Seeking Alpha

The supercommittee breakdown will likely lead to more "lengthy and heated" battles over the...

The supercommittee breakdown will likely lead to more "lengthy and heated" battles over the deficit throughout 2012, HSBC says. At some point rating agencies will lose their patience, so be wary of further downgrades of the U.S. sovereign credit rating "at some point next year."
Comments (53)
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    The in the middle east, many dream of having their own functioning democracy.

     

    Little do they know, here in the U.S., many of us dream of having our own functioning democracy too.
    20 Nov 2011, 02:56 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7641) | Send Message
     
    Compromise is needed.
    Unfortunately to the Democrats the definition of the word is that they keep their left wing demands and the republicans cave in to those demands.
    I for one am glad the republicans refused to cave. I hope they have the same backbone and refuse to lift the debt limit next time.
    In the words of Obama, elections have consequences.
    20 Nov 2011, 03:18 PM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    And to the Republicans the definition of the word is that they keep their right wing demands and the Democrats cave in to those demands.

     

    So...what now? :)
    20 Nov 2011, 03:19 PM Reply Like
  • PCScipio
    , contributor
    Comments (204) | Send Message
     
    C'mon, the Republicans just won't move on "real" tax increases. Please keep in mind that no hearse has ever been seen pulling a U-Haul and just how much wealth does it take to "win"?
    20 Nov 2011, 06:24 PM Reply Like
  • Playdeep
    , contributor
    Comments (58) | Send Message
     
    Simple let Congress do what they are paid to do, make some hard choices. Hold the line on taxes, restructure/simplify the tax code, and freeze or cut spending.
    20 Nov 2011, 08:38 PM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3529) | Send Message
     
    "C'mon, the Republicans just won't move on "real" tax increases."

     

    Well then let's just have a 100% tax and let the government provide for everything. That's a "real tax increase". It worked in Russia, didn't it?
    20 Nov 2011, 08:55 PM Reply Like
  • jgbrowning
    , contributor
    Comments (205) | Send Message
     
    Well then, lets just have taxes like we had in the 1950's and 1960's. That's a "real tax increase." It worked in America, didn't it?
    21 Nov 2011, 06:28 AM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7641) | Send Message
     
    jg
    You just don't get. In the 50's and 60's state and local taxes were very small. State and local takes an enormous % of income (Think New York subway----it was a dime in the 50's) and people are stretched.
    21 Nov 2011, 08:05 AM Reply Like
  • PCScipio
    , contributor
    Comments (204) | Send Message
     
    Ha! You remember that! Me, too. I used to commute from Brooklyn to Wall Street every day during the summers.
    21 Nov 2011, 12:57 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10252) | Send Message
     
    How about both Dems and Republicans target the losers on the committee for unseating in their next re-election. They have demonstrated themselves to be LOSERS at a time when AMERICANS expect more. Fire them ASAP....maybe a bi-partisan strong message that we expect more will get some change.
    21 Nov 2011, 07:09 PM Reply Like
  • avickrey
    , contributor
    Comments (38) | Send Message
     
    Should have had both sides pick favorite initiatives from Bowles-Simpson, and each week where a deal is not reached, a policy decision is implemented by choice of either party. Then, we recalibrate and the target is moved forward, up to the point where we hit it without any compromise.

     

    I actually don't think either side wants to get a deal done, and therein lies the problem.
    20 Nov 2011, 03:31 PM Reply Like
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (866) | Send Message
     
    Good, the Democrats are helping keep Social Security strong and saying no to another giveaway to top 1%.
    20 Nov 2011, 03:42 PM Reply Like
  • Papaswamp
    , contributor
    Comments (2178) | Send Message
     
    You realize the Dems when they had control of House Senate and WH continued the expiring tax breaks as well as still allowing themselves and Repubs to legally insider trade. There is no difference between the parties except the rhetoric….their actions are the same.
    20 Nov 2011, 06:06 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7641) | Send Message
     
    Terry
    I read that the tingle in Chris Matthews' leg is gone.
    Same go for you?
    21 Nov 2011, 08:55 AM Reply Like
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (866) | Send Message
     
    I see this 'failure' as a success - you don't negotiate with terr0r1sts­, ie, Tea_Party_­Republican­s
    20 Nov 2011, 03:47 PM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    This is part of the problem. This comment, right here.

     

    Demonizing the other side doesn't help.

     

    Not compromising even an inch doesn't help.

