Financial News

[StrangeSox]

Oh please. If the tables were reversed we'd be in the exact same f***ing position with the Dems. Bush wants to finance his two wars of choice but the deficits out of control. Of course the Dems would have used this as political leverage to reign in "wasteful" spending. Well, surprise, the GOP is smart and is doing the exact same f***ing thing.

 

You just sunk your own argument. As you pointed out, this happened 30+ times before with some posturing but no really big show. The Insane Caucus of the GOP that was elected last fall changed that. Democrats did not do this, and pretending that there's symmetry is just lying to yourself.

[Balta1701]

And I think those are both stupid ideas. Burying us in more debt is a horrible idea of the long term, we need to start making dents in the deficit, then the debt, ASAP for many reasons. And even larger tax cuts is equally idiotic.

If you want to make the deficit go away completely, just stick to current law. Thanks to the PPACA, if you stick to current law, the budget is fully balanced by 2015.

 

There is only a short term deficit if Congress does things like extending the Bush tax cuts.

[NorthSideSox72]

Yes. I fully accept this logic. Virtually that exact statement has been written dozens of times since 2008, and still, "U.S. paper" has run well under the inflation target. Banks like JPM have lost billions betting you were right.

 

Inflation is no threat until there is upward pressure on wages (unless we default). That won't happen with 9% unemployment. Every cut we make right now is a job that is cut, is a taxpayer that goes from paying taxes to collecting unemployment and Medicaid, and might well have virtually no impact on the deficit.

I just think you are dangerously wrong here.

 

And so are the idiots saying CUT 15 TRILLION AND CUT TAXES IN HALF NOW!!!

 

[StrangeSox]

And I think those are both stupid ideas. Burying us in more debt is a horrible idea of the long term, we need to start making dents in the deficit, then the debt, ASAP for many reasons. And even larger tax cuts is equally idiotic.

 

You know what would really help the deficit? Increasing revenues and decreasing outlays on safety net spending by focusing on jobs. It'd be a particularly good time to invest heavily in infrastructure repairs and upgrades, what with incredibly low interest rates. There's not even any private sector spending to crowd out right now, either!

[StrangeSox]

If you want to make the deficit go away completely, just stick to current law. Thanks to the PPACA, if you stick to current law, the budget is fully balanced by 2015.

 

There is only a short term deficit if Congress does things like extending the Bush tax cuts.

 

There's also this.

[StrangeSox]

Hey, I have an idea. How about if Congress just passes a bill to raise the debt ceiling and sends it to the president? That would work, wouldn't it? I wonder why no one's thought of this before?

[Balta1701]

There's also this.

I should correct myself.

 

The "Bush/Obama tax cuts."

[Jenksismyhero]

You just sunk your own argument. As you pointed out, this happened 30+ times before with some posturing but no really big show. The Insane Caucus of the GOP that was elected last fall changed that. Democrats did not do this, and pretending that there's symmetry is just lying to yourself.

 

At some point you gotta say enough is enough. Going through the worst economic recession in 80+ years followed by 2-3 years of absolute horses*** for recovery will do that.

[southsider2k5]

Yes. I fully accept this logic. Virtually that exact statement has been written dozens of times since 2008, and still, "U.S. paper" has run well under the inflation target. Banks like JPM have lost billions betting you were right.

 

Inflation is no threat until there is upward pressure on wages (unless we default). That won't happen with 9% unemployment. Every cut we make right now is a job that is cut, is a taxpayer that goes from paying taxes to collecting unemployment and Medicaid, and might well have virtually no impact on the deficit.

 

Until the economy recovers despite the failed spending plans and interest rates push us up near a trillion dollars a year in interest repayment by the time the spending is all added up...

[Jenksismyhero]

Hey, I have an idea. How about if Congress just passes a bill to raise the debt ceiling and sends it to the president? That would work, wouldn't it? I wonder why no one's thought of this before?

 

Hasn't the GOP done this? Twice? (to the zero for Democrats) But the Senate said no?

 

And why waste all that time/effort if ultimately the President is going to say no, like he did last night?

[Balta1701]

Hasn't the GOP done this? Twice? (to the zero for Democrats) But the Senate said no?

