Market Currents
The House will vote on the unamended Senate bill at 9 PM ET, reports CNN's Dana Bash. Any...
-
Tuesday, January 1, 8:07 PM ETThe House will vote on the unamended Senate bill at 9 PM ET, reports CNN's Dana Bash. Any attempt to alter the bill by adding spending cuts has reportedly been abandoned for now. Update at 9:10: The vote has been pushed back to 11 PM ET.
Other date
Latest Articles
This news story has 185 comments:
http://bit.ly/WdoaSn
Only if you've been a responsible saver with your money or are fortunate enough to be an individual on fixed income in this day and age.
I agree with you that if you are on fixed income you have a problem. That's why Social Security is indexed to inflation.
That said - if you can borrow at 2% nominal and grow your economy at 4% nominal - that is not a bad trade at all. Especially if you put the proceeds into productive investment. Far worse if you squander it to fund over generous entitlements. And that is the core issue.
Let us dismiss this notion tht debt is bad - it is not. Debt - well used can be a very valuable tool for both public and private purposes. And to borrow more cheaply than the return is good business for private and public.
No. The issue that must be faced are these entitlements that will swallow the Economy. Hand in hand with that is the efficiency of the tax system which is riddled with spending provisions and subsidies which distort the economy. Simply and make more efficient the code by for example - eliminating the mortgage deduction for mortgages over say $250k - removing ethanol subsidies - take away favorable tax credits for energy both fossil fuel and alternative - and numerous others and reform entitlements by simply raising the age for Medicare and SS and means testing SS just do that and you change the game completely.
Or just take up Erkine Bowles
One last thing - repeal the Jones Act - look it up. It is another example of arrant stupidity - built in which distorts. Remove tariffs on ethanol. There are so many areas to improve efficiency. It is remarkable the economy functions at all.
P
Entitlements are a safety net. They are meant to transfer wealth. If we get them going that way, we will be fine.
And that is incredibly unfair.
I wish. I am not that smart.
Not payroll tax.
I am sorry I am not sure what your point is. To me, entitlements are about ensuring the old and the feeble get a comfortable cushion of safety, paid for by everyone else. It's just basic humanity, really.
He's become less of a economist with each passing day and more of a big-government lib pretending to be an economist
No wonder you love him, macro
What is the world going to buy? Chinese debt? Inflation in China is higher. EU debt? Well, the EU just went to negative interest rates and set a higher inflation target. India? 8% inflation there. Brazil? 65 inflation there. Where will the bond money go?
http://seekingalpha.co...
Read the above article which shows why there is no chance of a dollar crash. The whole world in reflating.
Life is esp unfair to poor people. They have less, are less effectively served by our judicial system, and have shorter life spans--so collect less SS and probably medicare. They get screwed and screw themselves at every turn.
I wonder if you would think it was "incredibly unfair" if you lived the life of a typical third world citizen for a few months.
If someone gets a check for section 8 housing while an higher income family has to rent, this quickly approaches the goods and services enjoyed by both families, in spite of the higher income family having provided more goods and services to others (or higher value goods and services).
If you means test enough entitlements, you'll end up creating a lot of situations where the lower income individuals enjoy more goods and services than the higher income individuals. That's obviously incredibly wrong and would, over time, destroy society.
http://bit.ly/UPdjyL
Krugman just happens to agree with me.
Look, I want policies that make me fabulously rich. Hate me if you like but I make more money if there are massive social safety nets, large amounts of money injections, moderate inflation, et cetra.
If they are going to inject money then just send everyone a check. If there are no consequences to printing money and no worries of a dollar crash then what is the problem with sending every american a million dollars?
The "poor people" in the US are mostly very far from poor, and are actually very favored for being poor in the US. Someone with equivalent productivity mostly anywhere else in the world would live with a lot less material possessions given what they produce.
And anyway, what sense does it make for such people to live a BETTER life than someone with an HIGHER income than them? What sense does it make for that higher income person to pay for it while living worse?
