The Fiscal Cliff

[Goatnapper'96]

It continues to amaze me what a dumbass Krugman is. Also that on these talk shows there is no one that calls him on his assinine statements.

Fed borrowing is basically a variable rate and not a fixed rate. Sure if you could borrow at the cheap rates and have them forever, that would be one thing, but you can't.

When rates go up 1-3 percent, which they surely will do at some time, the hurt is going to be very bad. Market forces such as the economy and inflation can push them up despite the Fed's intentions.

What a weisal looking guy anyway. The fact the media pulls him out to back spending shows how few economists agree with the media and Obama.

Who cares about the long run?

[Color Me Badd Fan]

It continues to amaze me what a dumbass Krugman is. Also that on these talk shows there is no one that calls him on his assinine statements.

Fed borrowing is basically a variable rate and not a fixed rate. Sure if you could borrow at the cheap rates and have them forever, that would be one thing, but you can't.

When rates go up 1-3 percent, which they surely will do at some time, the hurt is going to be very bad. Market forces such as the economy and inflation can push them up despite the Fed's intentions.

What a weisal looking guy anyway. The fact the media pulls him out to back spending shows how few economists agree with the media and Obama.

To be sure, the one thing that may be save the US's bacon as it relates to China is China's one child policy. Japan's rapidly aging population has probably contributed mightily to its stagnation over the course of the past 20 years. China, however, still has a plentiful supply of people that are coming from the countryside (farms) to the cities (i.e. it is still industrializing). Something has to supplant the United States as the economic force calling all of the shots. It can still be China, perhaps a rapidly industrializing India could pull it off. I'm pretty sure it's not going to be the EU. When the US can't continue to dictate rates, when it's no longer deemed to be safe or a good investment is when everything hits the fan. Perhaps the oil-rich countries will want to start dealing in some other currency than the dollar. That is how these things start. If faith is lost in the dollar, watch out.

With all of that said, I'm sure a guy like Krugman looks at that 280% of GDP figure in 2080 and shrugs his shoulders. There were people out there that thought it was possible to just write off the trillions in debt by minting a platinum coin. I don't doubt the guy thinks of the numbers in the debt column as merely a bunch of electrons that can be engineered out of the system.

[YOhio]

Good read in the Washington Post on sequestration. I think this may just be the defining battle of the Obama's second term. If he wins on this one then he'll have a lot of momentum going into the next election cycle and could potentially swing the house for an all-Dem final two years. If not, it's going to be even more messy from here on out.

“The good news is, the world doesn’t end March 2. The bad news is, the world doesn’t end March 2,” said Emily Holubowich, a Washington health-care lobbyist who leads a coalition of 3,000 nonprofit groups fighting the cuts. “The worst-case scenario for us is the sequester hits and nothing bad really happens. And Republicans say: See, that wasn’t so bad.”

In the long partisan conflict over government spending, the sequester is where the rubber meets the road. Obama is betting Americans will be outraged by the abrupt and substantial cuts to a wide range of government services, from law enforcement to food safety to public schools. And he is hoping they will rise up to demand what he calls a “balanced approach” to deficit reduction that replaces some cuts with higher taxes.

But if voters react with a shrug, congressional Republicans will have won a major victory in their campaign to shrink the size of government. Instead of cancelling the sequester, the GOP will likely push for more.

“It would be a big problem for the White House if the sequester came and went and nobody really noticed anything. Then people will start saying, ‘Well, maybe we can cut spending,” said John H. Makin, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute who penned a recent Wall Street Journal piece titled “Learning to Love the Sequester.”

[il Padrino Ute]

I would like to see the GOP make a deal with Obama regarding the sequester in which they say to him "we're going to let the sequester happen, but we'll let you decide what cuts to make."

Now, I don't know if that is something that could really happen, but if it could, it would be good for the GOP to be able to point out that not only was the sequester Obama's idea, but he would have to own it completely, considering he would make the cuts himself. I think it would tick off enough of the GOP voters who chose not to go to the polls in November to decide that they have to get involved and try to give the GOP a larger majority in the House and perhaps take the majority in the Senate in '14.

[Uncle Ted]

Good read in the Washington Post on sequestration. I think this may just be the defining battle of the Obama's second term. If he wins on this one then he'll have a lot of momentum going into the next election cycle and could potentially swing the house for an all-Dem final two years. If not, it's going to be even more messy from here on out.

Adding to the liberal angst is concern that the scale of the cuts may be overstated, at least in the short term. While the sequester orders the White House to withdraw $85 billion in spending authority from affected agencies in the fiscal year that ends in September, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicts that agencies will reduce actual spending by only about $44 billion, with the remaining cuts carried over into future years.

