Financial News

[bmags]

It's just a way different dynamic in the Republican party. In the democratic party, nobody has more power than Sens. Nelson and Landrau, and the blue dogs in the house. Since no republican will vote for a democratic bill, the moderate dems run the day. The republican party has the opposite problem. Their moderates are more a danger to them in breaking with them and voting dem, but they will pretty assuredly vote republican. Dennis Kucinich voted against the health care bill for it being too moderate, you pretty much have a bunch of him in the republican party so they are a solid voting bloc that has a lot of negotiating power.

[Rex Kickass]

At this point, the only thing holding up a deal is Mitch McConnell whipping up seven votes for cloture (not even passage) on the Reid/McConnell plan Z. The Reid plan will pass in the house, I can't imagine that by the time this bill gets to the house on Sunday night or Monday, that the Democrats couldn't peel away 30 Republican congressmen.

[Balta1701]

At this point, the only thing holding up a deal is Mitch McConnell whipping up seven votes for cloture (not even passage) on the Reid/McConnell plan Z. The Reid plan will pass in the house, I can't imagine that by the time this bill gets to the house on Sunday night or Monday, that the Democrats couldn't peel away 30 Republican congressmen.

Boehner doesn't have to bring it to the floor for a vote though, does he? If he did, he might as well resign at this point.

[mr_genius]

The Reid plan will pass in the house

 

judging by what has gone on so far, there is no chance that happens.

[Balta1701]

judging by what has gone on so far, there is no chance that happens.

The difference with the Reid plan is that nearly (or perhaps all) of the Democrats would vote for it to get it done. That means only 30-ish Republicans are needed instead of 215.

[Balta1701]

To secure enough votes from his own members for his plan, Speaker Boehner is amending it to basically turn it into Cut, Cap, and Balance Lite.

 

Here's the key new provision that is apparently going to win enough GOP votes to pass the bill. The debt ceiling would be raised immediately but not by enough to get the government through next year. To get the second debt ceiling increase, House Republicans want a balanced budget constitutional amendment to pass both chambers first and be referred to the states.

Never going to happen, but that's where we are. It makes you wonder if there's any compromise plan that can get through this House. That's why, even though my gut says there's no way the U.S. is stupid enough to default, I still can't see a clear, viable way out of this.

 

Link

[mr_genius]

The difference with the Reid plan is that nearly (or perhaps all) of the Democrats would vote for it to get it done. That means only 30-ish Republicans are needed instead of 215.

 

it would be interesting to see who those 30 Republicans would be.

[Jenksismyhero]

Apple has more cash than the US government. WTF.

[NorthSideSox72]

Apple has more cash than the US government. WTF.

And at this rate, so will you, by 8/2.

 

[StrangeSox]

What the new GDP numbers tell us about stimulus

 

Plenty of conservatives are peeking at this morning’s grim GDP numbers, as well as the downward revisions to previous years, and concluding that the stimulus clearly must have failed. “But remember,” snarks James Pethokoukis, “no matter how bad the economy is, Obama stimulus still created 3 million jobs, right?”

 

That’s one way to look at it. Another is to dig a little deeper into the new GDP numbers, which tell a different story. As Moody’s chief economist Mark Zandi told me this morning, the revisions suggest that the recession following the financial crisis was much, much more severe than we’d thought—the economy actually shrank at a 7.8 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter of 2008 and first quarter of 2009, not 5.9 percent as originally believed.

 

Then, Congress passed the stimulus bill, the fall in growth dwindled to 0.7 percent in the second quarter, and, by the third quarter of 2009, we had 1.7 percent growth. “We went from negative to positive at precisely the time that the stimulus was providing maximum benefit in terms of tax cuts and spending increases,” Zandi says. “The numbers actually reinforce the importance of the stimulus in jump-starting a recovery.” What the stimulus didn’t do, however, was raise employment to the levels that the White House had predicted — partly because the economy was in worse shape than anyone, even the official data-crunchers, knew.

 

Of course, the stimulus only lasted two years, winding down in the end of 2010. And what happened then? As Dean Baker, an economist at the Center on Economic and Policy Research observes, “The downward revision to the first quarter data coupled with the revision of the fourth quarter growth to 2.3 percent from 3.1 percent, suggests that the winding down of the stimulus has seriously dampened growth.” Zandi agrees: “If fiscal policy had simply stayed neutral, the numbers suggest we would have had around 2 percent growth these past two quarters, which isn’t great, but it’s a lot better than what we actually had.” Except fiscal policy wasn’t neutral—it was shrinking. The stimulus wound down, that extra government spending started disappearing, and, with it, economic growth dwindled.

