Seeking Alpha

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

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.
Comments (266)
  • SA Editor Eli Hoffmann
    , contributor
    Comments (849) | Send Message
     
    "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 2013, 04:32 PM Reply Like
  • Regarded Solutions
    , contributor
    Comments (18207) | Send Message
     
    LOL.....hey I am almost there!
    1 Jan 2013, 04:40 PM Reply Like
  • Tony Petroski
    , contributor
    Comments (6373) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 06:09 PM Reply Like
  • TakeFive
    , contributor
    Comments (5204) | Send Message
     
    Maybe losing the "senior" vote is why he is retiring.
    1 Jan 2013, 06:22 PM Reply Like
  • Tony Petroski
    , contributor
    Comments (6373) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 06:30 PM Reply Like
  • chuckf201
    , contributor
    Comments (16) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 06:37 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (9105) | Send Message
     
    Yes Yes Yes Yes......................
    1 Jan 2013, 06:55 PM Reply Like
  • Tony Petroski
    , contributor
    Comments (6373) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 08:25 PM Reply Like
  • The Fox
    , contributor
    Comments (701) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 04:34 PM Reply Like
  • Jason Aycock
    , contributor
    Comments (145) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 04:37 PM Reply Like
  • gsterling
    , contributor
    Comments (811) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 06:41 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4401) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 06:59 PM Reply Like
  • Larry Smith
    , contributor
    Comments (2706) | Send Message
     
    CBO scored the budget deal and it RAISES the deficit, I thought we were trying to lower it. http://bit.ly/TFnt65
    1 Jan 2013, 07:05 PM Reply Like
  • Tony Petroski
    , contributor
    Comments (6373) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 08:11 PM Reply Like
  • Remyngton
    , contributor
    Comments (354) | Send Message
     
    you're conservative ???

     

    ha ha ha ... good one
    3 Jan 2013, 03:29 PM Reply Like
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (10526) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 04:41 PM Reply Like
  • bgold1955
    , contributor
    Comments (2263) | Send Message
     
    If they continue this bs they will lose the House in 2014.
    1 Jan 2013, 04:43 PM Reply Like
  • The Fox
    , contributor
    Comments (701) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 04:52 PM Reply Like
  • Mrkus
    , contributor
    Comments (26) | Send Message
     
    You mean "conservative media", don't you? Our media is owned by corporations.
    1 Jan 2013, 05:17 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    " 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 2013, 05:45 PM Reply Like
  • The Fox
    , contributor
    Comments (701) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 06:03 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    Anyone who is not as partisan as Faux News is liberal. Case closed. You are either with us or against us.
    1 Jan 2013, 06:04 PM Reply Like
  • 7footMoose
    , contributor
    Comments (2266) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 06:36 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    Welcome to the right side, Moose.
    1 Jan 2013, 06:38 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (9105) | Send Message
     
    macro
    Anyone who is not with us is against us.
    1 Jan 2013, 06:56 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (9105) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 07:00 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    Wyo, Be thankful for a political system that has liberals in the big cities subsidizing the conservatives in the rest of America.
    1 Jan 2013, 07:10 PM Reply Like
  • reader
    , contributor
    Comments (327) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 07:12 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (594) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 07:14 PM Reply Like
  • Rubenov
    , contributor
    Comments (433) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 07:15 PM Reply Like
  • The Last Boomer
    , contributor
    Comments (1001) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 07:25 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 07:26 PM Reply Like
  • TruffelPig
    , contributor
    Comments (4108) | Send Message
     
    Couldn't agree more Rubenov! I hope they actually start doing some constructive work; both parties!
    1 Jan 2013, 07:45 PM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3992) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 09:30 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 09:32 PM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3992) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 10:03 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 10:14 PM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3992) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 10:37 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    The best way to create jobs must be to plunge the economy back into a recession, eh?
    1 Jan 2013, 10:38 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (594) | Send Message
     
