Seeking Alpha
Seeking Alpha Portfolio App for iPad
Finance
(1)
Market Currents

House Republicans - including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor - are reportedly overwhelmingly...

  • Tuesday, January 1, 4:31 PM ET
    House Republicans - including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor - are reportedly overwhelmingly opposed to the fiscal cliff deal approved by the Senate. The House appears poised to amend the deal and send it back to the Senate, setting up a legislative high-wire act.
Track new comments on this story

This news story has 266 comments:

  • "Retiring Rep. Steve LaTourette of Ohio asked House Republicans why the House would “heed the votes of sleep-deprived octogenarians,” according to a source in the meeting."
    1 Jan, 04:32 PM Reply Like
  • LOL.....hey I am almost there!
    1 Jan, 04:40 PM Reply Like
  • It's simple, Representative La Toutette. Octogenarians are in the Senate. And we have a Community Organizer signing the deal (admittedly a bad shake of the dice), so we...

    ...let the canoe go over the Reichenbach Falls....

    The Community Organizer is fascintated with Indonesian politics and, after that, he'll annouce some kind of half-backside U.N. agglomeration that will bestow authority...(leading from behind) on an internationalist mess that will require the American Army to lead the Egyptians towards Mecca. After that we can at last get on with the trial of Kahlid Sheik Mohammed.

    Ms.Rodham/Clinton: You can't keep the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy at bay forever.
    1 Jan, 06:09 PM Reply Like
  • Maybe losing the "senior" vote is why he is retiring.
    1 Jan, 06:22 PM Reply Like
  • If you truly are ailing, and all Sixties sorts will be ailing (or dead) in the near future, signal us with something...a hand sign?

    You see, you are the choice of the Establishment Media, The Next Big Thing, so...you can't languish on them...

    As for us, well, we'll get on as best as we can.
    1 Jan, 06:30 PM Reply Like
  • It's unbiased, self-centered, partisan politicians like Rep. Steve LaTourette of Ohio, that has caused stalemates in our government. If you can't play with others then you are in the wrong job and need to be replaced.
    Give me back my Government!!
    1 Jan, 06:37 PM Reply Like
  • Yes Yes Yes Yes......................
    1 Jan, 06:55 PM Reply Like
  • That's a low blow.

    Even those of us in the Fascist Far-Far (and "Neo") Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy assume the octogenarians, the Hillary Clintons and the Kerry Ketchups can't go on forever.

    Thinking ahead, can we lead from behind forever?
    1 Jan, 08:25 PM Reply Like
  • The bottom line is that the Tea Baggers want to go over the cliff, and then accept the same deal they are being offered now EXCEPT they get to say "We lowered taxes!!!" I am a conservative, but Good Lord, everyone sees through this BS.
    1 Jan, 04:34 PM Reply Like
  • We're "over" the cliff, so they could say that now. Some people are asking why the House GOP is so intransigent after November's election, but this is still the old House.

    A new Congress is sworn in at noon Thursday, and will likely have to start all over again on this in House and Senate.
    1 Jan, 04:37 PM Reply Like
  • We've already went over the cliff. Even King Norquist gave them 'permission' to vote for the deal.

    Let's make sure none of their family and friends shorted the market for tomorrow!
    1 Jan, 06:41 PM Reply Like
  • There is no way to spin this; Republicans want the American public to know who it is in no uncertain terms which party is the party of 'no'. .
    1 Jan, 06:59 PM Reply Like
  • CBO scored the budget deal and it RAISES the deficit, I thought we were trying to lower it. http://bit.ly/TFnt65
    1 Jan, 07:05 PM Reply Like
  • Mr. Fox. As you say.
    everyingone sees through this BS...

    ...except NBC, ABC, CBS or Big Bird...

    "The bottom line is that the Tea Baggers want to go over the cliff ..."

    No. The bottom line is that the Tea Partiers want to be left alone--they don't wan't to have the EPA investigate everytime they pass wind.

    Those obsessing over the cliff are Hoping for Change.

    (Speaking for the Tea Partiers)

    There must be more to life except Hope and Change and then

    Forward!
    1 Jan, 08:11 PM Reply Like
  • you're conservative ???

    ha ha ha ... good one
    3 Jan, 03:29 PM Reply Like
  • I wonder what the 38 or 39 Republican Senators who voted for the measure think now....Cantor has left them out on a limb...then again what does he care...his district is 65% Republican
    1 Jan, 04:41 PM Reply Like
  • If they continue this bs they will lose the House in 2014.
    1 Jan, 04:43 PM Reply Like
  • I think it is already lost. The Republican party is fragmented and looking weaker by the day. Boehner has been neutered, and the market will tank if they vote "no" on the deal. The liberal media will assign all the blame to them, and the route will be on. Once Obama has both houses, he will start pushing the gun ban hard. Sad to watch.
    1 Jan, 04:52 PM Reply Like
  • You mean "conservative media", don't you? Our media is owned by corporations.
    1 Jan, 05:17 PM Reply Like
  • " If they continue this bs they will lose the House in 2014. "

    God, if there is a God, please have the House Republicans continue this BS for another 2 years.
    1 Jan, 05:45 PM Reply Like
  • No...I mean liberal. If you really think the media is a conservative bunch then you have a lot to learn my friend. Fox News aside, the media is as left wing as it gets. Where have you been?
    1 Jan, 06:03 PM Reply Like
  • Anyone who is not as partisan as Faux News is liberal. Case closed. You are either with us or against us.
    1 Jan, 06:04 PM Reply Like
  • The Republicans have lost my vote. I am registering as an Independent. While I still consider myself fiscally conservative I do not want to be thought of as terminally stupid.
    1 Jan, 06:36 PM Reply Like
  • Welcome to the right side, Moose.
    1 Jan, 06:38 PM Reply Like
  • macro
    Anyone who is not with us is against us.
    1 Jan, 06:56 PM Reply Like
  • ah, I mean macro
    Be thankful there is a constitution which prevents liberals in the big cities from dictating to the rest of America.
    1 Jan, 07:00 PM Reply Like
  • Wyo, Be thankful for a political system that has liberals in the big cities subsidizing the conservatives in the rest of America.
    1 Jan, 07:10 PM Reply Like
  • So you lose the house in 14, who cares. You need to have some balls now and not allow the lying dems to get the taxes without spending cuts. That is what they have done for decades. What upsets me is the spineless repub. in the senate who, like usual, do their best cave routine.
    1 Jan, 07:12 PM Reply Like
  • The senate deal has taxes going up on 77% of the people via payroll taxes. I think by 2014 the economy will suck and people will be tired of Obama, not working with their representatives.

    And really the 47% don't vote in mid-terms. So we will probably get 4 more years of this nonsense.
    1 Jan, 07:14 PM Reply Like
  • There are 3 more cliffs in the next three months, with opportunity to bring spending cuts with them (debt ceiling, budget, sequestration). The key is to start working on that tomorrow (or as soon as possible), and not wait until we are already over the cliff and desperately trying to breathe to start working.
    1 Jan, 07:15 PM Reply Like
  • It is not certain that the House Republicans who vote against the deal will lose their seats in 2014. There was a good article in the Washington Post explaining that most of the House Republicans are elected in districts with very large margins over their competitors. Therefore, the real danger for them is not from independents or the democrats. The real danger is if they don't look conservative enough which may lead to primary challenges from the ultra right. That's why the House Republicans don't have a political incentive to approve a deal that raises taxes and does not cut spending.
    1 Jan, 07:25 PM Reply Like
  • We need 18 House Republicans to lose for the House to go Dem.

    18.

    I believe that the American people may be crazy, but they are not dumb.
    1 Jan, 07:26 PM Reply Like
  • Couldn't agree more Rubenov! I hope they actually start doing some constructive work; both parties!
    1 Jan, 07:45 PM Reply Like
  • Of course they aren't dumb..... dumb would trying to give democrats all the power and lose any hope of meaningful spending cuts and entitlement reform
    1 Jan, 09:30 PM Reply Like
  • If American people were dumb they would want spending cuts and entitlement reforms that would hurt them. They aren't dumb. They know who has their interest in mind, vs. the interests of the top 2%.
    1 Jan, 09:32 PM Reply Like
  • Of course. People will always vote themselves free stuff when given the chance

    "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
    1 Jan, 10:03 PM Reply Like
  • That's why the Republicans are screwed, chop chop. But I do think they should campaign hard in 2014 on the platform of cutting social safety nets. They owe it to the country and the Democrats to do that.
    1 Jan, 10:14 PM Reply Like
  • Nah, they just need to campaign on the idea that the best social safety net is having a job and ever since Clinton, democrats haven't known how to create those....
    1 Jan, 10:37 PM Reply Like
  • The best way to create jobs must be to plunge the economy back into a recession, eh?
    1 Jan, 10:38 PM Reply Like
  • Really - you are blaming Rep for that ?
    1 Jan, 10:47 PM Reply Like
  • "The best way to create jobs must be to plunge the economy back into a recession, eh?"

