The House will vote on the unamended Senate bill at 9 PM ET, reports CNN's Dana Bash. Any...


The House will vote on the unamended Senate bill at 9 PM ET, reports CNN's Dana Bash. Any attempt to alter the bill by adding spending cuts has reportedly been abandoned for now. Update at 9:10: The vote has been pushed back to 11 PM ET.
Comments (185)
  • sethmcs
    , contributor
    Comments (3549) | Send Message
     
    Cowards!
    1 Jan 2013, 08:10 PM Reply Like
  • Jeb Handwerger
    , contributor
    Comments (636) | Send Message
     
    "Inflating out of debt is the easy choice politicians are making rather than making the tough moves to cut entitlements or raise taxes. Larger entitlements is what the people are choosing."

     

    http://bit.ly/WdoaSn
    1 Jan 2013, 08:51 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    Is there anything wrong with inflating out of debt?
    1 Jan 2013, 09:22 PM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (5162) | Send Message
     
    "Is there anything wrong with inflating out of debt?"

     

    Only if you've been a responsible saver with your money or are fortunate enough to be an individual on fixed income in this day and age.
    1 Jan 2013, 09:35 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    It really doesn't matter if you have been a saver. Put your money into equities. Equities boom with inflation.

     

    I agree with you that if you are on fixed income you have a problem. That's why Social Security is indexed to inflation.
    1 Jan 2013, 09:43 PM Reply Like
  • mp0125
    , contributor
    Comments (16) | Send Message
     
    Nothing wrong if you are protected against inflation.
    1 Jan 2013, 09:43 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    Exactly. Buy TIPs. Buy dividend paying stocks. They will all do very well.
    1 Jan 2013, 09:44 PM Reply Like
  • Petrarch
    , contributor
    Comments (1126) | Send Message
     
    Yes. Significant inflation - of the type that would allow you to diminish your debt say +6% per annum - is pernicious and corrodes an economy. Inflation encourages rent seeking and destructive behavior. It discourages saving and investment. It is not a good thing.

     

    That said - if you can borrow at 2% nominal and grow your economy at 4% nominal - that is not a bad trade at all. Especially if you put the proceeds into productive investment. Far worse if you squander it to fund over generous entitlements. And that is the core issue.

     

    Let us dismiss this notion tht debt is bad - it is not. Debt - well used can be a very valuable tool for both public and private purposes. And to borrow more cheaply than the return is good business for private and public.

     

    No. The issue that must be faced are these entitlements that will swallow the Economy. Hand in hand with that is the efficiency of the tax system which is riddled with spending provisions and subsidies which distort the economy. Simply and make more efficient the code by for example - eliminating the mortgage deduction for mortgages over say $250k - removing ethanol subsidies - take away favorable tax credits for energy both fossil fuel and alternative - and numerous others and reform entitlements by simply raising the age for Medicare and SS and means testing SS just do that and you change the game completely.

     

    Or just take up Erkine Bowles

     

    One last thing - repeal the Jones Act - look it up. It is another example of arrant stupidity - built in which distorts. Remove tariffs on ethanol. There are so many areas to improve efficiency. It is remarkable the economy functions at all.

     

    P
    1 Jan 2013, 09:45 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    I am all for means testing all entitlements. I would leave the age unchanged, however. I would also remove the cap on payroll taxes. I think that will by and large solve the problem.

     

    Entitlements are a safety net. They are meant to transfer wealth. If we get them going that way, we will be fine.
    1 Jan 2013, 09:48 PM Reply Like
  • Paulo Santos
    , contributor
    Comments (33927) | Send Message
     
    Mi, that's quite wrong - if you use progressive taxation and then means test all entitlements, you can easily create a lot of situations where those with lower gross incomes enjoy more goods and services than those with higher gross incomes.

     

    And that is incredibly unfair.
    1 Jan 2013, 09:58 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    there is no income in retirement, Paulo.
    1 Jan 2013, 10:01 PM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (5162) | Send Message
     
    Macro, are you Paul Krugman in disguise?
    1 Jan 2013, 10:01 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (4372) | Send Message
     
    What are you talking about now? They tax SS, they tax dividends, they tax capital gains...
    1 Jan 2013, 10:02 PM Reply Like
  • Paulo Santos
    , contributor
    Comments (33927) | Send Message
     
    Entitlements are not just retirement checks, MI.
    1 Jan 2013, 10:03 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    "Macro, are you Paul Krugman in disguise? "

     

    I wish. I am not that smart.
    1 Jan 2013, 10:04 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    " What are you talking about now? They tax SS, they tax dividends, they tax capital gains... "

     

    Not payroll tax.
    1 Jan 2013, 10:05 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    "Entitlements are not just retirement checks, MI. "

     