Because it's inefficient to manage the money supply that way. You get far more leverage by going through the money center banks.
Anyway, for the dollar to crash some other currency have to appreciate. A big currency that can accept the flow of funds. Let me know which currency that will be. With rationale.
While the ECB prints, it does so only in the context of programs designed to bring the member States into equilibrium.
The Fed, BOJ, BOE, etc, they all print with no such strings attached.
Agree, but they are Americans, and I for one care far more about my fellow Americans than poor people in the rest of the world.
"And anyway, what sense does it make for such people to live a BETTER life than someone with an HIGHER income than them? What sense does it make for that higher income person to pay for it while living worse? "
Can you please explain to me mathematically how this would work? These people will live better than they would have otherwise, but they are not going to live like hedge fund managers.
Can you please show me how this math works? I don't know if you have ever lived in Section 8 housing. I haven't, but from what I have read about it, it is not exactly the Ritz.
We are far, far, FAR away from 5-6% inflation. I would be happy with 3% inflation but I doubt we will get there. But I keep hoping.
Then some entitlements allow the lower income person to have access to subsidized food, education, health, housing, etc, while the higher income person has to pay for some of those things. This means that the remaining income can actually become LARGER for the lower income person than it is for the higher income person.
That's the reason why you shouldn't means test the entitlements, because if you do, you can create this kind of incredible unfairness.
I disagree that a progressive tax system or means testing leads to "such people to live a BETTER life than someone with an HIGHER income than them". Certainly not at current levels. Even when the highest tax rate was 70% society wasn't destroyed.
I am one that would pay more tax and I don't see it as unfair. I make a lot of money but I don't see that as entirely a result of my efforts. I don't think I am more valuable than 4 or 5 teachers.
The people that I know that cry about taxes seem to think that they are smarter or more deserving than others.
I would be happy to see a model where you show two persons, one earning less and the other earning more, and how under means test of entitlements the situation is reversed. By earnings, in this case, I mean retirement earnings from savings.
Btw, how much are those teachers making?
I bet you would have been in hog heaven in the Weimar republic with 10 wheelbarrows. You would have felt more fabulous than ever!
Absolutely correct. Middle-class McMansions here rival what you see the wealthy in europe living in
Look, I am a numbers guy, the moment you show me the numbers I will accept your point.
I digresse. The tea party and the republicans are done. They are gone. As long as you promise the masses you will take from the minority and give to them you will never lose an election.
I am a social democrat and a fiscal conservative. There really is no party out there (maybe libertarian) that I would affiliate myself with.
Your link demonstrates the almost universal ignorance of mathematics outside of the above mentioned fields.
You don't seem to want to believe that this might be real, in spite of the fact that most entitlements are structured this way (think food stamps, Medicare, section 8, etc).
Thing is, right now there is no other currency to displace the USD. So by definition the USD cannot crash as then some other currency has to appreciate. I don't know if you trade currencies but you did you would know this.
I am a social liberal and fiscal conservative too, but fiscal conservatism doesn't mean mindless austerity. It means taking steps that make the economy grow. The Republicans have become completely out of touch with standard economics. They have forgotten what makes the economy grow, which is a HUGE body of consumers. Now, I don't think Democrats care much about growing the economy, but they do care about this huge mass of consumers. Hence my fiscal politics is aligned with Democrats.
There is a lot of talk here about taking pain as long as the poor suffers too. I would rather the poor enjoy their lives as long as I enjoy my life even more. That's why I remain a Democrat.
There are also people in the UK saying the exact same thing, that families working less than 16 hours per week have no incentive to work more because they'd mostly end up having less income if they did, so the country is importing immigrants to fill those low-end jobs.
The risk is real that it's going that way, especially if entitlements are means tested.
(having no problem with some people voluntarily not working while living off the work of those that do is pretty incredible as it is)
But you are complaining about their existence at all. There we will remain it absolute disagreement.