    Fear-mongering, Paul Krugman style.

    Surely you can do better....
    1 Jan, 10:48 PM Reply Like
  • Well, Mike, I guessed you missed all the chatter from Republicans that they would rather let the country go over the fiscal cliff and plunge into a recession than agree to tax increases on the rich.
    1 Jan, 10:58 PM Reply Like
  • Fear mongering? You think if the country went over the fiscal cliff there would be no recession? ROFL!
    1 Jan, 10:58 PM Reply Like
  • "Plunge" into a recession. You listen to way to much news, or Dem talking points.
    1 Jan, 11:01 PM Reply Like
  • So what do you think Mike would happen if the country went over the fiscal cliff?
    1 Jan, 11:06 PM Reply Like
  • What cliff ?

    Eventually I would think (or hope) we could get government spending under control. It's pretty simple.... we can't continue to out spend the money we take in.
    1 Jan, 11:09 PM Reply Like
  • A mild one is a small price to pay for more solid fiscal footing going forward
    1 Jan, 11:10 PM Reply Like
  • bingo.... people are going to take a 2% hit payroll tax hit anyway, plus whatever ObamaCare does. Regulations are coming that will stifle business growth more and more....

    Welcome to 2009 again.
    1 Jan, 11:14 PM Reply Like
  • Guys, I have to go now. The bill passed, Tea Party is slapped well, I need my beauty rest till the market gaps up at open tmrw. I have to take some profit on my option trades.
    1 Jan, 11:15 PM Reply Like
  • Yes
    3 Jan, 07:25 PM Reply Like
  • House republicans are so dysfunctional that if there were no president, no senate and no house democrats involved the house still couldn't pass a piece of legislation let alone agree on amendments to the Senate bill. Utterly pathetic.
    1 Jan, 04:47 PM Reply Like
  • Hear that? That's the final nail being driven into the coffin of the modern Republican party. Nice job boys. I hope there are enough right wing think tanks to absorb all of you after the 2014 mid-terms.
    1 Jan, 04:50 PM Reply Like
  • From CNN no less ...
    http://cnnmon.ie/U644yX
    1 Jan, 04:51 PM Reply Like
  • Well, Greece's economy has contracted some 25% since '08. And they haven't really rioted all that much. Perhaps we can handle the same.


    Ζήτω για λιτότητα!
    1 Jan, 07:01 PM Reply Like
  • why does the fiscal cliff bill contains a hidden immediate pay raise for every govt worker??
    1 Jan, 04:52 PM Reply Like
  • it's not hidden if you found it :)
    1 Jan, 05:05 PM Reply Like
  • Good question, Obama had a 3 or 4 year freeze on congressional pay raises and it expired 12-31, and a 1%, or so, raise to 174k was done. They acted quick on that one.
    1 Jan, 05:08 PM Reply Like
  • Actually, the raise was only 0.5%. I am not sure I begrudge a federal employee a 0.5% raise every 3 years. Admittedly, congress hasn't done much to earn a raise. But sadly, they are lumped together with the rank and file.
    1 Jan, 05:27 PM Reply Like
  • It is sad : they all are still working for us , They should pay attention to what has happen in the NFL, but yet: they still will be Millionaires, whatever they do.
    2 Jan, 03:46 AM Reply Like
  • I thought it was a continuation of the pay "freeze" for civilian gov employees...
    2 Jan, 03:47 AM Reply Like
  • I suggest some of you read The Federalist Papers. This is exactly what Madison had in mind to protect minorities against the will of the majority. The system is designed to be dysfunctional. The Tea Party, The Congresional Black Caucus, etc. As Baucus said, "Obama won his election, I won mine." Regardless, it's all theater. The only way out is default through inflation, then reset. Taxes can't begin to close the gap, but taxing the "rich" is red meat to the left who can't improve their constituents standard of living so they they demonize the successful to change the conversation. Sadly, they are good at it.
    1 Jan, 04:56 PM Reply Like
  • Madison was only 5'2" and weighed 100 pounds
    1 Jan, 05:00 PM Reply Like
  • But he had a hefty intellect. I need to read up on his opinion of bankers but I think he felt the same way as his neighbor, Jefferson, who was @ 6'6"
    1 Jan, 05:08 PM Reply Like
  • Well was married to Dolly Madison...she made great cupcakes,,,
    1 Jan, 05:15 PM Reply Like
  • There are some tax inequities and everyone should know that. From the $ 100 million IRAs, carrying interest, and yes 15% on dividends and cap gains. I know as I was able to retire early and I am paying less than I was when I was working and i am actually making more now. It's the folks that get a pay check and pay as they go that are paying the most on a percentage basis. Most small businesses, although essential to our economy, are able to shield earnings/expenses, etc via tax loopholes and various other means as well as individuals that may be extremely wealthy but are paid in dividends and cap gains that are paying less on a PERCENTAGE basis. No need to bring up "double taxation" as everything is double taxed.
    1 Jan, 05:20 PM Reply Like
  • "demonize the successful?" You mean the class of whackjobs that includes the people who got us into this mess, got a $2.5 Trillion bail out, and are now complaining that their taxes are going up? These taxes are merely transferring a PART of the large liabilities going back to the same people that put them on the public sector in the first place.
    1 Jan, 05:41 PM Reply Like
  • Perhaps you can let me know about some of these "loopholes" you mention, I would really like to take advantage of them.

    When you put your after tax capital at risk, you should not be paying the same rate on your capital gains. In fact, the government should allow one to deduct all of one's capital losses against earned income instead of the paltry $3,000 limit that seems to have been in place for ever.
    1 Jan, 05:52 PM Reply Like
  • No. I'm talking about your doctor, lawyer, CPA, small business owner and others who used to comprise the upper middle class but are now called rich by the left. Remember, Obama campaigned against those making over 250K. The uber wealthy Industrialists and bankers have never been popular in this country. Think Robber Barons. Unfortunately, they are TBTT. Too Big To Touch.
    1 Jan, 05:53 PM Reply Like
  • Your not paying the same rate, but I get your point. However, as a former business owner and an investor now, I do know taxes. You may not agree with me and that is fine, we can agree to disagree.
    1 Jan, 06:01 PM Reply Like
  • Geoff, What top percentage of the population should count as wealthy in your view? 10%? 5%? 2%? Just give me a percentage and then let's map that to the income distribution.

    Or is no one wealthy in the USA?
    1 Jan, 06:33 PM Reply Like
  • Income does not necessarily equate to wealth. You would have to look at the balance sheet, but I agree that income equality is a major problem. I just don't agree that central planning is the answer.Bill Gross thinks the Dems will push for a wealth tax which may well be unconstitutional but that hasn't proved to be much of a deterrent under dem presidents. I carry no brief for the reps but at least they talk a good fiscal game. I fear the government more than the urban hoodlums the welfare policies have created. A pox on all politicians.
    1 Jan, 07:04 PM Reply Like
  • I got that Geoff, but what's your cutoff? Or do you think income shouldn't be considered at all when determining who is rich?
    1 Jan, 07:14 PM Reply Like
  • What business is it of yours who makes what unless you believe that you have the right to decide through your representatives how much "wealth" someone is allowed to keep? You lefties have a problem with individual rights and liberty. Be careful whom you tread on. One day "they" might come for you.
    1 Jan, 07:29 PM Reply Like
  • Moderate Republican = same old game of shoveling money to Wall Street and the ruling class in Washington while pretending to be something different.

