roll!
Quote from: Gaspar on July 22, 2011, 09:31:26 AM
We are responsible for paying entitlements and interest. We are not yet responsible for future outlay. Reduce that outlay and you have no need to lift the debt ceiling. We are already far beyond the % of GDP that we should be spending.
That's simply not true. The debt ceiling must be raised regardless of whether we make any new appropriations at all. That is, to pay for obligations we've already incurred. Unless you're saying the Treasury ought to mint itself a nice trillion dollar coin and deposit that into its bank account to pay for all the stuff we've already bought.
Quote from: nathanm on July 22, 2011, 09:33:29 AM
That's simply not true. The debt ceiling must be raised regardless of whether we make any new appropriations at all. That is, to pay for obligations we've already incurred. Unless you're saying the Treasury ought to mint itself a nice trillion dollar coin and deposit that into its bank account to pay for all the stuff we've already bought.
Why shouldn't they? It's
just Monopoly money anyhow, right Nathan?
Quote from: Conan71 on July 22, 2011, 09:53:21 AM
Why shouldn't they? It's just Monopoly money anyhow, right Nathan?
I haven't thought about it enough to form an informed opinion. Viscerally, I have less of a problem with devaluing the dollar in the usual way than I do directly monetizing the deficit. At the same time, I'm not entirely sure that the mere act of minting the coin and depositing it in the government's account would be monetizing outlays (or debt), as there is no monetization until the notional funds are actually spent by the government.
Also, I have a hard time condemning us devaluing, although I'm not sure that other countries wouldn't attempt to keep their currencies weak and render our effort moot, precisely because most of our trading partners have been doing it since the collapse of Bretton Woods, and it has given them an artificially large trade surplus with us. Isn't that essentially the same thing as monetizing debt?
So yeah, no real opinion yet, just conflicting arguments in my head that I have yet to fully ruminate upon.
Quote from: nathanm on July 22, 2011, 09:33:29 AM
That's simply not true. The debt ceiling must be raised regardless of whether we make any new appropriations at all. That is, to pay for obligations we've already incurred. Unless you're saying the Treasury ought to mint itself a nice trillion dollar coin and deposit that into its bank account to pay for all the stuff we've already bought.
That's not true. We have yet to exceed the debt ceiling. Sure, we may exceed it, but that does not trigger a default unless we choose not to pay. The ceiling is an engineered milestone, designed to control our spending (bahahahaha!). The obligations we are responsible for are entitlements and interest payments to our creditors. The rest is up to us to modify.
Cut spending!
(http://reason.com/assets/mc/jtaylor/bokpressconference.jpg)
Excellent and oh so true cartoon Gaspar.
The Business crowd might just learn what a mistake it was to create this frankenstien theory of linking the defecit argument to raising the debt ceiling in the first place. The Business lobby was calling for meetings with the House Freshmen (read: Teabagging extremists) to impress upon them the seriousness of the catastrophy that they are bent on percipitating.
Unfortunately, we might all end up suffering the consequences of the GOP/Teabaggers misguided zealotry.
I still have yet to see a large scale catastrophe that will happen if the debt ceiling isn't raised.
I think they have overused the fear card. They voted the stimulus and bank bailouts because they screamed "MARTIAL LAW" and "RIOTS IN THE STREETS." I don't know that will work again so soon.
Submitted without comment for your consideration:
http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Debt%20Ceiling%20Analysis%20FINAL_0.pdf
That's a pretty sad metric on page 13 of the report Nathan posted. Roughly 45% of our spending is on borrowed money. Yeesh.
For your reference:
A nice slideshow detailing who actually owns our debt, and who would be affected by a default.
http://www.businessinsider.com/who-owns-us-debt-2011-7#
China isn't as big of a creditor as you probably think.
Brit pol Vince Cable: 'Right-wing nutters' stop debt deal
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59802.html
" A top British finance minister says the world's biggest economic threat is from "right-wing nutters" in Congress who would send the U.S. government into default. "
Do we have to wait until the TeaBaggers discover that they've been used? That they've been bamboozled into voting against their self-interest, over and over? I doubt that will be effective, since I don't see anyone re-educating them. The right-wing echo chamber will distract them with fear mongering about same-sex marriage in New York and abortions and non-white presidents and blond-haired, blue-eyed xtian terrorist who must really be working for muslims because we know that white xtians don't commit acts of terror.
Take a look around TNF to see all the nobody's lying around.....