    Really - you are blaming Rep for that ?
    1 Jan 2013, 10:47 PM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3992) | Send Message
     
    "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 2013, 10:48 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 10:58 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    Fear mongering? You think if the country went over the fiscal cliff there would be no recession? ROFL!
    1 Jan 2013, 10:58 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (594) | Send Message
     
    "Plunge" into a recession. You listen to way to much news, or Dem talking points.
    1 Jan 2013, 11:01 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    So what do you think Mike would happen if the country went over the fiscal cliff?
    1 Jan 2013, 11:06 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (594) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 11:09 PM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3992) | Send Message
     
    A mild one is a small price to pay for more solid fiscal footing going forward
    1 Jan 2013, 11:10 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (594) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 11:14 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 11:15 PM Reply Like
  • Barneyiknow
    , contributor
    Comments (40) | Send Message
     
    Yes
    3 Jan 2013, 07:25 PM Reply Like
  • tclark13
    , contributor
    Comments (134) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 04:47 PM Reply Like
  • Edaugh
    , contributor
    Comments (121) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 04:50 PM Reply Like
  • whiff
    , contributor
    Comments (832) | Send Message
     
    From CNN no less ...
    http://cnnmon.ie/U644yX
    1 Jan 2013, 04:51 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4401) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 07:01 PM Reply Like
  • ChanelS
    , contributor
    Comments (35) | Send Message
     
    why does the fiscal cliff bill contains a hidden immediate pay raise for every govt worker??
    1 Jan 2013, 04:52 PM Reply Like
  • wheelz23
    , contributor
    Comments (61) | Send Message
     
    it's not hidden if you found it :)
    1 Jan 2013, 05:05 PM Reply Like
  • bgold1955
    , contributor
    Comments (2263) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 05:08 PM Reply Like
  • Zheeeem
    , contributor
    Comments (358) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 05:27 PM Reply Like
  • hotmix
    , contributor
    Comments (96) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 03:46 AM Reply Like
  • Recreational Analytics
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    I thought it was a continuation of the pay "freeze" for civilian gov employees...
    2 Jan 2013, 03:47 AM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4190) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 04:56 PM Reply Like
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (10526) | Send Message
     
    Madison was only 5'2" and weighed 100 pounds
    1 Jan 2013, 05:00 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4190) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 05:08 PM Reply Like
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (10526) | Send Message
     
    Well was married to Dolly Madison...she made great cupcakes,,,
    1 Jan 2013, 05:15 PM Reply Like
  • bgold1955
    , contributor
    Comments (2263) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 05:20 PM Reply Like
  • Sammy Lee
    , contributor
    Comments (314) | Send Message
     
    "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 2013, 05:41 PM Reply Like
  • TGC004
    , contributor
    Comments (449) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 05:52 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4190) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 05:53 PM Reply Like
  • bgold1955
    , contributor
    Comments (2263) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 06:01 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 06:33 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4190) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 07:04 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 07:14 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4190) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 07:29 PM Reply Like
  • taxman100
    , contributor
    Comments (349) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 04:56 PM Reply Like
  • The Fox
    , contributor
    Comments (701) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 05:06 PM Reply Like
  • Barneyiknow
    , contributor
    Comments (40) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 05:18 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4190) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 05:21 PM Reply Like
  • The Stock Miner
    , contributor
    Comments (36) | Send Message
     
    Amen to that - unfortunately spending cuts and higher taxes are the answer..
    1 Jan 2013, 06:00 PM Reply Like
  • TakeFive
    , contributor
    Comments (5204) | Send Message
     
    Geoffster.... Take a breath. We WILL grow our way out to a significant degree.
    1 Jan 2013, 06:09 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4190) | Send Message
     
    I disagree. Read John Maudlin's latest letter.
    1 Jan 2013, 06:15 PM Reply Like
  • movies555
    , contributor
    Comments (1155) | Send Message
     
    "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 2013, 06:17 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4401) | Send Message
     
    "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 2013, 07:07 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4401) | Send Message
     
