Financial News

[StrangeSox]

 

 

Two charts courtesy of Kevin Drum that I found interesting.

Edited July 27, 2011 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Another fun (read: sad, depressing) chart

 

 

http://www.thenation.com/image/extreme-inequality-chart

[Balta1701]

Well, first they want more. And my goodness, I want more too. And secondly, a lot of them believe that if we get passed August the second and we have enough chaos, we could force the Senate and the White House to accept a balanced budget amendment. I’m not sure that that — I don’t think that that strategy works. Because I think the closer we get to August the second, frankly, the less leverage we have vis a vis our colleagues in the Senate and the White House.

The speaker of the House, describing his own caucus.

[StrangeSox]

jesus christ

[NorthSideSox72]

Could we please stop with the default bulls*** already. We will not default. Once again we will cover our borrowing costs, ergo no Default.

If I owe you money, on say an invoice or a payment for services or an entitlement or settlement... and I decide to not pay you, in favor of only paying my mortgage, which is a debt in service... you are saying I am not defaulting on my obligations?

 

LOL, how can you say that with a straight face?

 

If I fail to pay you, I have become indebted to you, and if I am not paying, then I am by definition in default.

 

[StrangeSox]

We may or may not default on bonds. Hard to say since there's no mechanism in place for legally deciding who not to pay, because no other group of politicians has ever intentionally desired to destroy our economy in order to get policy changes and constitutional amendments.

[NorthSideSox72]

We may or may not default on bonds. Hard to say since there's no mechanism in place for legally deciding who not to pay, because no other group of politicians has ever intentionally desired to destroy our economy in order to get policy changes and constitutional amendments.

Point is, if you don't have enough money to pay all your obligations, you will fail to pay something. It may not be (probably wouldn't be) a BOND default, but it will be some sort of default on an obligation.

 

[StrangeSox]

Point is, if you don't have enough money to pay all your obligations, you will fail to pay something. It may not be (probably wouldn't be) a BOND default, but it will be some sort of default on an obligation.

 

Oh I agree, but that's where ck's quibble is going to be.

[Balta1701]

We may or may not default on bonds. Hard to say since there's no mechanism in place for legally deciding who not to pay, because no other group of politicians has ever intentionally desired to destroy our economy in order to get policy changes and constitutional amendments.

I think it's highly likely that Geithner will continue making bond payments if we get pushed this far. At least for the near future it's talking about amounts ~$50 billion, not trillions.

 

The mess is going to be the rest. The ratings agencies could easily cut the status of U.S. debt based solely on the fact that they couldn't meet their obligations, or that they couldn't come to a deal. S&P has threatened to do just that. That alone would throw the system into chaos, even if the U.S. never misses a bond interest payment, because of the mandatory AAA capital requirements.

 

Then there's the state/local government payouts made by the government, which, if they dried up, would cause legitimate bond defaults rippling through the country, because construction bonds would actually come due with no money to pay them.

[Balta1701]

House Republicans are delaying a debt ceiling vote but several GOP aides say it will still happen tonight.

Safe to say that after a full day of whipping the GOP in the House doesn't have the votes if they're delaying the scheduled vote.

 

This would be great to be a fly on the wall. They're probably close, which means they need to offer some Rep/couple Reps the Moon to get them to agree to vote for the thing.

[StrangeSox]

No vote on Boehner's plan tonight, as many as four votes short of passing a bill that has zero chance in the Senate or of being signed into law. He's got to make it more right-wing to pass the House.

[Balta1701]

No vote on Boehner's plan tonight, as many as four votes short of passing a bill that has zero chance in the Senate or of being signed into law. He's got to make it more right-wing to pass the House.

Wow, I'm somewhat surprised but really shouldn't be.

 

He could, of course, just bring 30 votes and accept the Reid plan without the Social Security and Medicare triggers.

[Rex Kickass]

Wow, I'm somewhat surprised but really shouldn't be.

 

He could, of course, just bring 30 votes and accept the Reid plan without the Social Security and Medicare triggers.

 

At this point, for the sake of his speakership, he really can't. Reid can't get his plan passed in the Senate until Boehner's plan is killed (although 58 senators have publicly stated they will not vote for Boehner's plan) because McConnell can whip his caucus in line and doesn't want to abandon the Speaker. The truth is that Reid's plan is going to pass ultimately - especially if Boehner can't whip the votes by this afternoon, because the Senate is literally running out of time, AND the markets are seriously starting to tank. The Dow is down 4% this week so far which futures pointing to a sharply lower open, because of poor GDP numbers for the second quarter.