    I am sorry I am not sure what your point is. To me, entitlements are about ensuring the old and the feeble get a comfortable cushion of safety, paid for by everyone else. It's just basic humanity, really.
    1 Jan 2013, 10:06 PM Reply Like
  • marketwatcher23
    , contributor
    Comments (2200) | Send Message
     
    Macro let me take a crack at it. You keep paying back your debt with funny money and eventually the world gets sick of it. They stop buying your debt and eventually they start selling it. Good luck to the treasury trying to auction off treasuries at the same time as the world is also selling them. The fed ends up having to step in and buy all the treasuries and you end up in a currency crisis. Yes that is how it works.
    1 Jan 2013, 10:06 PM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (5162) | Send Message
     
    Krugman deserved his Nobel Prize as much as Obama and Al Gore did.

     

    He's become less of a economist with each passing day and more of a big-government lib pretending to be an economist

     

    No wonder you love him, macro
    1 Jan 2013, 10:07 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    "You keep paying back your debt with funny money and eventually the world gets sick of it. They stop buying your debt and eventually they start selling it. "

     

    What is the world going to buy? Chinese debt? Inflation in China is higher. EU debt? Well, the EU just went to negative interest rates and set a higher inflation target. India? 8% inflation there. Brazil? 65 inflation there. Where will the bond money go?

     

    http://seekingalpha.co...

     

    Read the above article which shows why there is no chance of a dollar crash. The whole world in reflating.
    1 Jan 2013, 10:08 PM Reply Like
  • larocag
    , contributor
    Comments (1469) | Send Message
     
    Life is unfair.

     

    Life is esp unfair to poor people. They have less, are less effectively served by our judicial system, and have shorter life spans--so collect less SS and probably medicare. They get screwed and screw themselves at every turn.

     

    I wonder if you would think it was "incredibly unfair" if you lived the life of a typical third world citizen for a few months.
    1 Jan 2013, 10:08 PM Reply Like
  • Paulo Santos
    , contributor
    Comments (33927) | Send Message
     
    Entitlements are "a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also: funds supporting or distributed by such a program". It includes SS payments, but it also includes a lot of other stuff, like section 8 housing.

     

    If someone gets a check for section 8 housing while an higher income family has to rent, this quickly approaches the goods and services enjoyed by both families, in spite of the higher income family having provided more goods and services to others (or higher value goods and services).

     

    If you means test enough entitlements, you'll end up creating a lot of situations where the lower income individuals enjoy more goods and services than the higher income individuals. That's obviously incredibly wrong and would, over time, destroy society.
    1 Jan 2013, 10:09 PM Reply Like
  • Sammy Lee
    , contributor
    Comments (336) | Send Message
     
    "Equities boom with inflation" ...only up to a certain point of manageable inflation around 5% to 6%. That's a very strong assumption to make.
    1 Jan 2013, 10:10 PM Reply Like
  • marketwatcher23
    , contributor
    Comments (2200) | Send Message
     
    Stop listening to yourself and listen to someone else for a second. Here is a good start.

     

    http://bit.ly/UPdjyL
    1 Jan 2013, 10:10 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    I actually don't read much Krugman at all. I learned my economics at a very fine school that my many measures is world #1 in finance. What I write about is based on the learnings form that school. It's a very right wing school, by the way. Right wing, but not crazy.

     

    Krugman just happens to agree with me.

     

    Look, I want policies that make me fabulously rich. Hate me if you like but I make more money if there are massive social safety nets, large amounts of money injections, moderate inflation, et cetra.
    1 Jan 2013, 10:12 PM Reply Like
  • marketwatcher23
    , contributor
    Comments (2200) | Send Message
     
    That video was of Kyle Bass. Krugman is a total mental midget. They gave him his medal so that when he agrees with the Bernak it gives them both some credibility.

     

    If they are going to inject money then just send everyone a check. If there are no consequences to printing money and no worries of a dollar crash then what is the problem with sending every american a million dollars?
    1 Jan 2013, 10:15 PM Reply Like
  • Paulo Santos
    , contributor
    Comments (33927) | Send Message
     
    larocag, did you understand what I explained?

     

    The "poor people" in the US are mostly very far from poor, and are actually very favored for being poor in the US. Someone with equivalent productivity mostly anywhere else in the world would live with a lot less material possessions given what they produce.

     

    And anyway, what sense does it make for such people to live a BETTER life than someone with an HIGHER income than them? What sense does it make for that higher income person to pay for it while living worse?
    1 Jan 2013, 10:16 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    "If there are no consequences to printing money and no worries of a dollar crash then what is the problem with sending every american a million dollars? "

     

    Because it's inefficient to manage the money supply that way. You get far more leverage by going through the money center banks.