    "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 2013, 07:08 PM Reply Like
  • yliu54
    , contributor
    Comments (171) | Send Message
     
    Republicans are not wise this time - this is putting them into an embarrassing position.
    1 Jan 2013, 05:04 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    When have they ever been wise?
    1 Jan 2013, 05:56 PM Reply Like
  • Remyngton
    , contributor
    Comments (354) | Send Message
     
    embarrassing to whom , you Liberals ?
    1 Jan 2013, 06:54 PM Reply Like
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (10526) | Send Message
     
    "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 2013, 05:19 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4190) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 05:37 PM Reply Like
  • anomaly1
    , contributor
    Comments (929) | Send Message
     
    -20 S&P at the open Jan 2nd.

     

    Monday was a bull trap of the foolish.
    1 Jan 2013, 05:25 PM Reply Like
  • EMS
    , contributor
    Comments (582) | Send Message
     
    I'll take the over on that.
    1 Jan 2013, 05:36 PM Reply Like
  • Drew Robertson
    , contributor
    Comments (357) | Send Message
     
    And maybe tmrw is a bear trap, Tigerboi. Everyone will be wrong at least once by Friday.
    1 Jan 2013, 05:44 PM Reply Like
  • Remyngton
    , contributor
    Comments (354) | Send Message
     
    nice bet , Soros
    2 Jan 2013, 07:22 PM Reply Like
  • TruffelPig
    , contributor
    Comments (4108) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 05:27 PM Reply Like
  • TakeFive
    , contributor
    Comments (5204) | Send Message
     
    Yep
    1 Jan 2013, 06:11 PM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (507) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 05:27 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    They are the voice of the chosen people.
    1 Jan 2013, 05:49 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 05:55 PM Reply Like
  • Brian Nichols
    , contributor
    Comments (2639) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 05:32 PM Reply Like
  • Tas 2010
    , contributor
    Comments (270) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 05:44 PM Reply Like
  • Remyngton
    , contributor
    Comments (354) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 05:48 PM Reply Like
  • bgold1955
    , contributor
    Comments (2263) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 05:51 PM Reply Like
  • TruffelPig
    , contributor
    Comments (4108) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 05:52 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    Come over to the right side Tas.
    1 Jan 2013, 05:52 PM Reply Like
  • TGC004
    , contributor
    Comments (449) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 05:46 PM Reply Like
  • TruffelPig
    , contributor
    Comments (4108) | Send Message
     
    The House prevented any meaningful deal for how many month now?
    1 Jan 2013, 05:53 PM Reply Like
  • TakeFive
    , contributor
    Comments (5204) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 06:19 PM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (507) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 06:45 PM Reply Like
  • Matt Jonza
    , contributor
    Comments (86) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 03:36 AM Reply Like
  • Tony Petroski
    , contributor
    Comments (6373) | Send Message
     
    "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 2013, 05:52 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 05:59 PM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (507) | Send Message
     
    Cantor was instrumental in Boehner's Plan B plan getting defeated.
    1 Jan 2013, 06:46 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    I love Cantor then! He will hand the house over to Dems in 2014.
    1 Jan 2013, 07:15 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (594) | Send Message
     
    I love him too for the opposite reason.
    1 Jan 2013, 07:15 PM Reply Like
  • TruffelPig
    , contributor
    Comments (4108) | Send Message
     
    I really really dislike Cantor.
    1 Jan 2013, 07:47 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 06:02 PM Reply Like
  • Teutonic Knight
    , contributor
    Comments (2694) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 06:02 PM Reply Like
  • Rubenov
    , contributor
    Comments (433) | Send Message
     
    You know, tax hikes for everyone--which happens if they do nothing-- is a little worse than this.
    1 Jan 2013, 06:31 PM Reply Like
  • Teutonic Knight
    , contributor
    Comments (2694) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 06:39 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 06:44 PM Reply Like
  • Teutonic Knight
    , contributor
    Comments (2694) | Send Message
     
    MI, you're entitled to your liberal thinking. It is free speech in this country. No contest.

