NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/congress_budget

Finally the Congressional Republicans have fleshed out their oppositional budget, which (no surprises here folks) proposes a fuckton of tax cuts and cut spending in social programs. This tried and true tactic of theirs poses to provide billions of dollars in surplus... wait, did I say surplus? I meant to say that their repetitively idiotic proposals for tax cuts for the richest people they can find, despite spending cuts to every social program a panel of hard-right GOPers could think up, they still managed to pull in a yearly budget deficit of $500 billion dollars. Sure, that's less than Obama's projected immediate budget, but really, they piss and moan then pull the same shit that results in *drum roll* more deficits!

Yep. Normal Republicans. 'We care about the poor, so let's just pull all support from under them, and give corporations tax cuts and more power, so they have free reign over the poor! Yay for Corporate Dictatorships!'

It feels good to remember why I support Pres. Obama. I may not agree with everything he does, but I trust him at the very least to make some improvements. That's why I'm holding off from instantly judging his actions. And FFS, give him 100 days AFTER he's got his Cabinet together. That's the problem with television sitcoms: people expect every problem to be solved in thirty minutes. <edit> /rant </edit
>

that was the problem with mr obama's stimulus package AND his budget proposals

NO TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH.

what was he thinking?!

If anything needs to be cut, it's the military budget. By a LOT.

If anything needs to be cut, it's the military budget. By a LOT.

That reminds me... the U.S. is still contracting PMCs right? So is the U.S. is still hiring Blackwater?

If anything needs to be cut, it's the military budget. By a LOT.

Nobody wants to cut middle-class welfare...regardless, I think any cuts in spending should be broad-based.

The fact is that this country has so exhausted fiscal policy as a stimulative tool that the vast majority of this new spending will do nothing to boost the economy; until we balance the budget and spend time reigning in outstanding debt to a much lower level, we will literally be throwing money away (and in to the pockets of countries whose interests run contrary to our own) with little or no benefit.

That reminds me... the U.S. is still contracting PMCs right? So is the U.S. is still hiring Blackwater?

I think so.

Nobody wants to cut middle-class welfare...regardless, I think any cuts in spending should be broad-based.

The fact is that this country has so exhausted fiscal policy as a stimulative tool that the vast majority of this new spending will do nothing to boost the economy; until we balance the budget and spend time reigning in outstanding debt to a much lower level, we will literally be throwing money away (and in to the pockets of countries whose interests run contrary to our own) with little or no benefit.

China has said they lost interest in buying our debt. So it is looking more like we have the fed reserve buy our debt (aka print money), or we cut our deficit by a lot.

China has said they lost interest in buying our debt. So it is looking more like we have the fed reserve buy our debt (aka print money), or we cut our deficit by a lot.

And, of course, the higher inflation and interest rates will end up negating the "stimulus" even more. Obama needs to eliminate the deficit for a while or else we're going to suffer economically.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/congress_budget

Finally the Congressional Republicans have fleshed out their oppositional budget, which (no surprises here folks) proposes a fuckton of tax cuts and cut spending in social programs. This tried and true tactic of theirs poses to provide billions of dollars in surplus... wait, did I say surplus? I meant to say that their repetitively idiotic proposals for tax cuts for the richest people they can find, despite spending cuts to every social program a panel of hard-right GOPers could think up, they still managed to pull in a yearly budget deficit of $500 billion dollars. Sure, that's less than Obama's projected immediate budget, but really, they piss and moan then pull the same shit that results in *drum roll* more deficits!
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

And, of course, the higher inflation and interest rates will end up negating the "stimulus" even more. Obama needs to eliminate the deficit for a while or else we're going to suffer economically.

If we raised the interest rate we could get more bond sales, and get away with a deficit for longer.

If we raised the interest rate we could get more bond sales, and get away with a deficit for longer.

You could, that's true, but of course the cost would be pretty much annihilating any recovery in the housing market. The worst part is that it would at most maintain the rate of inflation rather than eliminate it like Paul Volcker did back in the early 1980's, so you'd have lower growth and higher inflation.

Of course, given the clearly negligible benefits of deficit spending in the past eight years, it really seems like a bad idea to keep doing it...

You know, I suspect that there are probably several nuggets of gold in the Republicans' budget proposal. My expectation of Barack Obama is that he knows a good idea when he hears it and if there's anything worthwhile in there, he'll find it.

What I understand least is this medicare voucher thing. Instead of the government spending money on healthcare(which would be socialism), they propose that the government give money to the insurance industry on the people's behalf instead. What's the difference? You know, other than the billions of taxpayer money going to insurance companies to wast...er...invest in ... um.... cake. Yeah, cake. That's it. :tongue:

Reaganomics will save us!