I come from the low end of that scale. The country does get some benefit from that spending. You are lifting the children. Like I was.
Growth is not possible with this debt. We need a total reset and it is going to hurt a lot.
And besides, I'm not even in the US, it's just the unfairness of it all that bugs me.
Anyway, if you think the main issue is the curve, then let's fix the curve. The main issue people have, though, is not the curve. They just get pissed off that the poor are getting some help.
So you do understand that life isn't fair. :)
How did you develop this idea? We are currently arguing about taxing people with more than $400K in income. If it was 1960 I could understand your concern. Here in the US, the poor are poor and the rich are rch. You can sleep comfortably.
Dow 34,000?
Repubs are out of touch, clueless, etc...Donald Trump was right, they have no idea how to negotiate!!
Like the Brits , you too will leave in tears
Obama bows towards Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro , his heroes
Government doesn't "ask" anybody to do anything. It commands by force of law and backed by guns and incarceration.
Now, I fully realize that you favor the expropriation of people's wealth by force, rather than through voluntary charity, but let's be honest about what's going on.
The Hastert rule was broken by Boehner yesterday. Democracy triumphed. The people's representatives, majority Democrats and minority Republicans voted for it. That's my ideal of democracy. Let every vote come to the floor, not just the ones a narrow group of Tea Party Patriots favor.
You with me brother?
But are you with me on the Hastert rule?
Anyway, I do believe passing a budget is a waste of time and 15 years of Republican and Democrat politicians agree with me. Doesn't the Tea Party have better angles, like the Democrats trying to avoid a vote on the fiscal cliff?
It's cool - just say you don't want to answer the question. Or amend your statement to correctly reflect reality. You actually do NOT want all votes to come to the floor.
Anyway, we have time. in 8 weeks we will be back here and I will remind you then that you do not agree with the HAstert rule.
Now, care to address your conflicting statements separated by only a few minutes? Just say "I do not believe all votes should come to the floor" and I will be placated.
Now that I have answered the question about 5 times, let me ask you this. Why is that so hard for you to accept the answer?
I answered your question. Answer mine. How can you say that "all votes should come to the floor", then turn around and say it's okay if some votes don't deserve (in your opinion) to come to the floor?
Don't deflect again - just a straight answer is required. All votes should come to the floor, or not all votes should come to the floor. Two choices, man, come on!
You cool?
Now, did you see the spanking Boehner is getting for blocking the Hurricane Sandy vote? Heh heh heh, the Republicans are going to lose the north east completely now.
I've noticed that Boehner was getting the flack for not calling for a vote on that pork bill. Last I looked it was $9B for relief aid, and $51B of other crap that had nothing to do with relief aid. I would call that a good business decision. If your business is bankrupt, you ought not to be paying billions of dollars to re-roof buildings and re-pave roads 3-4 years from now.
Do you read any of the junk you support?
So you are against the people affected by Sandy from getting aid, eh? Nice compassion. Anyway, Hastert has realized that pissing off the North East Republicans won't help, and is bringing that vote back to the House on Friday when it will pass. Heh heh heh.
Ok, I misspoke - you did not support the Hastert rule (at least as far as the Republicans are using it), but more like you support any bill that you think can score a majority combined between both parties. Which brings us to "Shouldn't all bills be brought to the floor for an up or down vote"? The Hastert rule could just as easily be the "Pelosi rule". I'm sure you'd be fine with that.
I'm all for the Congress voting on every bill, regardless of chance of passing. I'm also for clean bills - no pork. Didn't Obama say he was getting rid of the "earmark" problem? The Hurricane bill was 30% relief and 70% other stuff. We gotta get away from passing all the "other stuff".
This is Pelosi on the Hastert rule (which is a true Republican obnoxious tradition till Boehner broke it):
Nancy Pelosi (2007 - 2011): "I have to take into consideration something broader than the majority of the majority in the Democratic Caucus."