     

    But I respectfully disagree.
    1 Jan 2013, 06:53 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 07:16 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4190) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 07:17 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    No idea. Educate me.
    1 Jan 2013, 07:18 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 07:21 PM Reply Like
  • The Fox
    , contributor
    Comments (701) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 07:27 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 07:29 PM Reply Like
  • Petelovesamy
    , contributor
    Comments (178) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 06:04 PM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (507) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 06:49 PM Reply Like
  • Valueplay98
    , contributor
    Comments (584) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 06:10 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    Ben should start buying up a whole load more of Treasuries and hold public bonfire with it.
    1 Jan 2013, 06:11 PM Reply Like
  • bgold1955
    , contributor
    Comments (2263) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 06:23 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 06:27 PM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (507) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 07:43 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 07:45 PM Reply Like
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (10526) | Send Message
     
    Cantor getting the shive ready for Boehner....
    1 Jan 2013, 06:24 PM Reply Like
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (10526) | Send Message
     
    As noted by cstauffer...
    "Cantor was instrumental in Boehner's Plan B plan getting defeated."

     

    thus the shive has been sharpened
    1 Jan 2013, 06:52 PM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3992) | Send Message
     
    Ridiculous. gop should accept token tax increases starting at $1 million to pacify democrats in return for much bigger spending cuts
    1 Jan 2013, 07:21 PM Reply Like
  • Petelovesamy
    , contributor
    Comments (178) | Send Message
     
    What is a synonym(another word) for "shive"?
    1 Jan 2013, 07:21 PM Reply Like
  • mike mohr
    , contributor
    Comments (452) | Send Message
     
    Why do we need these insider trading, special interest crook representatives?
    1 Jan 2013, 07:15 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (13782) | Send Message
     
    Time to add some metals folks !! Those printing machines are going to run 24/7....

     

    Honestly this is sad, but almost comical....
    1 Jan 2013, 07:19 PM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3992) | Send Message
     
    Good. Needs more spending cuts (like any lol)
    1 Jan 2013, 07:20 PM Reply Like
  • Seth Walters
    , contributor
    Comments (676) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 07:34 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    Seth, Are you into pain?
    1 Jan 2013, 07:38 PM Reply Like
  • Seth Walters
    , contributor
    Comments (676) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 07:47 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    Do you get whipped often?
    1 Jan 2013, 07:50 PM Reply Like
  • Seth Walters
    , contributor
    Comments (676) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 08:08 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    Seth, Never fight the Fed. Ever.
    1 Jan 2013, 08:09 PM Reply Like
  • The Fox
    , contributor
    Comments (701) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 09:25 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 09:28 PM Reply Like
  • The Fox
    , contributor
    Comments (701) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 10:15 PM Reply Like
  • Humble Eagles
    , contributor
    Comments (2237) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 07:34 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    "they will likely lessen Republican representation in Congress for many years to come"

     

    god, if there is a god ...
    1 Jan 2013, 07:37 PM Reply Like
  • The Fox
    , contributor
    Comments (701) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 09:29 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 07:36 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 07:36 PM Reply Like
  • Day Trader001
    , contributor
    Comments (787) | Send Message
     
    Cantor should be hung in the street!
    1 Jan 2013, 07:46 PM Reply Like
  • Humble Eagles
    , contributor
    Comments (2237) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 07:49 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 08:04 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 08:12 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (4088) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 08:30 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    I am sure John. Republicans love tax increases so much more than Democrats.
    1 Jan 2013, 08:45 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (4088) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 09:18 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    Which spending cut John? I didn't know that there were spending cuts in the bill being voted on tonight.
    1 Jan 2013, 09:29 PM Reply Like
  • The Fox
    , contributor
    Comments (701) | Send Message
     
    All of them.
    1 Jan 2013, 09:31 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (4088) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 09:35 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 09:37 PM Reply Like
  • Remyngton
    , contributor
    Comments (354) | Send Message
     