    Good riddance to them - let Obama and the liberal statists own this disaster of a fiscal plan. I'd vote no on any plan that increases revenue to Washington.
    1 Jan, 04:56 PM Reply Like
  • You are delusional then. Unless you want to be Greece in 10 years you should vote for higher taxes AND spending cuts. One or the other won't do it.
    1 Jan, 05:06 PM Reply Like
  • Moderate democrats = same old game of shoveling money to Wall Stree and the ruling class in Washington while pretending to be something different.
    1 Jan, 05:18 PM Reply Like
  • Taxes would have to be near confiscatory levels on the wealthy and the middle class rates would have to go back to Clinton era levels. Also, defense and entitlements would have to be eviserated.
    We are approaching the end of this debt super cycle. We cannot grow our way out. The politicians know this and are playing to their constituencies. There is no fix which is why the Fed is printing. Invest accordingly.
    1 Jan, 05:21 PM Reply Like
  • Amen to that - unfortunately spending cuts and higher taxes are the answer..
    1 Jan, 06:00 PM Reply Like
  • Geoffster.... Take a breath. We WILL grow our way out to a significant degree.
    1 Jan, 06:09 PM Reply Like
  • I disagree. Read John Maudlin's latest letter.
    1 Jan, 06:15 PM Reply Like
  • "We cannot grow our way out. The politicians know this and are playing to their constituencies. There is no fix which is why the Fed is printing. Invest accordingly."

    Thank you. Exactly.
    1 Jan, 06:17 PM Reply Like
  • "You are delusional then. Unless you want to be Greece in 10 years you should vote for higher taxes AND spending cuts. One or the other won't do it."

    Huh?

    That's Greece today...
    1 Jan, 07:07 PM Reply Like
  • "We cannot grow our way out. The politicians know this and are playing to their constituencies. There is no fix which is why the Fed is printing. Invest accordingly."

    The "investor" class won't have a problem no matter which way the cookie crumbles...
    1 Jan, 07:08 PM Reply Like
  • Republicans are not wise this time - this is putting them into an embarrassing position.
    1 Jan, 05:04 PM Reply Like
  • When have they ever been wise?
    1 Jan, 05:56 PM Reply Like
  • embarrassing to whom , you Liberals ?
    1 Jan, 06:54 PM Reply Like
  • "Cantor sent a letter to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to request almost $75 million in federal stimulus funds for the I-95 high speed rail project."

    Spending cuts???
    1 Jan, 05:19 PM Reply Like
  • Exactly. That is why I am surprised that The Tea Party reps couldn't be bought off for their votes. That's the way the system works. There can't be many principled people up there, at least not for long. Perversely, I'm enjoying this theater of the absurd and hope I make the right investment decisions despite the clown show.
    1 Jan, 05:37 PM Reply Like
  • -20 S&P at the open Jan 2nd.

    Monday was a bull trap of the foolish.
    1 Jan, 05:25 PM Reply Like
  • I'll take the over on that.
    1 Jan, 05:36 PM Reply Like
  • And maybe tmrw is a bear trap, Tigerboi. Everyone will be wrong at least once by Friday.
    1 Jan, 05:44 PM Reply Like
  • nice bet , Soros
    2 Jan, 07:22 PM Reply Like
  • Being right and being clever are two entirely different things. The Republican House is on cloud 7 and still doesn't understand what going down really means. They MIGHT be partially right but they are certainly as far away from clever as one can be.
    1 Jan, 05:27 PM Reply Like
  • Yep
    1 Jan, 06:11 PM Reply Like
  • I hear the House Republicans who oppose the deal saying that they are the voice of the people, but if they are truly interested in the voice of all the people, they would bring the bill up for a vote for all the house so we can hear the voice of all the people.
    1 Jan, 05:27 PM Reply Like
  • They are the voice of the chosen people.
    1 Jan, 05:49 PM Reply Like
  • Jokes aside, the Tea Party Patriots cannot allow this vote to come to the floor. The Republican caucus indicated that there are enough votes to pass this with majority Dem support and some Republicans crossing over. That would be a slap on the face for the Tea Party Patriots. They would rather go down with the ship. As one person present during the caucus reports, the Republicans are making idiotic demands for spending cuts.
    1 Jan, 05:55 PM Reply Like
  • Recession or signing something to prevent recession, but also something you might not like. Decisions, decisions, decisions. Our politicians are a complete mess and have no grasp on the real world. It's a damn shame they won't sign this bill
    1 Jan, 05:32 PM Reply Like
  • Sad to say it and sad to see it, but we are indeed watching the destruction of the republican party. I'm not saying this is the right deal or the wrong deal. What I am saying is this should've been resolved long ago. Republicans had the chance to put forth a measure that actually had a chance of passing and seizing the upper hand. Instead, they voted on so many bills that had zero chance of passing that Boehner can't even get a republican majority in a group of only republicans now. They have hurt the very people who voted them into office, the small retailers who depend on xmas spending to make their year. I own a small travel business and will vote all democrat next election. Sad, but they've lost me and my kids....
    1 Jan, 05:44 PM Reply Like
  • Why ?

    Because a bunch of Liberal commentators on this board say so ?
    Do Liberals get rid of Barney Frank , Maxine Waters or Charley Rangel when the dems pass idiotic bills ? NO

    Why would republican voters change ? THEY ON"T
    They didn't do so 2 months ago , after all the prognosticators said they would after summer of 2011 budget calamity
    This is a cake walk compared to that

    Nothing will change in Congress in 2014
    1 Jan, 05:48 PM Reply Like
  • Tas, wish you the best and hope 2013 is a good one for you. 4 years ago I was in a very similar situation as you now. Good luck.
    1 Jan, 05:51 PM Reply Like
  • The Republicans lost an election against an unpopular president. Might I ask where your optimism is coming from? Smoking too many tea leaves?
    1 Jan, 05:52 PM Reply Like
  • Come over to the right side Tas.
    1 Jan, 05:52 PM Reply Like
  • The bill passed by the Senate actually increases the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years according to the CBO - sounds to me like this is a bad deal that needs to be fixed in a major way. Last minute "deals" tend to be bad deals.
    1 Jan, 05:46 PM Reply Like
  • The House prevented any meaningful deal for how many month now?
    1 Jan, 05:53 PM Reply Like
  • Your $4 trillion is a little over $1 trillion more than fully going over the Cliff. If we were to keep all tax cuts and do nothing the deficit would be Ten Times worse. It's all relative and the passed deal means great progress. Link from "whiff" above explains it fairly well.
    1 Jan, 06:19 PM Reply Like
  • TG, the bill of tax cuts increases the deficit compared to the baseline assumption that all of the tax cuts expire and the sequestered spending cuts go forward. This baseline was never going to happen. Instead they have broken the tax cut legislation apart from the spend cut legislation that will have to be taken up in two months. The $4 trillion number is meaningless.
    1 Jan, 06:45 PM Reply Like
  • if the house decides to reject the senate's bill... they better send back something that is a COMPROMISE!

    the house will earn zero points with the american public by raising everyone's taxes then sending a far-fetched proposal back to the senate... hate to be sound like a broken record on this thread, but this is the death of the republican party if they don't get their act together.

    everyone in america can see that Obama is being reasonable and trying to compromise. it's time the house wakes up.
    2 Jan, 03:36 AM Reply Like
  • "House Republicans - including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor - are reportedly overwhelmingly opposed...

    How dare them? After all, they were elected...to save children...and babies...and...(can't go there)...

    Are we or are we not all Keynesians Now? Does the dry-erase board in Boston mean nothing?
    1 Jan, 05:52 PM Reply Like
  • Aides said that Speaker John A. Boehner, who had pledged to put any measure the Senate passed on the House floor for a vote, was mainly listening to the complaints of his rank and file and had not taken a firm position on the legislation, though he had clear reservations.

    The situation loomed as a significant test for Mr. Boehner, who had been unable to pass his own proposal to increase taxes only on $1 million in income and above. He has said repeatedly that he would allow a vote on the Senate bill, but he has also said he did not want to pass a bill with predominantly Democratic votes. Public opposition from Mr. Cantor, who has up to this point sided with Mr. Boehner in the fiscal fight, would also complicate his position.
    1 Jan, 05:59 PM Reply Like
  • Cantor was instrumental in Boehner's Plan B plan getting defeated.
    1 Jan, 06:46 PM Reply Like
  • I love Cantor then! He will hand the house over to Dems in 2014.
    1 Jan, 07:15 PM Reply Like
  • I love him too for the opposite reason.
    1 Jan, 07:15 PM Reply Like
  • I really really dislike Cantor.
    1 Jan, 07:47 PM Reply Like
  • But the strong, bipartisan 89-to-8 vote in the Senate about 2 a.m. on Tuesday will put strong pressure on the House to approve the legislation since a defeat would essentially leave the House responsible for a steep series of tax increases and spending cuts that some economists warn could send the nation back into a recession.
    1 Jan, 06:02 PM Reply Like
  • Why would they want to vote on something that they don't like? Just let it die, do nothing, without incriminating your hands and setting a record for the history books.

