The fact that anyone can ever invest in the US Economy failing is heinous.
It's not really investing in the US economy failing as much as putting up a signal that you think current policy is a bad idea, and that your feeling is strong enough that you're willing to put up money against that statement. I'd argue it is a better thing than sitting on the sideline and whining about the state of things. If enough people start to short a bad policy/company/whatever, it will die as it should. Opinions are not worth much alone. Opinions backed by dollars are more likely to reflect some level of thought.
I'm not from the USA, but have always found the economic status and the political flailing confusing, perhaps im being ignorant, but is it just me when i say that the republicans, at this moment with regards to this situation, are trying to stall a recovery effort? I watched the live recording president Obama did on monday, and his arguments and reasoning felt very sound and fair to me.
Again, im not any economics or political person, but the fact that there are elements within a government that prevents correct measures to be taken have alwyas baffled me a little, and even when the US seems to be in a dire need of some compromise from those same government party or parties.
If enough people start to short a bad policy/company/whatever, it will die as it should.
By what mechanism does the thing in question die by? I understand the point being made that this is voting by currency, but if many people choose to short a policy/whatevs, I think it reflects poor faith rather than serving as a mechanism for policy/whatevs destruction.
Again, im not any economics or political person
Republicans are brilliant at making money. For themselves. So, for anyone else, they appear to be terrible with money. I pretty much guarantee that any political stalling or whatever is somehow in the favor of these politicians individually, or else they would not pursue it. I believe an earlier post in this thread or the Republican thread suggested that such problems they might cause would destroy the lower and middle classes, giving the upper classes free reign or something. I can't speak to that, but it would follow the Republican logic.
I wouldn't put it past the Republicans to be stalling. However, they also want the government to have the least amount of power (they are more like lobyists for corporate America). Obama's plan gives the government more money and taxation power. Although it COULD help the deficit (Government is always tempted to use money), there are possible harmful side effects, such as less money in the economy to be able to tax which can create a downward spiral for us citizens and the amount of income the government would have to balance the budget. The logical thing to do is for the government to just tighten their belt like the smart citizens. Instead they continue to placate to companies and people who, for some reason, HAVE to live beyond their means. This in turn justifies the government to do the same. The bottom line is, we're all going to get hurt. The more you keep putting it off, the worse it will be when the time comes.
The problem with compromising in many political situations is you come up with a hybrid of what both sides wanted that does nothing to accomplish what the situation called for. Case in point: The Obama Health Care System.
there are possible harmful side effects, such as less money in the economy to be able to tax which can create a downward spiral for us citizens and the amount of income the government would have to balance the budget.
Taxation doesn't work that way.
Specifically, all of the money they tax gets put back into the economy via government spending, albeit slightly less efficiently.
So, what exactly do you think will happen if there is a default?
Does anyone think they'll pull something out of the hat at the last minute? Has too much damage been done even then? I mean, can any nation really trust us anymore when they see that we're so polarized we can't agree on something so simple?
Is it maybe time to just carve out a section of the southwest and let people like kilarney and Glenn Beck go live there and have 0% taxes, 0 government services, and lots and lots of churches and Wal Marts and let the rest of us try and live some semblance of a rational existence?
I am debating (aka ramming my head against a brick wall of ignorance) a tea-party type on another site. I'm kind of proud of this metaphor.
"I wonder. When Republicans play Sim City, do they just sit on the empty land at the start of the game, staring at their starting funds and thinking about how, if they never spend it, they'll always be rich? 'Cause it's a great strategy, except that at the end of the game, there's still no city."
Has too much damage been done even then? I mean, can any nation really trust us anymore when they see that we're so polarized we can't agree on something so simple?
There is somewhat of a non-apocalyptic precedent in the Clinton-era shutdown of 1995, so I don't think this will be a world-ender.
Has too much damage been done even then? I mean, can any nation really trust us anymore when they see that we're so polarized we can't agree on something so simple?
Again, 10 year U.S. Treasury Bond interest rates are at a 50 year low, and even if we lose our AAA rating, we will still be in the Invest Rating range, meaning it won't be too bad. I think part of the reason why things aren't spiraling downhill now is that investors are happy that serious debt talks are occurring (despite how much theatre is occuring, regardless of the outcome, a debt reduction plan will be enacted).
Does anyone think they'll pull something out of the hat at the last minute?