    There are NO cuts
    There will be NO cuts
    2 Jan 2013, 07:23 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (4088) | Send Message
     
    Big cuts a-comin'.
    2 Jan 2013, 10:40 PM Reply Like
  • Teutonic Knight
    , contributor
    Comments (2694) | Send Message
     
    Great big borrowing has to slow down or stopping somewhere and sometime.
    2 Jan 2013, 10:47 PM Reply Like
  • wmateri
    , contributor
    Comments (564) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 08:53 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    I think the Republicans are done.
    1 Jan 2013, 08:58 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 09:39 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (4088) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 09:49 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    Do you think you will get anything from SS when you retire?
    1 Jan 2013, 09:53 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (594) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 09:54 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (4088) | Send Message
     
    Absolutely not. I want to opt out.
    1 Jan 2013, 09:56 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 09:57 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 09:59 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (4088) | Send Message
     
    If I could opt out of SS/medicare for only a 10% penalty, I would.
    1 Jan 2013, 10:00 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (594) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 10:10 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 10:16 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 10:17 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (594) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 10:23 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 10:35 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (594) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 10:58 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 07:29 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (9105) | Send Message
     
    democratic troll....................
    2 Jan 2013, 07:51 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    Only Republicans trolls are allowed here, eh?
    2 Jan 2013, 07:52 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (594) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 09:20 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 09:26 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (594) | Send Message
     
    Seriously ? Most people in this country work for businesses right ? If government regulations become too intrusive what happens ?
    2 Jan 2013, 09:36 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 09:44 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (594) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 09:48 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 09:50 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (594) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 10:01 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 10:08 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (594) | Send Message
     
    "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 2013, 10:18 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 10:26 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (594) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 10:42 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 10:45 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (594) | Send Message
     
    You're still spinning - you want growth or government ?

     

    Pick one - you can't have both.
    2 Jan 2013, 10:53 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 11:05 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (594) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 11:20 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 11:28 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (594) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 11:46 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (4088) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 11:49 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (594) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 11:59 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 12:28 AM Reply Like
  • 7footMoose
    , contributor
    Comments (2266) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 04:54 AM Reply Like
  • 7footMoose
    , contributor
    Comments (2266) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 04:59 AM Reply Like
  • 7footMoose
    , contributor
    Comments (2266) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 05:02 AM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (507) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 09:06 AM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (507) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 09:07 AM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (507) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 09:12 AM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (507) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 09:21 AM Reply Like
  • cstauffer
    , contributor
    Comments (507) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 09:22 AM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    Moose, I will work for the govt when the Govt starts to pay well. I have always worked in the private sector.
    3 Jan 2013, 11:37 AM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 11:38 AM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    Clinton did pay off part of the debt in good times. Republicans Presidents? Not so much.
    3 Jan 2013, 11:39 AM Reply Like
  • Remyngton
    , contributor
    Comments (354) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 03:27 PM Reply Like
  • Regarded Solutions
    , contributor
    Comments (18207) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 09:49 PM Reply Like
  • RonFay
    , contributor
    Comments (29) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 03:35 AM Reply Like
  • dave gh
    , contributor
    Comments (8) | Send Message
     
    If we are over the cliff ask yourself why we keep hanging on to the branchs over the edge?
    2 Jan 2013, 03:47 AM Reply Like
  • MAKENICEMAX
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 03:47 AM Reply Like
  • Remyngton
    , contributor
    Comments (354) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 07:26 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    As Cheney said, deficits do not matter. Do you think Cheney was wrong?
    2 Jan 2013, 07:31 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (594) | Send Message
     
    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 2013, 09:40 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050) | Send Message
     
    Very nice spin Mike, very nice spin. So why did majority of the Republicans vote against the fiscal cliff bill?
    2 Jan 2013, 09:44 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (594) | Send Message
     
    gotta play the game baby
    2 Jan 2013, 09:48 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9050)