Don't kid yourself - the Democrats will use similar tactics when they get the majority in the House. I think everything is cool for up/down voting. The problems occur when one side or the other holds all 3 branches of government. That's when bad stuff happens.
By the way, Macro will never admit he is wrong, even when you completely disprove his arguments (which are very easy to do). Just wanted to let you know (but I'm sure you already figured that out).
Go back under that rock please....
--- today a Starbucks barista , tomorrow .....
It's only the Kid's money anyway.
Vote buying is expensive, and the last election results, showed results.
We all know how that worked the last time - I expect the market to drop when we get closer to that debate.
Lube it up good, boys and girls.
Because of the fracture within the Republican Party in the form of Tea Party Patriots.
You get what you vote for.
They will look for revenge and get exposed as sulking kids and then turn away like whipped puppies over fear of being blamed for ruining the country's credit rating, incurring another recession and making interest rates soar.
They won't get away with another tax increase on anyone, but boy-o-boy, those cuts are a-comin'.
I think that will be a very fair deal. I also think they should ask for 2 dollars in spending cuts in defense for each dollar in spending cuts in the social safety net.
Note that I said "conservative," not "Democratic" or "Republican." Clinton and Rubin did their part in redistributing wealth from the middle class to the rich. They weren't nearly as good as Reagan or Bush 43, though.
31,000,000 welfare checks
18,000,000 section 8 housing
Obama's won ... He's turned the US in a Socialist paradise that Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez are envious about
anti-business vs pro-business
Are you sad?
The republicans have lost track of what its like to stand united as a brainwashed party. They should model the democrats because they stand united and brainwashed. This country has no hope because of these two power hungry groups.
Hopefully Boehner will come to the debt ceiling talks with a gigantic scissors and use that as a gavel.
I'm not toeing the party line, either - cut defense. Cut it big. I say $1 in defense cuts for every $4 in "social safety net" cuts. That's a good start.
Why not the reverse?
Look, fact is the public cares far less about the govt deficit than about not having their social safety nets cut.
At a rate of 60 billion a year it will take almost 300 byears to pay down the debt...
I agree with you that the country can't go full pace off the cliff but more meaningful steps must be taken.
From the point of view of a foreigner from a socialist country, the united states has really taken the worst sides of socialism and capitlism. Social programs disincentivize work, incur serious amounts of debt and have really provided marginal return. On the other hand vertical movement within American society is limited, education and healthcare are prohibitively expensive and require a majority of people to go into debt.
The united states needs to identify what social programs give value - welfare and unemployment benefitsshould not be sustained in virtual perpetuity like they are currently. The reality is, in my opinion, the united states spends a lot of money on people that don't return a red cent to society in terms of productivity... And while trying to help people is never a bad thing, helping people who won't do anything for themselves, while making other people pay for it (literally and figuratively) is beyond stupid.
We need more "foreigners from a socialist country" to slap us into some sense of reality.
The following article describes that Bill in some detail and, from this together with the activities of the House Republicans today, one can clearly see that the debt ceiling debate will become the focus of a renewed deadlock. How that will play out is anyones guess and one has the feeling that the key players in this melodrama are making up their roles as they go along.
http://slate.me/S422yA
The recession caused government expenditures to increase and government revenues to decrease because people out of work cost money and don’t bring in tax revenue.
The faked Republican idea of cutting spending is designed to screw the country out of spending induced stimulation so that things will get worse and Republicans will be elected.
The fiscal cliff backfired on the Republicans and to a lesser extent on the Democrats because our leaders are in a category of net worth that will result in passing most of their estate value on to the government and not to their heirs.
Republicans couldn’t take this and are forced to vote for something they didn’t like.
They will try to justify their vote by saying it is for a tax decrease since we went over the cliff already.
With all the publicity this issue has gotten, the public has gotten a little wiser.
http://bloom.bg/UlqFnx
Looks like its gonna pass n we can expect peaceful opening tomorrow...