You could, that's true, but of course the cost would be pretty much annihilating any recovery in the housing market. The worst part is that it would at most maintain the rate of inflation rather than eliminate it like Paul Volcker did back in the early 1980's, so you'd have lower growth and higher inflation.

Of course, given the clearly negligible benefits of deficit spending in the past eight years, it really seems like a bad idea to keep doing it...

If you cut spending and lower taxes at the same time you raise interest rates.
also the higher interest rates attract foreign capital which will in part make up for the decreased loan markets.

Reaganomics will save us!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx7VEH9YUM

yo, republicans, you're supposed to make fools of other people

yo, republicans, you're supposed to make fools of other people

Since when? I thought it was always themselves they made fools of. :p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx7VEH9YUM

Hey! Thats my clip to post!:p

Hey! Thats my clip to post!:p

Sorry 'bout that. :tongue:

Sorry 'bout that. :tongue:

It really is the best family guy bit ever.


"Reagan sleepy..."

You know, I suspect that there are probably several nuggets of gold in the Republicans' budget proposal. My expectation of Barack Obama is that he knows a good idea when he hears it and if there's anything worthwhile in there, he'll find it.

What I understand least is this medicare voucher thing. Instead of the government spending money on healthcare(which would be socialism), they propose that the government give money to the insurance industry on the people's behalf instead. What's the difference? You know, other than the billions of taxpayer money going to insurance companies to wast...er...invest in ... um.... cake. Yeah, cake. That's it. :tongue:
they have programs like that now eh?

where you can buy into a humana (or whosever) senior healthcare plan with your medicare money (which takes you out of the medicare system entirely) (i dont know if the feds pay them too). according to my sister (the nurse) its one of the bigger mistakes you can make because they dont cover everything that medicare does. but the bigger problem is that the elderly are in the worst position to evaluate different insurance offerings. unless they mandate a standard coverage plan its a bad idea.

It really is the best family guy bit ever.


"Reagan sleepy..."

My favorite is when Peter beat Chris's bully into a bloody pulp. But that's a subject for another thread. :p

http://business.theatlantic.com/paul%20ryan%20budget.gif

haha, this is awesome

If we raised the interest rate we could get more bond sales, and get away with a deficit for longer.

Ultimately it's the size of the deficit that drives interest rates, not so much the FFT. And in fact short term interest rates don't really do that much to the long end of the curve. I'd go so far as to say that if the Fed actually raised the FFT at the next meeting interest rates on the long end would actually drop.

Bernanke's problem is that he wants to do everything at once. He wants to support risky asset prices, he wants a ZIRP, and he wants the government to run large deficits. He cannot pull all these things off at once. Hence the tepid buying of the long end - which ultimately doomed to failure.

His next play will be purchasing foreign government debt/assets in an attempt to devalue the dollar.

wait, this is awesomer

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/5886/evenawesomer.jpg

i totally need to get in on this republican graph drawing business. you get to just make shit up. professionally!

i totally need to get in on this republican graph drawing business. you get to just make shit up. professionally!

Just draw a gigantic vertical line and you'll be set. Data doesn't mean shit when you're getting six figures to make up what you want.

Ultimately it's the size of the deficit that drives interest rates, not so much the FFT. And in fact short term interest rates don't really do that much to the long end of the curve. I'd go so far as to say that if the Fed actually raised the FFT at the next meeting interest rates on the long end would actually drop.

bond interest rates are set by two factors. How much we spend and how much people want to buy our bonds.
Increasing the fed reserve rate the currency becomes more stable. And treasury bonds become a more sought after reserve currency. Lowering the interest rates, which makes the debt affordable. The ideal is that the long term rate is lower then the rate of growth.

Bernanke's problem is that he wants to do everything at once. He wants to support risky asset prices, he wants a ZIRP, and he wants the government to run large deficits. He cannot pull all these things off at once. Hence the tepid buying of the long end - which ultimately doomed to failure.

I agree with this. He just needs to stabilize the currency. No rapid inflation/ no rapid deflation.

His next play will be purchasing foreign government debt/assets in an attempt to devalue the dollar.
Please tell me no. I swear i am going to shoot the guy.

Well I'll be damned. They figured out that budget proposals had to include numbers.

(On a note re: the thread title, I learned it as "Same song, second verse, a little bit louder and a little bit worse". Quite appropriate, really.)

