Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bdthemag]

Which is why we need a president from the C'thulu party.

[nenjin]

Why should any clever investors feel safe under this condition?

Because that's been the reality of American politics and our spending for a very long time, and including the current instability and uncertainty, America is still a good bet for many investors (depending on their field.)

More or less we're too big to fail until our position as the lynch pin of the global economy changes proactively. If it changes reactively, we take the whole ship down with us.

[PTTG??]

The american 2 party system never ceases to amaze me.

Let's switch to the Alternative Vote.

[Nadaka]

Which is why we need a president from the C'thulu party.

The sad thing is that he might get in on the Tea Party ticket because he can end all things.

[PTTG??]

Which is why we need a president from the C'thulu party.

The sad thing is that he might get in on the Tea Party ticket because he can end all things.

Taxes are a subset of all things.

[Virex]

Which is why we need a president from the C'thulu party.

The sad thing is that he might get in on the Tea Party ticket because he can end all things.

Taxes are a subset of all things.

He can end all taxes, all immigration and all democratsnon-patriots. What more does one need in a leader?

[Urist Imiknorris]

The ability and willingness to not end the people who vote him into power?

[Aqizzar]

By the way, in the midst of all this, the DOW Jones index is down like 500 points.  Just today.  Good job guys, confidence restored.  Do enjoy your month off.

It'd take some incredible hubris on members of either party to try and legislate out the trigger.

My point exactly?  No really, that's not a high and mighty platitude, I'm genuinely saying that.  If ever you wanted a Congress with enough hubris to repeal its own negative incentives, this is the one.  That's how we got to this position.


Anyway, I've been doing some thinking on the membership of the Supercommittee, just because I have nothing else to speculate about.  I've been going through the Wikipedia list of Senators, trying to imagine who's likely to be picked.  The criteria I have in mind are: 1) No leadership members, since they have other things to do and are more politics than policy people; 2) No Class 1 Senators (facing elections next year), since Senators hate to be part of anything politically risky in the year before an election; 3) No first term members, since they don't get special positions, although I caveat that for Senators who moved up from the House, and I wouldn't be surprised if McConnell put in at least one 2010 alumnus as a bone to the Tea Party.

[nenjin]

Considering he basically negotiated the deal, I wouldn't be surprised. He's old. He's politically expendable in that regard I think.

My point exactly?  No really, that's not a high and mighty platitude, I'm genuinely saying that.  If ever you wanted a Congress with enough hubris to repeal its own negative incentives, this is the one.  That's how we got to this position.

It really depends on the reactions on voters. I like to think that maybe Dems took a hint and now debt reduction will be part of their platform and they're going to approach it instead of trying to legislate their way out of it. After all the money we've sunk into this that and the other thing in the last 4 years, we're overdue for some belt-tightening.

The Tea Party as ever are the wild cards. Will they be chastised by their base at all for the gross waste this whole thing caused, or congratulated on their "stand on principle?" Will their constituents see their own fates tied up in ransoming the default, or will they completely ignore the impact it would have had on them and believe they could have gotten what they wanted on either path?

I dunno. Shooting for constitutional amendments and unprecedented legislative inaction? That's one thing. Circumventing the compromise of their own party leaders and the president? I don't think they have the support of that many people to basically alienate everyone in the country. Moderate Republicans aren't going to appreciate being made to look like idiots that close to the elections.

[PTTG??]

I'm pretty sure that any conservative who votes for a modern republican candidate isn't paying attention.

[Lord Shonus]

They Tea Party bloc is an inherently endangered one, precisely because of how it was shoved into office. The Tea PArty bloc came about during a midterm election, which is traditionally a slack season, and it preyed upon the frustration of fringe voters with the slow pace of economic recovery. The 2012 elections, being presidential elections, will likley hve much higher turnout, which will include the more solid members of both parties, which includes the large number of Republicans who dislike and distrust the Tea Party movement. In addition, The Party policies at the State level have been wildly unpopular, and, in at least one state, have generated the largest backlash in US history both as a percentage and in absolute numbers. If Kasich is repudiated at the polls in November, his governorship will essentially enter lame-duck mode after only a year, and some Republicans have quietly begane talks of a recall. If that happens, the Tea Party will effectively be dead in Ohio, and the 2012 elections will greatly reduce their bloc. Ohio is not unique.

[nenjin]

Panetta seems to agree with Aqizzar.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/08/04/panetta.briefing/index.html

Panetta recalled his time in Congress, where he served nine terms as a member of the House from California. "I was involved in the conference on Gramm-Rudman. I know what -- I know what sequestration is all about," Panetta said, referring to a budget-control law passed in the mid-1980s that also used sequestration as a last-ditch measure.

"In the past, Congress made the decision not to proceed with Gramm-Rudman, not to proceed with sequester, because the results would be so damaging. And so every time the trigger was about to take effect, it was postponed."

Panetta said Congress must start looking at more than discretionary budgets to deal with the deficit and start looking at entitlement programs and raising taxes.

[PyroDesu]

[REDACTED]

[How do I delete a post? ]

[Kon]

...
Anyway, I've been doing some thinking on the membership of the Supercommittee, just because I have nothing else to speculate about.  I've been going through the Wikipedia list of Senators, trying to imagine who's likely to be picked.  The criteria I have in mind are: 1) No leadership members, since they have other things to do and are more politics than policy people; 2) No Class 1 Senators (facing elections next year), since Senators hate to be part of anything politically risky in the year before an election; 3) No first term members, since they don't get special positions, although I caveat that for Senators who moved up from the House, and I wouldn't be surprised if McConnell put in at least one 2010 alumnus as a bone to the Tea Party.

Someone suggested that the republicans pick the democrat members and the democrats pick the republican members. Interesting idea, but will never happen

[Kon]

What bothers the investors more it that there is not even a "plan to balance". It's current deal is just saying it will spend less aggressively than before. The U.S. federal government will spend about 40 trillions total in the next 10 years, and only cut 2+ trillion. (The one do get cut already won't put into effect after 2012 either). Not even this agreement can be sure to hold after the 2012 election (not even certain what it will be like before the Super Congress decided until the end of this year). It essentially an announcement that "There is nothing we can do right now, but we will change somehow in the future, just giving us more time, or wait for the election". In the mean time uncertainty and debt itself just keeps piling up. Why should any clever investors feel safe under this condition?

You are right. Spending "cuts" are relative to a baseline of increasing spending by 8% per year. So increasing spending by 7%, well above inflation, is a spending cut according to politicians. Of course if a politician suggests increasing spending by only 7%, the democrats will criticize them for suggesting grandmothers get throw off cliffs and babies are purposely starved to death.