 

Boehner is the weakest speaker we have seen in over a generation, unable to whip enough votes to pass what should be something that is purely procedural at this point - and painted in a corner in such a way that he can't negotiate with house Democrats to get to 217.

[southsider2k5]

At this point, for the sake of his speakership, he really can't. Reid can't get his plan passed in the Senate until Boehner's plan is killed (although 58 senators have publicly stated they will not vote for Boehner's plan) because McConnell can whip his caucus in line and doesn't want to abandon the Speaker. The truth is that Reid's plan is going to pass ultimately - especially if Boehner can't whip the votes by this afternoon, because the Senate is literally running out of time, AND the markets are seriously starting to tank. The Dow is down 4% this week so far which futures pointing to a sharply lower open, because of poor GDP numbers for the second quarter.

 

Boehner is the weakest speaker we have seen in over a generation, unable to whip enough votes to pass what should be something that is purely procedural at this point - and painted in a corner in such a way that he can't negotiate with house Democrats to get to 217.

 

Huh, and I was told that all Republicans are the same. Go figure.

[StrangeSox]

2010Q4 and Q1 this year were also revised downward, and pretty significantly.

 

I lay this more at the feet of the freshmen tea party Representatives more than Boehner.

[StrangeSox]

Huh, and I was told that all Republicans are the same. Go figure.

 

Not voting in unity is a pretty unusual occurrence for the GOP.

[southsider2k5]

2010Q4 and Q1 this year were also revised downward, and pretty significantly.

I lay this more at the feet of the freshmen tea party Representatives more than Boehner.

 

That's not a big surprise really. The economy is just falling apart right now.

[NorthSideSox72]

At this point, for the sake of his speakership, he really can't. Reid can't get his plan passed in the Senate until Boehner's plan is killed (although 58 senators have publicly stated they will not vote for Boehner's plan) because McConnell can whip his caucus in line and doesn't want to abandon the Speaker. The truth is that Reid's plan is going to pass ultimately - especially if Boehner can't whip the votes by this afternoon, because the Senate is literally running out of time, AND the markets are seriously starting to tank. The Dow is down 4% this week so far which futures pointing to a sharply lower open, because of poor GDP numbers for the second quarter.

 

Boehner is the weakest speaker we have seen in over a generation, unable to whip enough votes to pass what should be something that is purely procedural at this point - and painted in a corner in such a way that he can't negotiate with house Democrats to get to 217.

I actually don't think this is a function of weakness from the Speaker. I think the problem the GOP has in the House is, basically, they sold themselves out to the lunatic fringe. They won in a big wave in 2010 becuase the ones who won, were either Tea Partiers, or people who had to slide way to the right and act like Tea Partiers. So now that they are in office, tey have to keep up the charade, or else they will lose in 2012 (or in some cases, there is no charade, they really are that extremist). Either way, the GOP sold their souls to get Tea Party support, and now they are stuck with it. They can either vote away from sanity, or they can compromise and then possibly lose in 2012.

 

This is where the Dems and GOP really are very different. The modern Dems don't get dragged to ideological extremes - they get dragged into so much comrpomise that they come off as wimps and fail to protect their constituents. The modern GOP on the other hand, outright embraces extremism and principal, to a point so ridiculous that they can't achieve anything.

 

I'm not sure how it would start, but I still think it would be healthy to have 2 more parties that actually had some influence and votes.

 

[Rex Kickass]

I actually don't think this is a function of weakness from the Speaker. I think the problem the GOP has in the House is, basically, they sold themselves out to the lunatic fringe. They won in a big wave in 2010 becuase the ones who won, were either Tea Partiers, or people who had to slide way to the right and act like Tea Partiers. So now that they are in office, tey have to keep up the charade, or else they will lose in 2012 (or in some cases, there is no charade, they really are that extremist). Either way, the GOP sold their souls to get Tea Party support, and now they are stuck with it. They can either vote away from sanity, or they can compromise and then possibly lose in 2012.

 

This is where the Dems and GOP really are very different. The modern Dems don't get dragged to ideological extremes - they get dragged into so much comrpomise that they come off as wimps and fail to protect their constituents. The modern GOP on the other hand, outright embraces extremism and principal, to a point so ridiculous that they can't achieve anything.