I like how their predictions run until 2080. That's a nice touch. :)

Or course, if I were evil, I could point out that it will still take the republicans about 75 years to pay off George W.'s debt. ;)

How do you get rid of 11,126,941,485,713.37 (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np) in debt? o_0;

(It's probably gone up several hundred thousand in the few minutes it took me to type out this post.)

bond interest rates are set by two factors. How much we spend and how much people want to buy our bonds.

This I agree with, which is what I was referring to when I said that it is really the size of the deficit that sets the interest rates at the long end. It's simply a function of the quantity of 7-10-30s that are auctioned. Sell more, and in order to match supply to demand the interest rate goes up. I don't expect that there will be a bona fide failed auction in the near future, but the interest rates could get scary.

Increasing the fed reserve rate the currency becomes more stable. And treasury bonds become a more sought after reserve currency. Lowering the interest rates, which makes the debt affordable. The ideal is that the long term rate is lower then the rate of growth.

Yahbut the FFR target doesn't mean all that much anymore. Back in the days of capital controls this was probably true. But there is free movement of capital now, and established Eurodollar, petrodollar and Asia dollar markets. Further, the reasons for indirect bidders to enter the market now are more complicated than just looking for a good investment.

It's also not even as if short term interest rates really effect currency stability all that much anymore anyway. The entire world is marching towards a ZIRP, and if you look, the dollar was on a pretty steady march upwards from late 2007 onwards despite the constant lowering of interest rates. (Until Ben started QE, but even that hasn't had all that great an effect when you think about it).

Most likely when all the deleveraging is over, the FFT will be more important once again. But for the foreseeable future it's a whole bunch of factors.

Inflation isn't a problem in this kind of environment either. There is so much debt that is defaulting, or about to default, regardless of interest rates at the short end there will be a strong demand for dollars - thus supporting the currency - and big deflationary forces.

You also have to look at the 13 week. People are basically willing to take -ve interest rates right now, so there isn't all that much can be done with respect to the FFT. There isn't the borrowing demand to justify an increase, and all that liquidity is needed to support orderly unwinds of bad bets. (Which are ongoing).

Please tell me no. I swear i am going to shoot the guy.

If (when) buying the long end fails to trash the currency enough to drive people from cash into riskier assets (by basically increasing the risk in holding cash v. return), this will be his final play. It's a similar theory to the default in 1933 when gold was confiscated and the dollar devalued. Big fan of the depression is Ben.

Unless of course the fed ends up owning all the government debt on the planet first.

How do you get rid of 11,126,941,485,713.37 (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np) in debt? o_0;

(It's probably gone up several hundred thousand in the few minutes it took me to type out this post.)

A really awesome bake sale. :)

How do you get rid of 11,126,941,485,713.37 (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np) in debt? o_0;

(It's probably gone up several hundred thousand in the few minutes it took me to type out this post.)

That exaggerates the amount outstanding. About 4 trillion of that the government owes to itself.

However, I imagine it will be dealt with just like every other unpayable sovereign debt in history. Some kind of default.

I like how their predictions run until 2080. That's a nice touch. :)

except they forgot to take into account the nanotech gray goo apocalypse in 2058

A really awesome bake sale. :)

Brilliant! Let's sell tacos! :D

wait, this is awesomer

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/5886/evenawesomer.jpg

i totally need to get in on this republican graph drawing business. you get to just make shit up. professionally!

i think i get it now. the huge spike in obama's 2029 budget isn't due to increased spending, but decreased gdp. think skynet and judgment day. the reason why it doesn't happen in the republican alternative is that they intend to get rid of the natural born citizen clause.

"vote for me if you want to live"

i think i get it now. the huge spike in obama's 2029 budget isn't due to increased spending, but decreased gdp. think skynet and judgment day. the reason why it doesn't happen in the republican alternative is that they intend to get rid of the natural born citizen clause.

"vote for me if you want to live"

Notice how the debt only makes a really sharp spike 15 years after the end of Obama's term? Where the most likely President will be of Republican bent? I think the graph drawer is trying to tell us something.

How do you get rid of 11,126,941,485,713.37 (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np) in debt? o_0;

(It's probably gone up several hundred thousand in the few minutes it took me to type out this post.)

About $600,000 per minute I believe. Or $10,000 per second.

About $600,000 per minute I believe. Or $10,000 per second.

$552,962.82 per minute according to a Google gadget

What amuses me the most is the GOP crying their eyes out over Obama's 3.5 trillion budget (that includes costs for Afghanistan and Iraq) as being 'irresponsbile', yet they thought Bush's 3.1 trillion budget that left out costs for Afghanistan and Iraq was perfectly fine.

Anyone who believes the Republican arguements is just as intellectually dishonest as the GOP.