    Period
    1 Jan, 06:02 PM Reply Like
  • You know, tax hikes for everyone--which happens if they do nothing-- is a little worse than this.
    1 Jan, 06:31 PM Reply Like
  • You know, I'm not for hiking any taxes. I signed non-disclosures. But just look around in the federal bureaucracy, tons and tons of voluntary adult detention centers (vada), folks pushing wrongly-procured equipments over cliffs at mid-nights, the gravy train per diems travel bills. It is pretty obscene.
    1 Jan, 06:39 PM Reply Like
  • Of course the Tea Party Patriots wouldn't let the bill come to a vote and suppress democracy because they know majority of Congressmen are for it. That's how it works in third world dictatorship. They would want to wait for a while, lose more public support, and then pass the bill because they like to be humiliated.
    1 Jan, 06:44 PM Reply Like
  • MI, you're entitled to your liberal thinking. It is free speech in this country. No contest.

    But I respectfully disagree.
    1 Jan, 06:53 PM Reply Like
  • You think the Tea Party Patriots should allow the bill to come to the floor and get passed with majority votes!? You serious!?
    1 Jan, 07:16 PM Reply Like
  • Macro: your blind partisanship makes me think you are an apparatchik of the Dems. Regardless, I'll play along. How many budget bills did Dingy Harry bring to floor in the last three years?
    1 Jan, 07:17 PM Reply Like
  • No idea. Educate me.
    1 Jan, 07:18 PM Reply Like
  • Is it normal for Congress not to pass a federal budget?

    Unfortunately, yes. It turns out that we’re a pugilistic people by nature, and when you put money into the mix, things just escalate like a Gambino family reunion. The last time that we had a full-on, real-life federal budget that was signed into law, it was 1997. Bill Clinton was president, and Newt Gingrich was speaker of the House (and only on his second wife).
    1 Jan, 07:21 PM Reply Like
  • Hmmm....let me think. Maybe because the American people deserve to know, for the record, where their elected officials stand on important issues? What a novel concept.
    1 Jan, 07:27 PM Reply Like
  • Oh, Fox, they know. Trust me they know. After the fiscal cliff nonsense is over, they will know very well who is the party of no.
    1 Jan, 07:29 PM Reply Like
  • I agree with House rep. Eric Cantor for his philosophy; my phrase, goes like this; Why not reduce spending, as our expensive habits make things more expensive!Or as, someone else might have said, " The cost of living high should be eradicated from the cost of living"! Or...."Why do we need a Tv or computer in every room, if we are becoming a Third world country !? Or......Or.......
    1 Jan, 06:04 PM Reply Like
  • Third world country? The U.S. is in absolutely no danger of losing its number one position in the world has having the highest per capital wealth for any large advanced country. I don't think a third world country would lead the world in per capita wealth.
    1 Jan, 06:49 PM Reply Like
  • I hate to be long TLT here (which I am), but I think Ben is going to be forced into getting the 10 year down to 1%, so he can "reduce" the long term deficits by lowering the amount of interest paid.

    If you owe someone 16 Trillion you want to pay it back at the lowest rate possible, right ?
    1 Jan, 06:10 PM Reply Like
  • Ben should start buying up a whole load more of Treasuries and hold public bonfire with it.
    1 Jan, 06:11 PM Reply Like
  • Outside of SS, the gov't holds the largest gov't debt. Kinda interesting accounting but Gov't is not required to follow GAAP.

    Do you think they will pay themselves back? Maybe, maybe not.
    1 Jan, 06:23 PM Reply Like
  • They pay interest every month.

    The goal is trade in the debt to manage the monetary base, it is not meant as a loan. If the Fed burns up the Treasuries the only challenge would be that if inflation hits the Feds will have less ammunition to soak up the extra currency on the long end. So I don't think Bernanke will use this bullet up.

    But it is theoretically possible.
    1 Jan, 06:27 PM Reply Like
  • Macro, if you are insinuating that the Fed expanding its balance sheet is inflationary, it is not. The inflation that the Fed creates by buying Treasuries is risk asset inflation (stock markets) because investors are induced to buy dividend paying stocks, REITs, etc. to get yield that they can no long get from bonds. This is the intended result from QE. Broad inflation is not directly effected because the monetary velocity is not increased.
    1 Jan, 07:43 PM Reply Like
  • I am not insinuating. I am hoping. If the Feds keep pumping a trillion dollars unsterilized in the economy and the velocity of money remains unchanged and we are stuck in this low inflation hell, then we are all screwed. I am hoping for inflation.
    1 Jan, 07:45 PM Reply Like
  • Cantor getting the shive ready for Boehner....
    1 Jan, 06:24 PM Reply Like
  • As noted by cstauffer...
    "Cantor was instrumental in Boehner's Plan B plan getting defeated."

    thus the shive has been sharpened
    1 Jan, 06:52 PM Reply Like
  • Ridiculous. gop should accept token tax increases starting at $1 million to pacify democrats in return for much bigger spending cuts
    1 Jan, 07:21 PM Reply Like
  • What is a synonym(another word) for "shive"?
    1 Jan, 07:21 PM Reply Like
  • Why do we need these insider trading, special interest crook representatives?
    1 Jan, 07:15 PM Reply Like
  • Time to add some metals folks !! Those printing machines are going to run 24/7....

    Honestly this is sad, but almost comical....
    1 Jan, 07:19 PM Reply Like
  • Good. Needs more spending cuts (like any lol)
    1 Jan, 07:20 PM Reply Like
  • It's a little pain now or a world of hell later. I trust the Republicans to be responsible and make the right choice.
    1 Jan, 07:34 PM Reply Like
  • Seth, Are you into pain?
    1 Jan, 07:38 PM Reply Like
  • You know what they say, Macro Investor.

    No pain, no gain.

    You can survive on a credit card for a while. Paybacks are hell though. Our debt is dangerously high. Running it up more will just make it much worse.

    It's like asking whether you want to take 5 licks from a switch now, or whether you want to be whipped until you are raw and bleeding with a cat of nine tails later. It's tough, and most don't like to hear about tough choices. But I think that's the situation we face.
    1 Jan, 07:47 PM Reply Like
  • Do you get whipped often?
    1 Jan, 07:50 PM Reply Like
  • We are all going to get whipped. The people who recognize that and prepare for it will profit. Those who do not will suffer.
    1 Jan, 08:08 PM Reply Like
  • Seth, Never fight the Fed. Ever.
    1 Jan, 08:09 PM Reply Like
  • MI...you mock him, but he is right. Try running a household the way of government runs this country. We borrow 60 cents on the dollar for benefits paid. I don't know about you, but that sounds like a really bad idea. It has nothing to do with "fighting the Fed". It has to do with us becoming Greece. We are toast if we don't "take the pain" and act now.
    1 Jan, 09:25 PM Reply Like
  • Fox, Do you realize that a household is not the country? A household cannot raise it's income by voting in favor of it? A household cannot print its own currency? That anyone who wants a country like a household doesn't know the first thing about macroeconomics? Do you realize the problem with Greece is that they can't print their own currency otherwise they would have been fine?
    1 Jan, 09:28 PM Reply Like
  • Too dumb a statement to even comment on. You really think "being able to print money" is the savior of government. Wow. You have a lot to learn, friend.
    1 Jan, 10:15 PM Reply Like
  • I have voted Republican most of my adult life, and I have to say the House Republicans are setting themselves up here. This will be painted as the largest tax increase in the history of our country--not passing the new tax bill and letting the tax increase occur. It will have been caused--100%--by the House Republicans. If Cantor and Boehner are stupid enough to pitch this softball to the Dem controlled Senate, they will be sliced, skewered, and roasted by the Dems, and they will likely lessen Republican representation in Congress for many years to come! This is a very reasonable compromise on taxes. I would bet close to 100% of Americans are for it, and very strongly. Unfortunately, it looks like the fiscal cliff may end up being the end of a viable Republican party in America.
    1 Jan, 07:34 PM Reply Like
  • "they will likely lessen Republican representation in Congress for many years to come"

    god, if there is a god ...
    1 Jan, 07:37 PM Reply Like
  • Humble...