Compared with total 2013 discretionary spending, that’s a cut of less than 4 percent.

Wow. A whole $44 billion budget cut. Harry... can you put that in perspective for us?

[YOUTUBE]fT3_1rPkjRI[/YOUTUBE]

Oh, BTW, it's more like $2.5T now.

[venkman]

I hate these political games around spending. We see it all the time: rather than cut non-essential or wasteful stuff, politicians threaten to cut the most vital programs and services. These are cuts in the rate of growth; the only reason there will be apocalyptic pain is if they choose to make it so, not because they need to.

It's like paying protection money to the mob: "Pay and we'll protect you (from us)".

[Bo Diddley]

I hate these political games around spending. We see it all the time: rather than cut non-essential or wasteful stuff, politicians threaten to cut the most vital programs and services. These are cuts in the rate of growth; the only reason there will be apocalyptic pain is if they choose to make it so, not because they need to.

It's like paying protection money to the mob: "Pay and we'll protect you (from us)".

With respect to the Defense Budget, part of the problem with cutting spending is not everything is on the table for DoD leadership to cut. There's too much congressional control over the defense budget.

[venkman]

With respect to the Defense Budget, part of the problem with cutting spending is not everything is on the table for DoD leadership to cut. There's too much congressional control over the defense budget.

You're probably right. I also think the defense budget is the only area where there are actual cuts to spending rather than simply reductions in the rate of growth of spending. So some pain could be real there and not self-inflicted like the other 'cuts' would be.

At the same time, I think the president has the authority, for instance, to reallocate resources so that he can keep our carriers fueled up. But he and/or Panetta choose not to in order to make a cheap political point: "hey the Republicans are keeping the navy at port!"

Similar to two years ago on the last debt limit fight when Obama declared: "I can't guarantee Social Security checks will go out". Disgusting.

[Bo Diddley]

You're probably right. I also think the defense budget is the only area where there are actual cuts to spending rather than simply reductions in the rate of growth of spending. So some pain could be real there and not self-inflicted like the other 'cuts' would be.

At the same time, I think the president has the authority, for instance, to reallocate resources so that he can keep our carriers fueled up. But he and/or Panetta choose not to in order to make a cheap political point: "hey the Republicans are keeping the navy at port!"

Similar to two years ago on the last debt limit fight when Obama declared: "I can't guarantee Social Security checks will go out". Disgusting.

Ugh. I hate playing politics with the military, no matter who it is, and both sides do it.

[dabrockster]

I would like to see the GOP make a deal with Obama regarding the sequester in which they say to him "we're going to let the sequester happen, but we'll let you decide what cuts to make."

Now, I don't know if that is something that could really happen, but if it could, it would be good for the GOP to be able to point out that not only was the sequester Obama's idea, but he would have to own it completely, considering he would make the cuts himself. I think it would tick off enough of the GOP voters who chose not to go to the polls in November to decide that they have to get involved and try to give the GOP a larger majority in the House and perhaps take the majority in the Senate in '14.

Do you think that is what the GOP is trying to do now?? See article..

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...149.html?hp=l1

[thesaint258]

Do you think that is what the GOP is trying to do now?? See article..

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...149.html?hp=l1

That can't possibly be the precedent they want to set.

[byu71]

I can't believe how stupid people are who invest. The world comes to an end tomorrow and we had a 4.5% rise in houses with an offere and waiting to close and the market is back up.

Obama is like a Prophet pissing in the wind. Wait, it is like Prophet not adored in his home town. Wait, I don't know exactly how the saying goes, but it means the Prophet isn't being listened to.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

http://www.businessinsider.com/bob-w...blicans-2013-2

Four more years of this kind of horseshit. "Please give me more money to blow on stupid shit or I'll start releasing illegal alien criminals and won't deploy aircraft carriers."

[venkman]

http://www.businessinsider.com/bob-w...blicans-2013-2

Four more years of this kind of horseshit. "Please give me more money to blow on stupid shit or I'll start releasing illegal alien criminals and won't deploy aircraft carriers."

Chicago politics. The mob is in the White House.

Now they're threatening Bob Woodward for hellsake.

[YOhio]

Chicago politics. The mob is in the White House.

Now they're threatening Bob Woodward for hellsake.

This Woodward development has been pretty fascinating. He's as animated as I can recall and pissed off at the White House.

Woodward thinks there is still a grand bargain to be had between Obama and Boehner, with tax reform as a huge component. “Sit down and work through this,” he said. “I can see exactly how you come up with a deal that would dispose of lots of things.” Woodward, who helped bring down one presidency and has written instant history on every one since, added: “Color me a little baffled. I don’t understand this White House. Do you?”



Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...#ixzz2M9rVfdiv