     

    Applauding a complete and utter lack of progress doesn't help.
    20 Nov 2011, 03:49 PM Reply Like
  • jgbrowning
    , contributor
    Comments (205) | Send Message
     
    "Applauding a complete and utter lack of progress doesn't help."

     

    When one side sees "progress" as breaking the government's promises to the elderly, the disabled, and the sick, in order to keep the wealthy wealthier, one does applaud the lack of this kind of "progress." One *should* applaud this kind of utter lack of progress.

     

    Tax the rich and the corporations like we did in the 1950's and 1960's and you'll watch the budget "problem" disappear.
    20 Nov 2011, 04:00 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7641) | Send Message
     
    " terr0r1sts­, ie, Tea_Party_­Rep... "

     

    There is nothing further to add to your delirious rants.
    20 Nov 2011, 05:58 PM Reply Like
  • Playdeep
    , contributor
    Comments (58) | Send Message
     
    Terry330: Did you forget to take your medicine? I thought you were making progress, then you make a statement like that. The Tea Party wants fiscal responsibility, that's not evil. You cannot tax your way to prosperity, just ask the EU. You cannot close the deficit if you don't get spending under control, I don't care how much you raise taxes. Controlling spending and growing the economy are the keys to economic success. We have time to avoid a financial disaster but we must act now while we can control our own destiny. If we don't the terms will dictated by others (our creditors) and that will be ugly.
    20 Nov 2011, 08:57 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10252) | Send Message
     
    No change to the tax code will ever produce revenue of more than 23% of GDP. Spending in the last 10 years has grown at twice the rate of revenue growth and twice the rate if inflation. Government has grown. It needs to shrink.
    20 Nov 2011, 11:31 PM Reply Like
  • jgbrowning
    , contributor
    Comments (205) | Send Message
     
    "You cannot tax your way to prosperity"

     

    The US was quite prosperous under previous tax rates that are significantly higher than today's rates. Raising taxes is not always an negative in terms of national prosperity.
    21 Nov 2011, 06:30 AM Reply Like
  • Papaswamp
    , contributor
    Comments (2178) | Send Message
     
    @jg….I assume you are referring to post WW2? Yes, US was very prosperous…it was also the ONLY industrialized nation still in tact. Everyone else had been bombed to rubble. It's easy to be prosperous when one is the only game in town. As nations recovered that prosperity began to shrink dramatically. By the 1980's Govt growth exceeded prosperity growth and Asia began it's rise to economic power. April of 2000 was the peak in employment growth. This is when the participation rate and employment to population ratio peaked and began the long downward trend, that for some reason, no one seems to want to talk about.
    21 Nov 2011, 07:05 AM Reply Like
  • Playdeep
    , contributor
    Comments (58) | Send Message
     
    Yes raising taxes is alway a negative in terms of national prosperity. Your earnings are yours not the goverments. Its like private property, what if the goverment said to you one day you don't need two cars we are going to take one for "national prosperity", or you don't need a vacation house, were going to take that for "national prosperity". You would be screaming how the goverment has no right to confiscate your personal property. Well its the same thing for money, you earn it and its your property. There is no such thing as "national wealth", the wealth of a nation comes from the wealth of its people, not the goverment. The goverment has become a system to transfer wealth for one group to another but cannot create wealth. If the problem is national debt and deficit spending, then you have made my point for me. High tax rates did not produce a surplus, we still had a deficit. No matter what the tax rate is goverments will spend beyond their means, until they control spending. Raising taxes cannot close the deficit gap when the country is only growing at 1.5% and spending is increasing between 8% and 12% per year. That means that goverment spending is doubling on average every 7 years. That is reckless and cannot be sustained. So what do we do double the tax rate every X years to try and close the gap.
    21 Nov 2011, 09:50 AM Reply Like
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (866) | Send Message
     
    Republicans caused this recession and don't give a hoot about the long-term unemployed. Clinton left office with a $600 billion SURPLUS and by the time Bush left Republicans had DOUBLED the national debt. They are addicted to their tax-cuts and when they held power borrowed and spent like they owned VISA, MasterCard and American Express collectively.
    20 Nov 2011, 03:55 PM Reply Like
  • Papaswamp
    , contributor
    Comments (2178) | Send Message
     
    @Terry…the surplus occurred Clinton's last year in office. During his term the debt still increased. But remember…the president doesn't make tax and spend bills…congress does. I recommend you look at who had control of congress.
    http://bit.ly/thgoUQ

     

    I also recommend a very good article that appeared on HP that explains the real system we live in…there is no difference between the 2 parties.
    http://huff.to/ssx6gF
    20 Nov 2011, 06:11 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10252) | Send Message
     
    Terry forgot about the $750 billion deficits he ran in the first term +.
    20 Nov 2011, 11:37 PM Reply Like
  • Eighthman
    , contributor
    Comments (212) | Send Message
     
    Is the US government even legitimate? As a representative democracy?