    I think you are missing their angle here. They get to let the tax increases go through (by doing nothing) and then lowering taxes significantly by simply accepting the same deal being offered a few days from now. The sad truth is that most Americans are dumb enough to fall for it. The House is not going to vote for a tax increase. They will, however, vote for a cut in taxes even though they are the exact same deal. Yes...we have reached a new low.
    1 Jan, 09:29 PM Reply Like
  • House Republicans met for a second time on Tuesday to discuss the next steps on the fiscal cliff — whether to consider the bill as written -- a so-called up or down vote -- or amend it and send it back to the Senate.

    A vote on either an amended version of the bill, which would add a package of spending cuts, or an up or down vote is likely to occur on Tuesday night, according to a GOP source. The source said House Speaker John Boehner presented those two options to his members.

    If the GOP is able to get a commitment of 218 votes on the amendment, then House Republicans will bring it to the floor for a vote, the source said. If the GOP is not able to secure those votes, it will bring up the Senate-passed measure for an up or down vote in the House, the source said.
    1 Jan, 07:36 PM Reply Like
  • Bill passes tonight. That's my bet. There won't be 218 votes to amend the bill. So it goes to up or down vote and there is passes with majority Dem support.

    Tea Party Patriots must really love to humiliate themselves.
    1 Jan, 07:36 PM Reply Like
  • Cantor should be hung in the street!
    1 Jan, 07:46 PM Reply Like
  • No need...it appears he is going to hang himself and the entire Republican party off of the "cliff" tonight or tomorrow. Big tax increases and big Democratic majorities appear to be Cantor's legacy for America, unfortunately.
    1 Jan, 07:49 PM Reply Like
  • I don't think we will be so lucky. The House is getting ready to pass the Senate bill. I know that I should care far more for the good of the country than a Dem win in 2014, but I must say that I am a little disappointed. I didn't expect the Republicans to fold so fast.
    1 Jan, 08:04 PM Reply Like
  • Dem. Rep. Hastings tells reporters GOP going w. clean up/down vote on Senate deal. "They're crazy but they're not that batshit crazy"
    1 Jan, 08:12 PM Reply Like
  • Hey Macro - Keep telling yourself it's a win for the Dems. Neither side likes it, but the Dems like it less. The Reps will get their spending cuts. Count on it.
    1 Jan, 08:30 PM Reply Like
  • I am sure John. Republicans love tax increases so much more than Democrats.
    1 Jan, 08:45 PM Reply Like
  • The spending cuts they'll be forced to accept will be a more bitter pill than the tax increase on people who earn over $450k/year. Less tax payer money to give to their base. They will hate it, and so will the base. 2% of Republicans will get hit by tax increases. What % of the liberal gimme-crowd will get hit by spending cuts?
    1 Jan, 09:18 PM Reply Like
  • Which spending cut John? I didn't know that there were spending cuts in the bill being voted on tonight.
    1 Jan, 09:29 PM Reply Like
  • All of them.
    1 Jan, 09:31 PM Reply Like
  • Said nothing about tonight. Deflect all you want - we both know the cuts are coming, and the what?, $30-40 billion/year in increased taxes will pale in comparison.

    When is that? February? Can't wait.
    1 Jan, 09:35 PM Reply Like
  • I agree that cuts are coming. But if you think the Dems will just roll over in Feb you are sorely mistaken. they will just let the sequestration cuts go throw, which means big defense cuts. You think the Republicans will have the guts to accept big defense cuts?

    Think again.

    Have I been wrong on this fiscal cliff nonsense yet John? I called every single step. So trust me, in February there will be some token spending cuts but the military will have to bear most of the brunt of it. Entitlements won't be cut as much as the Tea Party Patriots want them cut.
    1 Jan, 09:37 PM Reply Like
  • There are NO cuts
    There will be NO cuts
    2 Jan, 07:23 PM Reply Like
  • Big cuts a-comin'.
    2 Jan, 10:40 PM Reply Like
  • Great big borrowing has to slow down or stopping somewhere and sometime.
    2 Jan, 10:47 PM Reply Like
  • I know we'll find out soon how it goes, but I despair that the legislation will pass as "the deal" manages to keep taxes low for most people. And it seems that the GOP is more concerned about not raising taxes than about being fiscally responsible and curtailing spending. If the Republicans give in here, do they have any chance on holding their ground in two months when the debt ceiling needs to be raised? Maybe they have just given up as the American people and their President seem determined to borrowing their way back to "prosperity".
    1 Jan, 08:53 PM Reply Like
  • I think the Republicans are done.
    1 Jan, 08:58 PM Reply Like
  • Guys, tell me something, how many of you will benefit from entitlement cuts and how many of you will be hurt? The tax deal is already done so 99.5% of the population has no horse in that race. Their tax rates are unchanged. Now, how come so many of you want to cut the same entitlements that you will benefit from? I am just trying to understand the psychology here. Why do you guys like pain so much?
    1 Jan, 09:39 PM Reply Like
  • No government spending that they cut will negatively affect me. I don't use expected SS/medicare "benefits" in my retirement calculations. My property taxes pay the bill for fire/police. SSI/welfare/SNAP/EBT/W... etc., etc. is just money thrown into a black hole.

    No pain from government cuts here.
    1 Jan, 09:49 PM Reply Like
  • Do you think you will get anything from SS when you retire?
    1 Jan, 09:53 PM Reply Like
  • Tax Rates for payroll will rise 2%... is that unchanged to you ?

    The CBO places the impact at $3.9Trillion more debt. For a "Macro Investor" you don't have much of a sense in macro economics.
    1 Jan, 09:54 PM Reply Like
  • Absolutely not. I want to opt out.
    1 Jan, 09:56 PM Reply Like
  • John, Since you don't think you won't get anything from SS, would you be willing to sell it to me for a 90% discount?
    1 Jan, 09:57 PM Reply Like
  • Mike, We are monetizing the debt to the tune of half a trillion a year. Not enough, but it is a start. $3.9T is nothing. The first rule of investing based on macroeconomics is to never fight the Fed.

    I did forget about the payroll tax increase.

    So Mike, will you be hurt in any way from entitlement cuts?
    1 Jan, 09:59 PM Reply Like
  • If I could opt out of SS/medicare for only a 10% penalty, I would.
    1 Jan, 10:00 PM Reply Like
  • So your ok with monetizing debt ? I wouldn't fight the Fed but I don't expect the Fed to compensate for bad Fiscal Policy with bad Monetary Policy (as they are doing today).

    As a retiree I probably would be hurt by entitlement cuts, but before those cuts I would expect a clean out of waste and simplified tax policies, which both Dems and Reps won't do.
    1 Jan, 10:10 PM Reply Like
  • Not opting out, John. You have to pay those taxes no matter what. But you are expecting a 0 income stream from them, right? I will be happy to pay you 10% of the face value of supposed SS payments that you would have received, which should be a great deal for you, as you were expecting to receive nothing.

    I give this offer to anyone who says that they are not going to get anything from Social Security. Strangely, no one takes me up on the offer. Thing is, they all know that actually they will get SS. They are just repeating soundbites they hard on right wing radio.
    1 Jan, 10:16 PM Reply Like
  • I am totally OK with monetizing the debt given the disinflationary situation we are in with super low money velocity. We need some inflation to kick the coproates in the rear end so that they stop sitting on their cash pile and start to invest some of it and hire workers.

    So, Mike, you will be hurt by entitlement cuts but you still want entitlements to be cut. Why is that?
    1 Jan, 10:17 PM Reply Like
  • My parents use to say they weren't going to collect SS over 40 years ago. I don't think talk radio has that much to do with it.

    Be careful that you don't lose your mind in the left wing talking points.

    It does seem though that your temporal logic concerning government spending is short.
    1 Jan, 10:23 PM Reply Like
  • See, everyone complains that they will not get Social Security without checking the facts. Social Security is far from insolvent. It will be there for everyone. But people keep repeating this nonsense because conservatives want to roll the country back to the pre-New Deal era. So sad, especially coming from people who need the social safety net the most.