 

And why waste all that time/effort if ultimately the President is going to say no, like he did last night?

No, it has not been done, there was a "give everyone a chance to vote against a clean debt ceiling bill for political posturing" vote a couple months ago. The Republican who introduced the bill even voted against it.

[StrangeSox]

At some point you gotta say enough is enough. Going through the worst economic recession in 80+ years followed by 2-3 years of absolute horses*** for recovery will do that.

 

You're talking in circles. Either the debt ceiling increase is routine and non-problematic to do in two stages, or this dragged out fight is noble and necessary because we're in a bad recession that certainly won't be any better in 6-8 months. But, magically, in 6-8 months the GOP will see the light and realize they almost destroyed the US economy.

 

But you must absolutely refuse any revenues increases and insist that the cuts should come heavily from all the programs you've ideologically wanted to cut for decades anyway. Even if the deficit was largely created by your tax and foreign policies and some significant domestic policy spending as well. Nothing political there, nope.

 

Sarcasm aside, you'll need to explain why it'll be any easier to pass an increase once it's become the Presidential campaign issue that Obama wants to avoid in 6-8 months and how this isn't Republicans setting this up as beneficial as possible for themselves, but Democrats insisting on a deal into 2013 is a cold, calculated "me-first, f*** the country" move, despite various ratings agencies and financial people saying a short-term deal is a bad idea.

Edited July 25, 2011 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Hasn't the GOP done this? Twice? (to the zero for Democrats) But the Senate said no?

 

And why waste all that time/effort if ultimately the President is going to say no, like he did last night?

 

LOL no, a clean increase with no strings would pass easily.

[Balta1701]

LOL no, a clean increase with no strings would pass easily.

?

 

I seriously don't believe so. I don't think it would get through the House. I'm not sure about the Senate.

[StrangeSox]

?

 

I seriously don't believe so. I don't think it would get through the House. I'm not sure about the Senate.

 

Jenks thought that the House-controlled GOP already did this twice. I'm fairly certain that the Senate would pass this quickly, but I guess I assumed we were talking about a long-term increase, not a 6-8 month one.

Edited July 25, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

Jenks thought that the House-controlled GOP already did this twice. I'm fairly certain that the Senate would pass this quickly.

He's wrong. The House voted 318 to 97 against a clean debt ceiling bill earlier in the year. (Most of the Democrats voted against it so that the Republicans couldn't use it as a political noose).

 

Right now there's nearly 100 Republicans in the House who have signed a letter saying they wont' vote for a debt ceiling increase under any circumstances, I believe. Enough that Boehner can't pass a bill without substantial Democratic support. That means he'd have to bring the bill up for vote with substantial opposition from his own party, nearly half his caucus. That's a mess.

[StrangeSox]

He's wrong. The House voted 318 to 97 against a clean debt ceiling bill earlier in the year. (Most of the Democrats voted against it so that the Republicans couldn't use it as a political noose).

 

Right now there's nearly 100 Republicans in the House who have signed a letter saying they wont' vote for a debt ceiling increase under any circumstances, I believe. Enough that Boehner can't pass a bill without substantial Democratic support. That means he'd have to bring the bill up for vote with substantial opposition from his own party, nearly half his caucus. That's a mess.

 

I know, I was saying that had such a bill actually passed through the House, the Senate would have passed it and it'd be signed. I was laughing at the idea that the House GOP has done this twice.

 

But this is just a noble stand against out-of-control spending, not political or ideological fighting at all.

Edited July 25, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Y2HH]

I just think you are dangerously wrong here.

 

And so are the idiots saying CUT 15 TRILLION AND CUT TAXES IN HALF NOW!!!

 

We agree.

[NorthSideSox72]

You know what would really help the deficit? Increasing revenues and decreasing outlays on safety net spending by focusing on jobs. It'd be a particularly good time to invest heavily in infrastructure repairs and upgrades, what with incredibly low interest rates. There's not even any private sector spending to crowd out right now, either!

That would be great, if we had the money. I suppose if you just threw in the towel immediately on Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya today, you might start to get some of that flexibility back in a year or two.