     

    How is that possible if elected "representatives" at all levels commonly pass bills without reading them? If they do not honestly represent their constituents by reading legislation, the original moral basis of American government is gone, isn't it?
    20 Nov 2011, 04:03 PM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3529) | Send Message
     
    "the original moral basis of American government is gone,"

     

    That's the result of relative morality as opposed to objective morality.
    20 Nov 2011, 08:59 PM Reply Like
  • jgbrowning
    , contributor
    Comments (205) | Send Message
     
    The concept of "objective morality" is relative.
    21 Nov 2011, 06:31 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    Balanced budget would be the "Compromise"

     

    No deficit, no surplus, used for amortization on the $15T in debt.

     

    The left wants to continue to steal from future generations, for political gain now, by continuing on an usustainable path.

     

    Arithmetic cannot be comprimised, it is absolute. 2+2 = 4, weather you like it or not.

     

    Problem is, both parties been deficit spending for so long, their sense of reality has been distorted.

     

    Don't know if anybody remembers this Non- Partisan, Grassroots movement from the early 1990's? (back in the Perot-Clinton GHW Bush campaign days)

     

    I do. And everything they proclaimed is now comming true.

     

    Lead or Leave!

     

    http://lat.ms/sPoTX0

     

    http://bit.ly/txQGDU

     

    Stealing from the future generations.

     

    http://fxn.ws/sLgCfH/
    20 Nov 2011, 04:09 PM Reply Like
  • moreofthesame
    , contributor
    Comments (743) | Send Message
     
    Its easy to have standoffs between 2 parties, like between 2 siblings who try to impress their parents in order to get the ice cream. IF there was a third party it would change the political landscape, because one out of the three would always take the role of referee or become part of a coalition.
    20 Nov 2011, 04:15 PM Reply Like
  • coelacanth10
    , contributor
    Comments (67) | Send Message
     
    By the way, what's so terrible about sequestration- what we are left with...across the board spending cuts ? As experts on obfuscation and avoidance of decision making, our intrepid congressmen might find that they like it! We will need to cut programs drastically in the very near future and if all programs share the pain, then this bitter pill may be easier to swallow. And what would happen if, after these draconian cuts, no one knows the difference?
    20 Nov 2011, 04:16 PM Reply Like
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (866) | Send Message
     
    Senator Patty Murray, the Democrat co-chair of the committee, said Republicans had constantly cited Mr Norquist’s “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” for their refusal to consider higher taxes.

     

    “His name has come up in meetings time and time again,” she told CNN, the broadcaster, saying Republicans were “more in thrall” to a conservative lobbyist than the needs of the rest of the country.

     

    Some fellow Republicans are also angry. Alan Simpson, who co-headed a bipartisan deficit commission, said Mr Norquist was either a “megalomaniac” or “egomaniac”.
    20 Nov 2011, 04:16 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7641) | Send Message
     
    And Patty Murray has got to be the dumbest person in the Senate. I'll bet the claening crew has a higher IQ.
    20 Nov 2011, 05:06 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    she can say whatever she'd like - the Republicans offered more revenue and it was flatly rejected by the Democrats because it came with real spending cuts.

     

    She is a failure and should resign in disgrace along with most of the rest of Congress. What is really sad about the whole episode is that 1.2 Trillion over 10 years is basically nothing in the scope of Federal spending over the next 10 years. If they can't do this simple task they sure as heck can't make the truly difficult decisions this country needs. Its a disgrace that people are "posturing" for elections that don't happen for another year - I don't recall any of them taking an oath to their party over the constitution.

     

    We the people are going to bear the burden from these idiots. Its simply a disgrace that anyone can seriously believe borrowing 40 cents of every dollar spent is ok for even a day.

     

    The Dems can have their increase on the top 1%, top 10% whatever - it will give them about 200-300 Billion a year in revenue - then we'll only have a 1.2 Trillion or 1.1 Trillion deficit - what then Democrats? Who will you demonize then?