    I am not sure what left wing talking points you are referring to. I just want to make as much money as I can, and right wing politics is horrible for the economy and the market. If the conservatives start to worry less about the moochers and more about people like me who just want to get rich then I might consider voting for them. I would rather earn more and pay more in taxes.

    Well, conservatives will also have to become socially liberal. No way am I going to let a religious person dictate my actions. Separation of state and church baby!
    1 Jan, 10:35 PM Reply Like
  • Yes everyone complains about SS Dems and Reps. You are somehow seeing everything through one lens. Conservatives see the world as prospering long term without the need of government - libs require government for short term prosperity, and don't care about long term. Most all conservative axioms are proven to benefit people long term, there are economies all around the world as examples. Conversely, countries with socialistic policies don't do so well long term, and generally require austerity programs which leads to social unrest.

    Rightwing politics of less regulations and less government is typically good for the economy, ups and downs are natural and overall I can tell you the last four years for most Americans have been horrible. Although I'm glad you're doing good.

    As far as social issues go - I don't care - this is about investing, if you want to talk guns and god you probably need another forum.
    1 Jan, 10:58 PM Reply Like
  • Mike, I go through my daily life and hardly see any regulations or govt interference. Why is that? What regulations are we talking about? Speed limits?
    2 Jan, 07:29 PM Reply Like
  • democratic troll....................
    2 Jan, 07:51 PM Reply Like
  • Only Republicans trolls are allowed here, eh?
    2 Jan, 07:52 PM Reply Like
  • I would understand that if you don't actually try to startup a business or operate a business trying to spend capital, or listen to news.

    New more demanding EPA regulations that I run into generally cost my company over $1M to comply on new projects. I'm also sure that you have heard of the coal industry and the regulatory burden placed on them - and you probably also heard of the Keystone pipeline and the delays government regulations caused, and I assume you have heard of the regulations for auto manufacturers.....
    2 Jan, 09:20 PM Reply Like
  • Those regulations are in place to protect consumers like me. I do not run a business. I have no wish to ever run a business. I do want to be sure that businesses do not dump their hazards on me. Most people in this country do not run businesses. So what am I missing here?
    2 Jan, 09:26 PM Reply Like
  • Seriously ? Most people in this country work for businesses right ? If government regulations become too intrusive what happens ?
    2 Jan, 09:36 PM Reply Like
  • You tell me, Mike. But given that the USA has done so well all these years with loads and loads of Govt regulations, I would say nothing much. The notion that unless we can pollute there can be no profit, for example, is just plain wrong as history proves.
    2 Jan, 09:44 PM Reply Like
  • The USA growth for the past few years has been anemic.

    Everyone wants a clean water and air, but stupid regulations without a practical means to mitigate them are just bad.
    2 Jan, 09:48 PM Reply Like
  • Mike, let me ask you a completely random question. If you are asked why US growth has been anemic these past few years, what would you say id the prime driver? The bursting of the housing bubble, itself caused by deregulation (which is the opposite of regulation, just for the record), or the public's want for clean water and air? Please, be honest.
    2 Jan, 09:50 PM Reply Like
  • I believe it's not any one thing - I prefer the philosophy of "uncertainty" has been the reason for low growth coupled with other demotivating factors. Regulations and bills like Dodd-Frank are stifling for large and small businesses, as well as on-going unemployment checks, and welfare provide less motivation for folks to find jobs.

    Housing wasn't "deregulated", banks were giving away money - some contend because the government made them. Bubbles burst all the time, but bad Monetary policy and bad Fiscal policy coupled with too many regs will take alot time to work through.
    2 Jan, 10:01 PM Reply Like
  • Mike,

    Do you remember this bill? The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act?

    It is fairly well established that this was one of the main drivers of the financial crisis. It is established beyond doubt that the last 4 years slowdown was because of the financial crisis.

    The bubble was formed under Bush and burst under Bush causing the financial crisis. The fiscal and monetary policy since then has helped recover the country. When someone has cancer, it is not the doctor who is responsible for the slow recovery. It is the abuse the body took beforehand.

    I know that no businessperson likes regulations. They are not supposed to like it. It is there to keep them in check so that consumers like me are protected. I will tell you this - while I joke around on this forums all the time, this is one place where there is no joking around. I know that regulations protect me, the consumer. I know that businesses do not in any way have my interest in mind. They would rather pollute the environment, make super risky bets with other people's money, and try to pay workers bottom dollars. Not their fault, they are human too.

    But that's why regulation is needed to keep them in check.
    2 Jan, 10:08 PM Reply Like
  • "It is established beyond doubt that the last 4 years slowdown was because of the financial crisis."

    I always like these kind of statements "beyond doubt" attached to a timeframe (like "4 years"), because they are subjective. I believe the financial crisis started the recession but the actions to get us out (and still get us out) has been counter productive in almost every respect.

    And of course I like some regulations but regulations that are put in place by politicians and political appointees are dangerous, whether dem or rep. Another example - are you a big Global Warming supporter ? Would you pay money to breathe if a government regulation said your carbon footprint was X based on your size ?
    2 Jan, 10:18 PM Reply Like
  • Mike, there is nothing to support Global Warming. That's like asking whether I am a sky is blue supporter. Global Warming is very real. I am a scientist by training. I have assessed the facts. Global warming is real. Yes, I would happily pay a carbon tax. I do anyway, as the companies paying the carbon tax pass it on to consumers. I have no problem with that. For me, clean air and water as you put it is worth paying for.

    I think the actions have not all been good. The monetary actions have been superlative. The fiscal decisions were not enough. We needed a MASSIVE public works program and we did not do that. But we did many right things, like the bailouts of the finance institutions on which the US Govt made money and stabilized the market in the process. We did take care of our fellow citizens through unemployment insurance and didn't throw them on the street. We have a lot to be proud of.
    2 Jan, 10:26 PM Reply Like
  • I'm not against clean water or air.. but we may disagree on the definition of "clean". From you training you know there is clean and then there is CLEAN, and you may not want aggressive regulations to support CLEAN during an economic downturn. That's all I'm saying, and that is what the current EPA is doing.

    I don't doubt we needed a MASSIVE public works program - high speed rail was a good notion I thought or natural gas transportation infrastructure, but they blew it - and we got ObamaCare.

    We took care of alot of folks - which is good, but we got to ease back and do more to support growth - it's not simple politics - it requires coordination.
    2 Jan, 10:42 PM Reply Like
  • Cutting spending is not the road to growth John. I wish the EPA got far more serious about pollution. I have no idea why people still drive cars.
    2 Jan, 10:45 PM Reply Like
  • You're still spinning - you want growth or government ?

    Pick one - you can't have both.
    2 Jan, 10:53 PM Reply Like
  • We cannot have both growth and Govt? ROFL.

    Mike, the USA always had a Govt. teddy Roosevelt was trust busting a century back. USA always grew. This nonsense about growth going away unless businesses are allowed to run rampant without any rules is so much nonsense and history proves it.
    2 Jan, 11:05 PM Reply Like
  • Again, you certainly can have both in times of economic growth. But when times are tough you can't.

    You know that you have higher degree of spending flexibility when unemployment is low and income into the treasury is high.

    No one is against social programs and regulations - it's just a matter of timing. You don't tax and spend when growth is low.

    Love this:
    http://bit.ly/VCDclh
    2 Jan, 11:20 PM Reply Like
  • Mike, the US economy has been growing for more than a year now. Regardless, the right thing to do is spend less when times are good and pay off debt, and spend more when times are bad by taking debt. Anyway, now that the US economy is growing, what's your beef with regulations?
    2 Jan, 11:28 PM Reply Like
  • I want faster growth, and more good jobs. Jobless is way too high and growth needs to be closer to 3 or 4 not 1 or 2.

    There is no harm is slowing regulations and spending - not talking of stopping or cutting.