     

    Anyway, for the dollar to crash some other currency have to appreciate. A big currency that can accept the flow of funds. Let me know which currency that will be. With rationale.
    1 Jan 2013, 10:20 PM Reply Like
  • Paulo Santos
    , contributor
    Comments (33927) | Send Message
     
    The Euro, it's the only remaining currency that's being managed as being a currency.

     

    While the ECB prints, it does so only in the context of programs designed to bring the member States into equilibrium.

     

    The Fed, BOJ, BOE, etc, they all print with no such strings attached.
    1 Jan 2013, 10:21 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    "The "poor people" in the US are mostly very far from poor, and are actually very favored for being poor in the US. Someone with equivalent productivity mostly anywhere else in the world would live with a lot less material possessions given what they produce."

     

    Agree, but they are Americans, and I for one care far more about my fellow Americans than poor people in the rest of the world.

     

    "And anyway, what sense does it make for such people to live a BETTER life than someone with an HIGHER income than them? What sense does it make for that higher income person to pay for it while living worse? "

     

    Can you please explain to me mathematically how this would work? These people will live better than they would have otherwise, but they are not going to live like hedge fund managers.
    1 Jan 2013, 10:21 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    "If you means test enough entitlements, you'll end up creating a lot of situations where the lower income individuals enjoy more goods and services than the higher income individuals. That's obviously incredibly wrong and would, over time, destroy society. "

     

    Can you please show me how this math works? I don't know if you have ever lived in Section 8 housing. I haven't, but from what I have read about it, it is not exactly the Ritz.
    1 Jan 2013, 10:23 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    ""Equities boom with inflation" ...only up to a certain point of manageable inflation around 5% to 6%. That's a very strong assumption to make. "

     

    We are far, far, FAR away from 5-6% inflation. I would be happy with 3% inflation but I doubt we will get there. But I keep hoping.
    1 Jan 2013, 10:24 PM Reply Like
  • Paulo Santos
    , contributor
    Comments (33927) | Send Message
     
    MI, first the progressive taxation brings the incomes closer.

     

    Then some entitlements allow the lower income person to have access to subsidized food, education, health, housing, etc, while the higher income person has to pay for some of those things. This means that the remaining income can actually become LARGER for the lower income person than it is for the higher income person.

     

    That's the reason why you shouldn't means test the entitlements, because if you do, you can create this kind of incredible unfairness.
    1 Jan 2013, 10:25 PM Reply Like
  • larocag
    , contributor
    Comments (1469) | Send Message
     
    Paulo

     

    I disagree that a progressive tax system or means testing leads to "such people to live a BETTER life than someone with an HIGHER income than them". Certainly not at current levels. Even when the highest tax rate was 70% society wasn't destroyed.

     

    I am one that would pay more tax and I don't see it as unfair. I make a lot of money but I don't see that as entirely a result of my efforts. I don't think I am more valuable than 4 or 5 teachers.

     

    The people that I know that cry about taxes seem to think that they are smarter or more deserving than others.
    1 Jan 2013, 10:27 PM Reply Like
  • marketwatcher23
    , contributor
    Comments (2200) | Send Message
     
    you are being dishonest. That money goes through the banks to ensure that it gets lent out to the people in the form of debt instead of giving the people money so they can eliminate debt. If your point about the currency is correct, and you honestly cared about the people, then a debt jubilee would be a nice easy way out of this.
    1 Jan 2013, 10:28 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    Paulo, Seriously, you have to show me the math. You are wrong. That's not the way progressive taxation works in the USA. Under progressive taxation no one can make less in net terms than someone whose gross income is lower. This is because each incremental dollar is taxed at a higher rate by not at a 100% rate. That's how you means test entitlements. It's quite straightforward.

     

    I would be happy to see a model where you show two persons, one earning less and the other earning more, and how under means test of entitlements the situation is reversed. By earnings, in this case, I mean retirement earnings from savings.
    1 Jan 2013, 10:28 PM Reply Like
  • Paulo Santos
    , contributor
    Comments (33927) | Send Message
     
    larocag, the progressive taxation alone CANNOT produce this effect. With the means testing, however, it is quite possible that it might happen, and indeed, some entities in the UK and the US have already said as much ... for instance, take a look at this: http://bit.ly/Uih8ws

     

    Btw, how much are those teachers making?
    1 Jan 2013, 10:30 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    Paulo, The Euro may not even be here in a few years. The EU has 2.2% inflation compared to 1.8% for the USA. There is a reason why the Euro keeps falling against the dollar.
    1 Jan 2013, 10:31 PM Reply Like
  • Mike Maher
    , contributor
    Comments (2862) | Send Message
     