I'm pretty sure we'll see a last-minute increase as the finale to this spectacle.
If we don't, I'll be surprised, impressed, and really fucking terrified.
Is it maybe time to just carve out a section of the southwest and let people like kilarney and Glenn Beck go live there and have 0% taxes, 0 government services, and lots and lots of churches and Wal Marts and let the rest of us try and live some semblance of a rational existence?
Yes please. Give 'em Texas. Let the place secede and turn into Fundietealand.
Oh look, every president ever has raised the debt ceiling. Shocking. Oh look, the biggest debt hit after some moran started more wars than we could afford and deregulated the housing market to cause a crisis.
Oh look, every president ever has raised the debt ceiling. Shocking. Oh look, the biggest debt hit after some moran started more wars than we could afford and deregulated the housing market to cause a crisis.
That was always the worst. Whatever you think about the wars, you DON'T start a war and lower taxes at the same time. That's like, "Oh, I'll give my kid a credit card to buy an expensive bicycle, but then I'll cut off his allowance so he can't pay for it.". Eventually, those bills always come due.
What's cute about McCain's quote is that he even says he likes the idea of a balanced budget amendment, but said it's a terrible idea to try it now. He also has a similar opinion to mine, in that the Tea Baggers are just doing this for political points and think everyone will blame Obama.
McCain cited the Wall Street Journal’s editorial to back up his argument.
“The idea seems to be that if the House GOP refuses to raise the debt ceiling, a default crisis or gradual government shutdown will ensue, and the public will turn en masse against ... Barack Obama,†he said, quoting the paper. “The Republican House that failed to raise the debt ceiling would somehow escape all blame. Then Democrats would have no choice but to pass a balanced-budget amendment and reform entitlements, and the Tea Party Hobbits could return to Middle Earth having defeated Mordor.â€Â
McCain warned that House Tea Party conservatives would give President Obama a major political victory by rejecting Boehner’s plan to increase the debt limit.
Quoting the Journal again, McCain said: “If conservatives defeat the Boehner plan they will not only undermine their House majority, they will go far [toward] reelecting Mr. Obama and making entitlements that much harder to reform.â€Â
A spokeswoman said Walsh is not alone in believing the country won't default. Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, a Minnesota congresswoman, says the Treasury Department can pay interest on the debt and then prioritize spending
"You know darn well that if Aug. 2nd comes and goes there is plenty of money to pay off our debt and cover all Social Security obligations," Walsh says in the video, adding that Obama has media protection for "everything you say and do, but have you no shame, sir?"
Well not that anyone cares but the reason you're in this debt in the first place, is due to Wall St mismanagement and deregulation.
Before the great Wall St rip-off, US public debt stood at around 65% of US GDP. After the collapse of the scam, US government debt rocketed above 95% of GDP as the public took on the dual tasks of bailing out the debts left behind by Wall St’s collapsed ponzi scheme, as well as stimulating a devastated economy.
Comments
Again, im not any economics or political person, but the fact that there are elements within a government that prevents correct measures to be taken have alwyas baffled me a little, and even when the US seems to be in a dire need of some compromise from those same government party or parties.
The problem with compromising in many political situations is you come up with a hybrid of what both sides wanted that does nothing to accomplish what the situation called for. Case in point: The Obama Health Care System.
Specifically, all of the money they tax gets put back into the economy via government spending, albeit slightly less efficiently.
Does anyone think they'll pull something out of the hat at the last minute? Has too much damage been done even then? I mean, can any nation really trust us anymore when they see that we're so polarized we can't agree on something so simple?
Is it maybe time to just carve out a section of the southwest and let people like kilarney and Glenn Beck go live there and have 0% taxes, 0 government services, and lots and lots of churches and Wal Marts and let the rest of us try and live some semblance of a rational existence?
"I wonder. When Republicans play Sim City, do they just sit on the empty land at the start of the game, staring at their starting funds and thinking about how, if they never spend it, they'll always be rich? 'Cause it's a great strategy, except that at the end of the game, there's still no city."
If we don't, I'll be surprised, impressed, and really fucking terrified. Yes please. Give 'em Texas. Let the place secede and turn into Fundietealand. A saloon? Shit son, that could be awesome.
Oh wait, it's South Dakota. There's nothing there.
Oh look, the biggest debt hit after some moran started more wars than we could afford and deregulated the housing market to cause a crisis.