    Then when times are good we can have better social services and improved infrastructure which supports cleaner air and water - ie more spending.
    2 Jan, 11:46 PM Reply Like
  • Talking to MI is like talking to a stump. He posts conflicting statements 5 minutes apart and won't fess up to it. To sum him up, he wants everything that the Democrats want, and anything the Republicans want is a "waste of time".
    2 Jan, 11:49 PM Reply Like
  • It's hard for libs John, they have big egos, like most of us, but the smart ones will generally tend to show some understanding or common sense before they snap back to their talking points - MSM data.
    2 Jan, 11:59 PM Reply Like
  • Mike, The time to spend is when the times are bad, to spur the economy. The time to save is when the times are good, to prevent the economy from overheating. The time for regulation is always, as business owners love to externalize costs. Sorry mate, if you want to pollute, you have to pay the costs of it. Tough breaks.
    3 Jan, 12:28 AM Reply Like
  • Can I then conclude that you work for some federal, state or local government agency, since you sound like you have no worries.
    3 Jan, 04:54 AM Reply Like
  • As I recall this repeal occurred under former President Clinton, a Democrat. It was approximately the same time, September 1999, that FNMA and Freddie Mac were threatened in a House meeting about not increasing the percentage of Americans owning homes, by no other than Barney Frank. As a direct result of those threats underwriting guidelines were relaxed giving birth to the sub-prime industry. Stupidity is not exclusive to either Party.
    3 Jan, 04:59 AM Reply Like
  • The problem with your thesis is that the US never pays off its debt in the good economic times, it borrows less and spends any excess in the current period on new programs that grow into entitlements.
    3 Jan, 05:02 AM Reply Like
  • mike, I do run a business. I own an asset management business, so I am in the financial services business that is very highly regulated. Guess what, I operate as a fiduciary for my client and because of that I don't tend to operate in the many gray areas that exist in my industry, but the regulations in my industry exist because far too many "advisors" operate in an ethical gray area. These regulations are unfortunately needed. How are your compliants about the environmental and health regulatons that you elude to different than similar compliants that initially came from the paint industry when it was made to remove lead from paint or the insulation industry when they were forced to eliminate the use of asbestos?
    3 Jan, 09:06 AM Reply Like
  • mike, here I agree with you. There needs to be an across the board review of all regulations to make sure that they are meaningful and not duplicated.
    3 Jan, 09:07 AM Reply Like
  • mike, look outside the borders of the U.S. Since the financial crisis, that was indeed significantly enabled by the deregulation of financial markets that allowed commercial banks to get involved with capital markets. What that meant was that banks, who originate mortgages were also allowed to syndicate, package and sell those mortgage to off balance sheet entities (shadow banking system) and hedge funds. Lack of regulation allowed those shadow banking entities and hedge funds to leverage themselves 50X to 100X. Where do think all that liquidity came from to fund these mortgages?
    3 Jan, 09:12 AM Reply Like
  • mike, the last recession began in January 2008 and the financial crisis truly began with the failure of Bear Stearns in April, 2008 and then spun out of control after the failure of Lehman Bros. in September, 2008. People like to blame easy money policies of the Fed from 2001 to 2007 as the main cause of the housing bubble. However, the Fed cut rates from 2001 through the end of 2002 and began to raise interest rates in 2003 and did so consistently through 2007. Absent QE, the Fed can only effect short-term rates, not long-term rates that the 10, 20, or 30 year mortgage rates are priced on. If you remember Greenspan testified to Congress regarding the "Conundrum" of long-term rates not responding to the Fed's interest rate tightening. That conundrum in retrospect was do to the fact that the world was awash in liquidity due to unchecked leverage.
    3 Jan, 09:21 AM Reply Like
  • mike, interesting statement given the the fastest growing large economy in the world over the last 20 years has been China, which is a command and control economy dominated by the government.
    3 Jan, 09:22 AM Reply Like
  • Moose, I will work for the govt when the Govt starts to pay well. I have always worked in the private sector.
    3 Jan, 11:37 AM Reply Like
  • Moose, I will give you this, the Democrats are just as guilty as the Republicans when it comes to deregulation. We need more regulation not less.
    3 Jan, 11:38 AM Reply Like
  • Clinton did pay off part of the debt in good times. Republicans Presidents? Not so much.
    3 Jan, 11:39 AM Reply Like
  • Can't speak for anyone but myself , but my taxes will go up by $34,000 this year , that's why I would rather cut entitlements.. which I don't need or want anyway

    I'm not middle class , so you'll need more input to answer your question
    3 Jan, 03:27 PM Reply Like
  • I think that the entire system is a joke. I will not let what the bobbleheads do in Washington derail my finances. I might have to change course, shift gears, work smarter, but I will not let the bastards get me down.

    I will take what the market gives and bob and weave my way as I always have.
    1 Jan, 09:49 PM Reply Like
  • The Senate deal does nothing but kick the can so we can do this again in 2 months. I'm glad the Republicans took a stand and are insisting on cuts. Those with long positions would only suffer more when the US loses its AA rating because we have done basically nothing to deal with the deficit.
    2 Jan, 03:35 AM Reply Like
  • If we are over the cliff ask yourself why we keep hanging on to the branchs over the edge?
    2 Jan, 03:47 AM Reply Like
  • Where were the right-wing Republican ideologues and "RHINOs" 2000 to 2008 when it came to balanced budgets as two unpaid wars were launched?
    Think this will ever be explained to their constituents? Of course NOT!!
    Think George Bush will ever come out to explain how he and his cronies set up this hell? Of course NOT!!!
    2 Jan, 03:47 AM Reply Like
  • deficits of $170 Billion in 2007 sort of pale to four years of $1.2 trillion ... don't they ?

    I mean , even some democrats can use a calculator
    2 Jan, 07:26 PM Reply Like
  • As Cheney said, deficits do not matter. Do you think Cheney was wrong?
    2 Jan, 07:31 PM Reply Like
  • No - I think the Reps got what they wanted - an extension of the Bush Tax Cuts voted in by Democrats (who didn't support the tax cuts to begin with) And on top of that they got Obama to raise taxes on the poor and middle class by 2%.

    It was a good day. I can't wait to see how they rope the dope into spending cuts.
    2 Jan, 09:40 PM Reply Like
  • Very nice spin Mike, very nice spin. So why did majority of the Republicans vote against the fiscal cliff bill?
    2 Jan, 09:44 PM Reply Like
  • gotta play the game baby
    2 Jan, 09:48 PM Reply Like
  • They played it very well indeed. I think they will play it just this well when the debt ceiling issue comes up, whine first and then roll over.
    2 Jan, 09:51 PM Reply Like
  • LOL we'll see. You gotta admit the dems voting for permanent tax cuts is funny as hell, while Obama takes the hit for raising payroll taxes.

    The dems look pretty conservative to me.

    I believe the GOP will get the spending cuts it wants - but hopefully it will appear that the dems win....
    2 Jan, 10:06 PM Reply Like
  • Dems these days are super conservative.
    3 Jan, 03:41 PM Reply Like
  • The Dems aren't different that the Reps in reality - they could of changed the direction back in 2000 - 2006 but didn't. The Dems could of made a bigger impact in 2008-2010 but didn't.

    It's really like a sports team, you rout for your team but it really doesn't matter who wins.
    3 Jan, 07:43 PM Reply Like
  • Mike, Then you might as well vote for Dems, right?
    3 Jan, 07:45 PM Reply Like
  • I have in the past - I stopped when they went brain dead in unison and started voting as a block rather than for their constitutes.

    The Rep are just as bad but the whole ObamaCare fiasco set me on edge when I thought they had bigger fish to fry.
    4 Jan, 02:35 PM Reply Like
  • So if both are the same, why not vote Dem?
    4 Jan, 02:38 PM Reply Like
  • There are few Reps who actually vote per the people the represent.... I can't say that for as many Dems.

    Like I said before the dems let a fantastic opportunity slip away - it will never come back in my lifetime, and opted for ObamaCare. I believe the Reps are the best chance for something that will be positively disruptive - hence vote Rep for awhile.

    You prefer the new normal of high unemployment and increasing debt I suppose?
    4 Jan, 10:34 PM Reply Like
  • Really? What makes you say that Dems do not vote per the people they represent? Repos are always saying that Dems get people to vote or them, and then in return give them handouts, no?

    What opportunity are you talking about?

    I prefer a society where the poor are not thought of as scums. I prefer a society where the poor are helped.
    4 Jan, 10:48 PM Reply Like
  • I don't think that is what "they" say. I believe that is what the dems think they say. In reality they both do that... that's politics right ?