Quote from: we vs us on July 25, 2011, 11:46:14 AM
For your reference:
A nice slideshow detailing who actually owns our debt, and who would be affected by a default.
http://www.businessinsider.com/who-owns-us-debt-2011-7#
China isn't as big of a creditor as you probably think.
That's supposed to make us feel good?
The fact remains we still have a serious problem of the government living beyond it's means.
QuoteTake a look around TNF to see all the nobody's lying around.....
WTH are you getting at?
Quote from: Gaspar on July 22, 2011, 03:43:35 PM
(http://reason.com/assets/mc/jtaylor/bokpressconference.jpg)
That goes to the heart of the whole delusion being passed off by the RWRE Murdochians. It is NOT yours! "Yours" was given up when you voted for all the people in the last 30 years that have pushed this country so deep into debt. Trillion for "Star Wars". Another trillion to run Russia into the ground by spending them to death. Another 3 - 4 trillion for misspent on the wrong war (Iraq). A trillion here...a trillion there...
To use the RWRE favorite business analogy; it is as if you had $100,000 of credit card debt on a $100,000 per year income. Only the RWRE would make such an absurd, insane assertion that the income was "theirs". No, it isn't. It belongs to the credit card company. Just like the national debt belongs to our note and bond holders. And the country OWES that much.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 25, 2011, 12:44:20 PM
That goes to the heart of the whole delusion being passed off by the RWRE Murdochians. It is NOT yours! "Yours" was given up when you voted for all the people in the last 30 years that have pushed this country so deep into debt. Trillion for "Star Wars". Another trillion to run Russia into the ground by spending them to death. Another 3 - 4 trillion for misspent on the wrong war (Iraq). A trillion here...a trillion there...
To use the RWRE favorite business analogy; it is as if you had $100,000 of credit card debt on a $100,000 per year income. Only the RWRE would make such an absurd, insane assertion that the income was "theirs". No, it isn't. It belongs to the credit card company. Just like the national debt belongs to our note and bond holders. And the country OWES that much.
So you don't own the fruits of your productivity? The government owns it?
Quote from: Conan71 on July 25, 2011, 12:46:02 PM
So you don't own the fruits of your productivity? The government owns it?
You only own what the government thinks you deserve.
I mean, at some point you've made enough.
You need to pay your fare share.
Spread the wealth.
Why should you keep money that you don't need?
No, that is not what I said. (You know that - don't go guido...)
The owners of the notes and bonds issued by the US Treasury own your 'proportional' part of your productivity. We are indebted to the tune of 14 trillion. You know what that means to your business AND what it means to the country.
Think what we could have done with an extra 14 trillion running around in the economy instead of paying interest on it!!
Quote from: Conan71 on July 25, 2011, 12:16:38 PM
That's supposed to make us feel good?
The fact remains we still have a serious problem of the government living beyond it's means.
WTH are you getting at?
I know how hard it is for people to look inside and see the real nobody's that confuse this debate over debt ceiling with deficit control. What am I getting at? A certain mind set that is not patriotic and works contrary to what's best for America. Government doesn't live beyond it's means people do.
Last week I was sitting with some young couples who were admiring Toronto for it's cleanliness and the good attitudes everyone seemed to have during their recent visit there. Then they proceeded to go on a rant about our tax rates in the US. Amazing how dislodged people are from what it means to work together for the betterment of society. The relationship and trade-offs between tax proceeds and allocations to help others just went right over these young zealot heads.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903520204576482130573413062.html
Totally digging the stabilizing effects this debt ceiling "debate" has had on our fragile economy.
Hint: from the article, so much cash flooded back into standard savings accts from market investments that one suggestion amongst bankers was to consider charging "negative interest rates" on the buckets of useless cash coming in.
Not so much a rush to quality as a rush from batshitinsanery.
Quote from: we vs us on August 01, 2011, 10:13:38 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903520204576482130573413062.html
Totally digging the stabilizing effects this debt ceiling "debate" has had on our fragile economy.
Hint: from the article, so much cash flooded back into standard savings accts from market investments that one suggestion amongst bankers was to consider charging "negative interest rates" on the buckets of useless cash coming in.
Not so much a rush to quality as a rush from batshitinsanery.
Hate to burst your bubble, but it's the flavor of the week. With the relative instant gratification of electronic money transfers as well as being able to trade all sorts of investments in seconds, it could all go to smile again by the end of the week. Wait till all the details come out or there's a negative job report, or a volcano spews a little ash down around New Zealand.
IOW- Immediate euphoria was not unexpected, what's the over/under on how long it lasts?