 

[StrangeSox]

incredibly low interest rates

[Jenksismyhero]

You're talking in circles. Either the debt ceiling increase is routine and non-problematic to do in two stages, or this dragged out fight is noble and necessary because we're in a bad recession that certainly won't be any better in 6-8 months. But, magically, in 6-8 months the GOP will see the light and realize they almost destroyed the US economy.

 

But you must absolutely refuse any revenues increases and insist that the cuts should come heavily from all the programs you've ideologically wanted to cut for decades anyway. Even if the deficit was largely created by your tax and foreign policies and some significant domestic policy spending as well. Nothing political there, nope.

 

Sarcasm aside, you'll need to explain why it'll be any easier to pass an increase once it's become the Presidential campaign issue that Obama wants to avoid in 6-8 months and how this isn't Republicans setting this up as beneficial as possible for themselves, but Democrats insisting on a deal into 2013 is a cold, calculated "me-first, f*** the country" move, despite various ratings agencies and financial people saying a short-term deal is a bad idea.

 

How on earth is that talking in circles? My "it's routine" argument is that I don't understand why Wall St would all of the sudden freakout just because the decision for the terms of raising the ceiling is being kicked another 6 months. Has the market been freaking out the last 6 months because of uncertainty? No. But that doesn't mean we don't have a deficit problem that needs to be addressed.

 

And the GOP hasn't refused ANY revenue increases. From listening to the radio yesterday they were agreeable to closing a lot of corporate tax loopholes that would increase revenues, as well as lifting a lot of fees. They're against tax increases. Pray tell how small businesses are going to be hiring left and right when their bottom line is getting smaller and smaller.

 

It's not a democrat me-first f*** the country move, it's Obama. Reid was on board with the two step plan. And i'm fine kicking it for 6-8 months because that gives them more time to negotiate a good deal going forward. At this point we don't have the time. And i know, i know, those soulless republicans could have just agreed to Obama's plan weeks ago!

Edited July 25, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

No, it has not been done, there was a "give everyone a chance to vote against a clean debt ceiling bill for political posturing" vote a couple months ago. The Republican who introduced the bill even voted against it.

 

Yeah I was thinking of overall budget proposals.

[Jenksismyhero]

I know, I was saying that had such a bill actually passed through the House, the Senate would have passed it and it'd be signed. I was laughing at the idea that the House GOP has done this twice.

 

But this is just a noble stand against out-of-control spending, not political or ideological fighting at all.

 

Never said that

[StrangeSox]

How on earth is that talking in circles? My "it's routine" argument is that I don't understand why Wall St would all of the sudden freakout just because the decision for the terms of raising the ceiling is being kicked another 6 months. Has the market been freaking out the last 6 months because of uncertainty? No. But that doesn't mean we don't have a deficit problem that needs to be addressed.

 

They didn't think the GOP would actually turn down the various incredibly favorable deals they've been offered. You're still going in circles because the current brinksmanship is absolutely nothing like any debt ceiling increase before.

 

And the GOP hasn't refused ANY revenue increases. From listening to the radio yesterday they were agreeable to closing a lot of corporate tax loopholes that would increase revenues, as well as lifting a lot of fees. They're against tax increases.

 

Cantor's been opposed to revenue increases period. Boehner's refused them as well. Where have you been the last few weeks?

 

It's not a democrat me-first f*** the country move, it's Obama. Reid was on board with the two step plan. And i'm fine kicking it for 6-8 months because that gives them more time to negotiate a good deal going forward. At this point we don't have the time. And i know, i know, those soul less republicans could have just agreed to Obama's plan weeks ago!

 

They've had months already. Why will this be easier in 6-8 months? Will the 90+ House Republicans disavow their pledge to vote against increase no matter what?

 

It's me-first, f*** the country for Obama to want to avoid this being the focus of American politics for the next year, but not for Republicans to insist that it is?

Edited July 25, 2011 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

incredibly low interest rates

Again, yeah, great time for that, if you have the money.

 

If you have maxed out your credit card, but the rate on getting another credit card is insanely low, and you think you can invest some money smartly... sure, it is tempting. It should be. But do you just entirely dismiss that at some point, if you run up so much debt, the risk is too high? No investment, infrastructure or otherwise, is without risk. You are failing to see that side of it.