    The opportunity the dems let slip away is the ability to do a real and lasting infrastructure project that only the Feds can do.... like going to the moon, or building a Natural Gas infrastructure, or..... but we got ObamaCare. yippy.

    I prefer the same society - unfortunately the past 4 years have been the worst on the poorest - they can't find jobs, and now they have their taxes raise by a higher percentage than the rich, based on the bill the dems fought so hard for.... go democrats (really?)
    4 Jan, 11:08 PM Reply Like
  • Oh no, Mike. Repubs say that all the time, even on these forums. Let's not spin that.

    I think ObamaCare is something we can all be proud of. Why are you not proud of that?

    You do know that it was the Repubs who pushed for raising the payroll taxes, right? Nice attempt to put it on the Dems though.

    I like how you spin.
    4 Jan, 11:20 PM Reply Like
  • "Repubs say that all the time.." big deal, but they both do it. They give stuff away so people vote for them... newsflash?

    You are proud of ObamaCare - you sir would be the first, besides Joe Biden and Nancy. I think you are lying, and no I'm not proud of that.

    Repubs tried first to kill deductions (which the rich use and the poor generally do not) to raise revenue. But Obama wanted the political victory of raising tax RATES on the rich, so the negotiations by and large circled just on what is "rich". Rich is now $400K I guess. The dems totally ignored the payroll tax..... which hits the low income the hardest.

    No spin just facts...
    4 Jan, 11:33 PM Reply Like
  • So Dems actually do what their voters want them to do, eh?

    Why are you not proud of ObamaCare? Seriously.

    Were you in the negotiations room? How do you know that Dems totally ignored the payroll tax?

    $400k is not rich? It's, like, what? Top 2% of Americans? Damn! America doesn't even have 2% rich people. I wonder how poorr countries are doing. Perhaps no one is rich these days, everyone is middle class, eh?
    4 Jan, 11:37 PM Reply Like
  • "So Dems actually do what their voters want them to do, eh?" Just like the Repubs do... give away free stuff. Probably something we agree upon.

    Why are you proud of ObamaCare? So you think of all the projects the government could of done ObamaCare was the best choice?

    Payroll tax will go up on everyone.... The dems "won" the fight remember? Obama did the "victory lap". They either ignored it or forgot about it - you choose.

    You are right - since $400K is now the new rich we don't have 2% rich people anymore I suppose. And btw 2012 was the best year ever for the world, poorer countries had their standard living lifted more than any other year... we are evening out.
    4 Jan, 11:48 PM Reply Like
  • Mike, Please be honest here. If ObamaCare had nothing to do with helping the poor, would you still hate it? Remember, it's really RomneyCare.
    5 Jan, 12:03 AM Reply Like
  • The poor were already taken of via Medicaid right?

    ObamaCare takes care of the middle class so they don't go poor.

    So you still think ObamaCare was the best choice out of all the government options to spend money to get us out of a recession?

    I leave with that MI - headin to bed
    5 Jan, 12:12 AM Reply Like
  • ObamaCare didn't really kick in till 2013, right? So what money are you talking about? I think Universal Health Care - which ObamaCare isn't - is long overdue. So, allow be to restate, if ObamaCare didn't help anyone, would you still be against it?
    5 Jan, 12:20 AM Reply Like
  • mike, put yourself in President Obama's shoes for a moment. Virtually every Democrat President since Truman has tried to get enough support to pass a universal care healthcare bill and President Obama had one chance ahead of the mid-term elections to actually get this legislation passed. Had he not pushed ahead, it might be another 65 years before that time came around again. Also, with healthcare costs being our biggest fiscal threat and the number of uninsured at a record high equating to almost 20% of the country, I think that it was a pretty high priority.
    5 Jan, 10:10 AM Reply Like
  • mike, any one who actually looks at what Obamacare does, the nuts and bolts of the legislation, cannot possibly be impressed at the scope that it entails to deliver better and more affordable healthcare to everyone.
    5 Jan, 10:13 AM Reply Like
  • "...if ObamaCare didn't help anyone, would you still be against it?"

    Of course not, unless it wasted resources while not helping anyone.

    And I was answering question above and never mentioned money. I think you are whipped bro. Go and reload and talk to me when you have an argument you can win.
    5 Jan, 06:37 PM Reply Like
  • not saying it wasn't a high priority for him - just a waste of historical moment that did nothing significant or tangible for the United States
    5 Jan, 06:39 PM Reply Like
  • "cannot possibly be impressed "

    my point precisely.
    5 Jan, 06:40 PM Reply Like
  • So Mike, you main issue is that ObamaCare helps people, which you do not like, and you are afraid that your tax dollars will go to help people?
    5 Jan, 07:09 PM Reply Like
  • Mike, Do you realize that history books 50 years from now will consider ObamaCare at par with the New Deal or the Great Society?
    5 Jan, 07:11 PM Reply Like
  • "So Mike, you main issue is that ObamaCare helps people, which you do not like"

    I don't think I implied that anywhere... unless you are thinking that since you want ObamaCare to help only the rich and same have the same benefits as the poor - even thought they don't need it. I don't believe that.
    6 Jan, 11:43 AM Reply Like
  • " Do you realize that history books 50 years from now will consider ObamaCare at par with the New Deal or the Great Society"

    My crystal ball isn't that clear. My assumption is that Obama will go down worse than Hoover for performance in a downturn, who I think took advantage of the economic downturn with some great infrastructure projects. FDR made it worse (like Obama) and it req a war to bring us out. So your perception is of what is, mine is of what could of been.

    So even though I think the dems heart might be in right place, their execution was sloppy and wasteful.... and I think you have to agree that they should have spent more on legacy infrastructure projects and less on time a bureaucratic behemoth that probably helps the insurance companies and trial lawyers more than doctors and patients..
    6 Jan, 11:55 AM Reply Like
  • Mike, Nice one about FDR and Hoover, I LOL'ed. You are a funny guy.
    6 Jan, 12:21 PM Reply Like
  • I endeavor to make learning fun... Here's a little unsolicited critique:

    All in all your approach to issues generally seems to be one sided rather than balanced, while both sides of every argument has it's merits you only see one of them. (Spin / perception works both ways)

    Anyway good luck (skills) making money.
    6 Jan, 04:44 PM Reply Like
  • Mike, you really think the Dem side of the argument has merits? Well, be still my heart! I never saw you point those merits out. What are they?
    6 Jan, 05:25 PM Reply Like
  • Mike, so what are your main issues with ObamaCare? So far I heard 1) it doesn't send a man to the moon, 2) it doesn't build infrastructure, and 3) it helps those without healthcare insurance gets access to the same. The first two are kind of silly as of course a health insurance bill doesn't do that kind of things, so I chose the third.
    6 Jan, 05:27 PM Reply Like
  • MI I'm probably done considering you are repeating questions and not really making any points.

    Go back and re-read the posts. I know you have the tendency to look only through one lens but try to open your mind... you have alot of tenacity but I fear not alot of depth.
    6 Jan, 06:41 PM Reply Like
  • Don't blame me Mike, I learned from the best, the Tea Party Patriots.
    6 Jan, 06:42 PM Reply Like
  • mike, I have re-read your posts and I really don't see the brillance. First of all, anyone who tries to argue that Roosevelt did not pull the country out of the Great Depression loses any benefit of the doubt that I might give someone on a message board like this. Almost any credible analysis of the most impactful and best U.S. Presidents puts FDR in the top five overall, and number one since Lincoln. If you have actually ever had the opportunity to talk with someone who lived through the Great Depression as an adult, you would not be saying what you did about FDR. You have not backed up your criticism of Obamacare. You and agree that we should have done a large infrastructure stimulus, but that was not politically possible at the time and certainly not possible after the mid-term elections in 2010.
    6 Jan, 11:06 PM Reply Like
  • talk about credibility - seriously how old are you ?
    6 Jan, 11:42 PM Reply Like
  • Did anyone see or hear Mitt Romney during the Fiscal Cliff debate?
    2 Jan, 07:28 PM Reply Like
  • Mitt is in La Jolla overseeing improvements to his home there. He actually won the election by losing.
    3 Jan, 05:03 AM Reply Like
  • He's laughing at the dysfunctional BOZOS in washington
    3 Jan, 03:28 PM Reply Like
Other date
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)