 

What’s more, fiscal policy is set to keep shrinking. Remember that the payroll tax holiday and emergency unemployment insurance, both of which were extended in the 2010 tax deal, are scheduled to run out soon. These cuts will amount to $220 billion — about 1.6 percent of GDP. On top of that, Congress will likely cut short-term spending by a still-unknown amount in the debt-ceiling deal. Yet nothing we’ve encountered in the past few years suggests that will aid the recovery in any way.

 

We need a balanced budget amendment that makes mainstream economic policies and safety net spending unconstitutional!

[southsider2k5]

A balanced budget amendment is stupid at the federal level. There I said it.

[StrangeSox]

You've also said that massive, immediate cuts to federal spending right now is a bad idea. You're a lot closer to dems and liberals on SoxTalk than a sizable chunk of the House GOP on this one.

[southsider2k5]

You've also said that massive, immediate cuts to federal spending right now is a bad idea. You're a lot closer to dems and liberals on SoxTalk than a sizable chunk of the House GOP on this one.

 

It is a bad idea in a bad economy. There already is no confidence in the white house right now. Immediate cuts could really kill things.

 

Once the economy recovers, there needs to be real movement on cuts. And not these pittances being bandied about like they are lots of money.

[Balta1701]

A balanced budget amendment is stupid at the federal level. There I said it.

(Handshake).

[Cknolls]

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.

 

 

LMAO

[StrangeSox]

LMAO

 

To clarify, I was laying the failure of being able to pass a right-wing deficit bill that was doomed anyway at their feet, not the revised GDP growth. Without Rex's quote, that's really out of context.

[StrangeSox]

It is a bad idea in a bad economy. There already is no confidence in the white house right now. Immediate cuts could really kill things.

 

Once the economy recovers, there needs to be real movement on cuts. And not these pittances being bandied about like they are lots of money.

 

Right, and on that we disagree. I'm just glad that someone I perceive as pretty staunchly conservative is seeing the policy that's being offered up as terrible for the same reasons I do.

[Rex Kickass]

The difference with the Reid plan is that nearly (or perhaps all) of the Democrats would vote for it to get it done. That means only 30-ish Republicans are needed instead of 215.

 

To do an end run around the clock, Reid is likely to table the Boehner bill, stip it and instill his plan, force it through the Senate and send the Boehner bill straight back to the house with the Reid plan in place of the House plan.

 

The words "Privileged Vehicle" will become very important this weekend.

[Jenksismyhero]

Assuming they put in some sort of "in extreme circumstances" clause (war, recession, etc), why is a balanced budget amendment a bad idea? They're using the same language that Democrats proposed in the mid-90's.

[StrangeSox]

Assuming they put in some sort of "in extreme circumstances" clause (war, recession, etc), why is a balanced budget amendment a bad idea? They're using the same language that Democrats proposed in the mid-90's.

 

It's either a hard rule and thus terrible policy or you neuter it such that it's essentially meaningless. Especially given the perpetual state of war we find ourselves in.

[Rex Kickass]

Assuming they put in some sort of "in extreme circumstances" clause (war, recession, etc), why is a balanced budget amendment a bad idea? They're using the same language that Democrats proposed in the mid-90's.

 

Because there's no longer a sense that both parties will negotiate in good faith.

[southsider2k5]

Right, and on that we disagree. I'm just glad that someone I perceive as pretty staunchly conservative is seeing the policy that's being offered up as terrible for the same reasons I do.

 

You must just be used to typing that.

[StrangeSox]

You must just be used to typing that.

 

Sorry for the lack of clarity (again), we disagree on the necessity of cuts going forward once the economy has recovered.

[southsider2k5]

Assuming they put in some sort of "in extreme circumstances" clause (war, recession, etc), why is a balanced budget amendment a bad idea? They're using the same language that Democrats proposed in the mid-90's.

 

I'd have to see what the qualifications were for those kind of things. Philosophically I HATE things that limit the ability of the government to govern when it is most important. The reality is if our leaders governed with some sense of responsibility for the future, we wouldn't need these kinds of amendments.

[southsider2k5]

Sorry for the lack of clarity (again), we disagree on the necessity of cuts going forward once the economy has recovered.

 

Ah. See my last response for my philosophy on that. Really we should have a basically balanced budget based on the minimal amount of spending needed to attain governance, regulatory, fiduciary, and safety net responsibility. Other than that, we should get rid of it. If there is money left over after that, our tax rates are too high, with a balance made towards keeping the debt as low as possible.

 

That way when something happens, we are able to fix problems as needed.