     

    The simple fact is that government spending over the past decade has simply exploded in all areas. And it has to be reduced in all areas. And until we tell people this simple truth the rest of it is merely background noise that allows the triumvirate of public unions, politicians, and financial elite to continue to line their pockets while making future generations poorer. Its theft across generations plain and simple.
    20 Nov 2011, 11:18 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    Terry,

     

    Tell your hypocrite "Uncle Warren" to stop cashing his social security checks.

     

    Now that would be a start in the right direction.
    20 Nov 2011, 04:24 PM Reply Like
  • Teutonic Knight
    , contributor
    Comments (2000) | Send Message
     
    The last debacle in early last August resulted in an ensuing $4T loss of market capitalization worldwide in about 6 trading days, much more than the $1.2T they pledge even to trim in 10 years.

     

    Is this a repeat?
    20 Nov 2011, 04:24 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10252) | Send Message
     
    Yes....emphatically. and you can rest assured the pols and their lobbyists including GSuchs and JPM will sell short ahead of time.
    20 Nov 2011, 11:39 PM Reply Like
  • dvdcunni
    , contributor
    Comments (9) | Send Message
     
    I don't think we will have to wait until next year.
    20 Nov 2011, 05:42 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7641) | Send Message
     
    Besides all the bull........What will the open be tomorrow. Looking forward to the Asian action tonight.
    20 Nov 2011, 07:25 PM Reply Like
  • Papaswamp
    , contributor
    Comments (2178) | Send Message
     
    Japan export news wasn't exactly pretty.
    20 Nov 2011, 07:28 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    Japan Auto industry is toast.

     

    No matter what they do, they can't stop the yen from going up relative to everthing else.
    20 Nov 2011, 07:40 PM Reply Like
  • Ryan Canady
    , contributor
    Comments (113) | Send Message
     
    Downgrading the US is just ridiculous. I know that we have to get a hold of our debt situation and all that, but the US economy is still the strongest in the world, and downgrading our debt is more of a politically motivated move than anything else. I do not agree with the downgrade.
    20 Nov 2011, 08:33 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    Why is it ridiculous? Our deficit spending is obscene and our debt level is basically 100% of GDP. Exactly when do you think we should be downgraded? When we borrow 50 cents of every dollar spent?
    20 Nov 2011, 11:19 PM Reply Like
  • Buddy Canuspare
    , contributor
    Comments (398) | Send Message
     
    David said,
    "Our deficit spending is obscene and our debt level is basically 100% of GDP."
    1980XLS said,
    "No matter what they do, they can't stop the yen from going up relative to everthing else."
    Considering that Japan's deficit spending is at least as obscene as USA's - and has been for the last 20 years - and Japan's debt level is basically at or above USA's level, why shouldn't the dollar be at least as strong as the yen? Or is government debt less important than it's made out to be?
    21 Nov 2011, 01:03 AM Reply Like
  • JCH57
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    I'm quite glad the supercommittee failed. Now we'll get some real budget cuts across the board due to sequestration, and the tax increases that nobody wants to vote for but that we need (exipiration of the Bush tax cuts).

     

    They keep talking about shared "sacrifice" but when it goes from being a vague concept to real actions, the "pain" is always too great for some interest group or another, and they back down. Well now it's coming, for everyone. Time for us as a country to pay down the credit card debt we've run up for the past 30 years, and this time not just make the minimum monthly payment.
    20 Nov 2011, 10:20 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    Unfortunately I think we'll find Congress finds some way around the automatic spending cuts!!! In fact I believe they are hard at work at that right now! They will "find" savings (that have already been claimed 5 times) and use them to "offset" the spending that they aren't cutting..... rinse and repeat several times and everyone will still be spending and spending.

     

    We need Ron Paul's year one spending cuts this year. Entire governemnt agencies have to go and be consolidated and the bureaucrats have to be thinned greatly and see their compensation lowered greatly. We need to bounce out the whole crew from DC, and reform the tax code - which will weaken the lobbyists - raise the retirment age to 70 next year - yes some folks will be in the wrong couple of years but thats tough luck. Start closing 50% of our overseas military bases. Stop buying so many weapons.