Brilliant! Let's sell tacos! :D

No no. "Awesome bake sale" = drugs.

No no. "Awesome bake sale" = drugs.
G call.

I wonder if the GOP will ever get their shit together on this? I hate it when the opposition party in any political system is such a clusterfuck. It makes my anti-establishment streak feel left out :(

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

NSG in a nutshell.

G call.

I wonder if the GOP will ever get their shit together on this? I hate it when the opposition party in any political system is such a clusterfuck. It makes my anti-establishment streak feel left out :(

They have their shit together.

What amuses me the most is the GOP crying their eyes out over Obama's 3.5 trillion budget (that includes costs for Afghanistan and Iraq) as being 'irresponsbile', yet they thought Bush's 3.1 trillion budget that left out costs for Afghanistan and Iraq was perfectly fine.

Anyone who believes the Republican arguements is just as intellectually dishonest as the GOP.

Moral of the story: "Big spending is okay, but only when our side does it."

They have their shit together.

This concerns me.

This concerns me.

Seconded.

Seconded.

It should be noted that I disagree with the Republicans on virtually every issue they take a stance on, but a state with a single dominant party, no matter how good they are, is worrying. In the current climate, I want an opposition who is at least clever, even if ideologically they are diametrically opposed to everything I stand for.

It should be noted that I disagree with the Republicans on virtually every issue they take a stance on, but a state with a single dominant party, no matter how good they are, is worrying. In the current climate, I want an opposition who is at least clever, even if ideologically they are diametrically opposed to everything I stand for.

I agree.

It should be noted that I disagree with the Republicans on virtually every issue they take a stance on, but a state with a single dominant party, no matter how good they are, is worrying. In the current climate, I want an opposition who is at least clever, even if ideologically they are diametrically opposed to everything I stand for.

They're perfectly clever. They are accomplishing exactly what they said they were going to do.

They're perfectly clever. They are accomplishing exactly what they said they were going to do.

Which is to do what, royally fuck us all over?

Which is to do what, royally fuck us all over?

Seems like it. But surely that's completely self-defeating for them, for they will suffer same as everyone else. I'm curious, how much of the population is being swayed by their terrible efforts?

Which is to do what, royally fuck us all over?

Oppose the Democratic Party. While it is generally considered good form to offer an alternative solution, it is not technically required.

I'm curious, how much of the population is being swayed by their terrible efforts?

27%

but i don't know if 'swayed' is the right word for the phenomena...

27%

but i don't know if 'swayed' is the right word for the phenomena...

Aye, I chose that word specifically... I know they have a core base that would follow them into hell, I was wondering about the swingers who will change their mind because of the GOP's antics.

27%

but i don't know if 'swayed' is the right word for the phenomena...

More likely they're rusted on.

Aye, I chose that word specifically... I know they have a core base that would follow them into hell, I was wondering about the swingers who will change their mind because of the GOP's antics.

The GOP thinks that it'll make the swing vote go towards them, but it really won't. They've gotten it into their head that they lost because they weren't right-wing enough, that they weren't conservative enough, not that other way around. Rush Limbaugh, for example, is disliked by a greater percentage of the American public than William Ayers and Reverend Wright.

The GOP thinks that it'll make the swing vote go towards them, but it really won't. They've gotten it into their head that they lost because they weren't right-wing enough, that they weren't conservative enough, not that other way around. Rush Limbaugh, for example, is disliked by a greater percentage of the American public than William Ayers and Reverend Wright.

A lot of conservative Republicans I know consider McCain, Bush, et. al. to be "RINOs," and attribute McCain's loss to his alleged "liberalism."

A lot of conservative Republicans I know consider McCain, Bush, et. al. to be "RINOs," and attribute McCain's loss to his alleged "liberalism."

this is because conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed.

this is because conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed.

What do you mean?

What do you mean?

i mean that it clearly isn't the fault of conservatism that every time its champions gain power, they nearly destroy the world. this is just because those champions ultimately secretly renounce their conservatism, thus leading to disaster.

i mean that it clearly isn't the fault of conservatism that every time its champions gain power, they nearly destroy the world. this is just because those champions ultimately secretly renounce their conservatism, thus leading to disaster.

Ah, right.

Yeah, I've heard that excuse all the time from them. "Those weren't real conservatives!"

Ah, right.

Yeah, I've heard that excuse all the time from them. "Those weren't real conservatives!"

I hear they aren't true Scotsmen either.

That reminds me... the U.S. is still contracting PMCs right? So is the U.S. is still hiring Blackwater?
Obviously contracting something.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Manifestations_of_secondary_syphilis_Treponema_pallidum_6539_lores.jpg