 

I'm not sure how it would start, but I still think it would be healthy to have 2 more parties that actually had some influence and votes.

 

The definition of weakness in the Speakership is being unable to whip enough votes to maintain your legislative priorities. Because a week ago, when the Speaker pulled out of negotiations with Reid, Pelosi and Obama, he abandoned the idea of working with Democrats, he found himself painted in a corner unable to whip votes from the opposition, he put himself in the position of finding 217 votes from his own party. (Pelosi was one of the strongest speakers we've seen in a long time, where house Dems pretty much couldn't even hold a press conference without permission first if they wanted any breaks from leadership.)

 

If the Republicans truly sold their soul to the lunatic fringe to make them a majority in the House, its an even bigger sign of weakness that Boehner hasn't been able to cobble together a compromise that would get a majority of votes from Republicans and a majority of votes from Democrats. Given that the Democrats have literally walked up to the point of "we'll give you nearly everything you want as long as we can get 18 months of stability on this issue," that shouldn't be hard. But when you paint yourself in a corner like this, you don't have the room to maneuver.

[Y2HH]

This is where the Dems and GOP really are very different. The modern Dems don't get dragged to ideological extremes - they get dragged into so much comrpomise that they come off as wimps and fail to protect their constituents. The modern GOP on the other hand, outright embraces extremism and principal, to a point so ridiculous that they can't achieve anything.

 

There are quite a few extreme Democrats in office, and we call them Liberals. Since the rise of the "Tea Party", there are simply MORE extreme Republicans at this specific moment in time. This doesn't mean it won't eventually sway the other direction someday.

 

Note that I put "Tea Party" in quotes, because it's not a new party or alternative party, it's merely extreme Republicans.

 

As I see things:

 

Liberal | Democrat | Moderate/Independent | Republicans | NeoCon/"Tea Party"

 

If you are all the way on that scale, you are extreme, regardless of people such as yourself claiming there are no extreme Democrats...which is just ridiculous.

[StrangeSox]

There's a handful of guys like Kucinich who are pretty liberal for American politics. I don't think there's any comparable symmetry between that and the large number of GOP'ers that have signed pledges to never raise revenues ever or to let the economy implode.

[Y2HH]

There's a handful of guys like Kucinich who are pretty liberal for American politics. I don't think there's any comparable symmetry between that and the large number of GOP'ers that have signed pledges to never raise revenues ever or to let the economy implode.

 

Like I said, there's a lot more of them since the rise of the NeoCon TeaParty.

[bmags]

Amount of power dennis kucinich has in the democratic party:

 

[NorthSideSox72]

There are quite a few extreme Democrats in office, and we call them Liberals. Since the rise of the "Tea Party", there are simply MORE extreme Republicans at this specific moment in time. This doesn't mean it won't eventually sway the other direction someday.

 

Note that I put "Tea Party" in quotes, because it's not a new party or alternative party, it's merely extreme Republicans.

 

As I see things:

 

Liberal | Democrat | Moderate/Independent | Republicans | NeoCon/"Tea Party"

 

If you are all the way on that scale, you are extreme, regardless of people such as yourself claiming there are no extreme Democrats...which is just ridiculous.

I made no such claim and never have, not sure where you got that idea. What I said, I thought clearly, was that the PARTY doesn't tend to get pulled by those extremists as much in the Democratic party as it is in the Republican party. If the Dems were the same on this topic, imagine a wave of a hundred Kucinich-like liberals waving into office and then the Dems suddenly followed their agenda. That is clearly not the case here.

 

And "at this specific moment in time" goes without saying, these things change over time.

 

[Y2HH]

I made no such claim and never have, not sure where you got that idea. What I said, I thought clearly, was that the PARTY doesn't tend to get pulled by those extremists as much in the Democratic party as it is in the Republican party. If the Dems were the same on this topic, imagine a wave of a hundred Kucinich-like liberals waving into office and then the Dems suddenly followed their agenda. That is clearly not the case here.

 

And "at this specific moment in time" goes without saying, these things change over time.

 

Well then I took what you said incorrectly.

 

We agree, that since the rise of this tea party, there are now a lot of extreme republicans, and IMO, they're doing great damage to the republican party right now.