     

    Then we can do the actual hard work to reform our health care system to drive costs down - not create phantom insurance.
    20 Nov 2011, 11:24 PM Reply Like
  • Buddy Canuspare
    , contributor
    Comments (398) | Send Message
     
    David,
    Do we cut the amount paid to health care workers, from brain surgeons on down? Do we close clinics? Med schools?
    Do we cut military pay? Force levels? Ships at sea? If we close defense contractors, how do we know we can re-open them quickly in a military emergency? Do we count on being able to buy arms from China - even if China is the opponent? Why stop at 50% of overseas bases - why not close them all?
    What about jails? Prisons? Close them too and let the inmates out? Who do we stop imprisoning? Non-violent drug dealers? Bernie Madoff? It's all government spending. Do we all agree to stop saying, "There oughta be a law?"
    Who fills the potholes on the Interstate? Local paving contractors, small entrepreneurial businesses - are you willing to close them down, too, removing taxpaying citizens from the employment rolls?
    Close down the towers at the airports? Then who's responsible for crashes and collisions? Oh, the humanity!
    Can we lay off our way back to prosperity? If so, how many layoffs will it take?
    21 Nov 2011, 01:28 AM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10252) | Send Message
     
    It will take 3 or 4. Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and Boehner.
    21 Nov 2011, 11:16 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    "Do we cut the amount paid to health care workers, from brain surgeons on down? Do we close clinics? Med schools?"

     

    No. You fire lawyers and reduce medicaid welfare transfer payments.

     

    "Do we cut military pay?"

     

    No. But wars are defensive operations going forward. Not offensive. That alone cuts overhead by 50% overnight. What is defense? Border security.

     

    "Do we count on being able to buy arms from China - even if China is the opponent?"

     

    No. We give China missle tech for free so that one day they can be the opponent. See Billy Clinton's regime.

     

    "Why stop at 50% of overseas bases - why not close them all?"

     

    Indeed. Germany is overdone. Japan too. But Korea? Not so sure.

     

    "What about jails? Prisons? Close them too and let the inmates out? "

     

    Nice try. We all have our Con Air fantasies I suppose. How about we actually enforce the DP? Awww. Pwooor bwabies. They can't endlessly appeal. So sorry. Then fire the lawyers (look up above). See how that works?

     

    "Who fills the potholes on the Interstate? "

     

    I thought we had a gasoline tax that was for that. What? Did the politicians rob that fund too?

     

    "Close down the towers at the airports? Then who's responsible for crashes and collisions? Oh, the humanity!"

     

    Beautiful. The left always cries about the humanity. *sniff, sniff* No. You do what Reagan did and fire Patco on the spot. Reagan taught us that no public agency or emergency worker is too important to discipline, fire and start over no matter how much they try to take the country hostage. Worked beautifully. How short our memories are.

     

    "Can we lay off our way back to prosperity? If so, how many layoffs will it take? "

     

    The federal govt. is mostly useless. I can easily see us laying off 65% of federal employees without any of us noticing they are gone. Then we can get into the real housecleaning and shutter the agencies too, deunionize the rest and shrink them even more.
    21 Nov 2011, 11:28 AM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7641) | Send Message
     
    Or, eliminate the departments of education, energy, labor, commerce and then get rid of , say about, 25 to 50 % of all the remaining.
    21 Nov 2011, 11:33 AM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    Do we cut military pay? - yes, by about 10%.
    Force levels? - yes, even Gates wants to get rid of entire commands. Lets start with cutting two entire command divisions. And thin out the top/middle ranks that have steadily grown over the past 30 years.
    Military contractors - yes buy fewer weapons. Keep developing new weapons but instead of buying 400 planes buy 125.
    Prisons - let out all the folks in there due to drug use, let out those that were dirt poor and got prison for minor offenses while the rich get slaps on the wrists. We could probably let 40-50% of the folks out.
    Overseas bases - 50% is a good start, then we can re-evaluate.

     

    So cry me a river that a bunch of overpaid and un-needed bureaucrats are out of "jobs" (if you consider filling out forms to be a job).

     

    And yes we can cut our way back to prosperity - its called freedom and more freedom for the individual means more prosperity for the nation. Not the other way around where bureaucrats somehow create prosperity.

     

    And as for health care - we need to start by getting all the middlemen out of the game - lawyers, insurance, administrators all are sucking the system dry. If there were more direct purchasing between the patient and provider we'd see much lower rates, people would pay attention to costs and overall cost of health care would go down - and probably the outcomes go up. There are probably lots of other things that can be done to simplify the system and allow people the ability to choose.

     

    Until government spending is pulled way back and our economic and personal freedoms restored we will have stagnation.
    21 Nov 2011, 06:01 PM Reply Like
  • PCScipio
    , contributor
    Comments (204) | Send Message
     
    Some good thoughts there, david. On defense cuts, do we really need all those FBM submarines; how many do we plan to nuke even a worst case scenario?
    21 Nov 2011, 07:34 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|