    Section 8 housing means that the tenant pays part of the rent, and the government picks up the rest. Many buildings have both section 8 and normal market rents. For the most part, anyone with a section 8 voucher can rent almost anywhere. There are dumps for sure, but I've also been in Section 8 apartments in Manhattan with views of central park. There are extremes on both ends.
    1 Jan 2013, 10:33 PM Reply Like
  • Paulo Santos
    , contributor
    Comments (33927) | Send Message
     
    MI, as I said, progressive taxation CANNOT produce the effect alone. Progressive taxation just gets the incomes closer. The problem appears due to then tacking on means testing of the entitlements. Take a look at this: http://bit.ly/Uih8ws
    1 Jan 2013, 10:35 PM Reply Like
  • marketwatcher23
    , contributor
    Comments (2200) | Send Message
     
    If by falling you mean consistently substantially higher than the dollar then I guess you are right. Also as long as we keep changing how we measure inflation (chained cpi lol) I suppose inflation will stay low. Just stay away from the things people actually need and consume. You may run into some inflation there.
    1 Jan 2013, 10:37 PM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (5162) | Send Message
     
    "Look, I want policies that make me fabulously rich. Hate me if you like but I make more money if there are massive social safety nets, large amounts of money injections, moderate inflation, et cetra."

     

    I bet you would have been in hog heaven in the Weimar republic with 10 wheelbarrows. You would have felt more fabulous than ever!
    1 Jan 2013, 10:40 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    Paulo, You present a propaganda piece from the American Enterprise Institute? Tsk tsk. You expect me to take that at face value without examining the facts? Next you will show me the Laffer Curve, eh?
    1 Jan 2013, 10:41 PM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (5162) | Send Message
     
    "The "poor people" in the US are mostly very far from poor, and are actually very favored for being poor in the US. Someone with equivalent productivity mostly anywhere else in the world would live with a lot less material possessions given what they produce."

     

    Absolutely correct. Middle-class McMansions here rival what you see the wealthy in europe living in
    1 Jan 2013, 10:41 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    marketwatcher, you don't like Chained CPI? Republicans love chained CPI. They even tried to make SS increases tied to chained CPI but the Democrats stopped them. Are you a Democrat?
    1 Jan 2013, 10:42 PM Reply Like
  • Paulo Santos
    , contributor
    Comments (33927) | Send Message
     
    MI, the concept on that chart is right, and the source is the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare - check the slide. A similar chart can be gotten from the CBO.
    1 Jan 2013, 10:43 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    If the concept is right Paolo then it should be very easy to illustrate that point with two families, no? I want you to take a wild guess. Which Party do you think is in charge in Pennsylvania?

     

    Look, I am a numbers guy, the moment you show me the numbers I will accept your point.
    1 Jan 2013, 10:47 PM Reply Like
  • marketwatcher23
    , contributor
    Comments (2200) | Send Message
     
    Macro are you watching this vote tonight and actually still thinking there are two parties? The republicans are closet democrats. Tonight they have been exposed. It is what it is. I agree with some of what you say. I think your monetary viewpoints just disregard history. All fiat currencies have failed. The reserve currencies have changed over time. I am pretty sure that every country that once had that status said the same things you are saying about the dollar.

     

    I digresse. The tea party and the republicans are done. They are gone. As long as you promise the masses you will take from the minority and give to them you will never lose an election.

     

    I am a social democrat and a fiscal conservative. There really is no party out there (maybe libertarian) that I would affiliate myself with.
    1 Jan 2013, 10:47 PM Reply Like
  • larocag
    , contributor
    Comments (1469) | Send Message
     
    I looked at your example. It is pretty clear we need more engineers, mathematicians and scientists in government. Obviously if you create a benefit with a hard upper limit for qualification and that benefit does not fade to zero as you approach that limit, then you will create an inequity.
    Your link demonstrates the almost universal ignorance of mathematics outside of the above mentioned fields.
    1 Jan 2013, 10:48 PM Reply Like
  • Paulo Santos
    , contributor
    Comments (33927) | Send Message
     
    larocag, most of the entitlements do not fade to zero, they have hard limits. At most they fade by means of a few steps.

     

    You don't seem to want to believe that this might be real, in spite of the fact that most entitlements are structured this way (think food stamps, Medicare, section 8, etc).
    1 Jan 2013, 10:51 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    MW, Trust me, if there was another big country that was not reflating and trying to devalue it's currency, I would not only proclaim the demise of the USD I would personally short the USD against the currency. To me it is about making money. It is not about ideologies. Fiat currency or not, I don't care. I earn and pay with fiat currency and I just want to make my returns as high as possible.

     

    Thing is, right now there is no other currency to displace the USD. So by definition the USD cannot crash as then some other currency has to appreciate. I don't know if you trade currencies but you did you would know this.

     

    I am a social liberal and fiscal conservative too, but fiscal conservatism doesn't mean mindless austerity. It means taking steps that make the economy grow. The Republicans have become completely out of touch with standard economics. They have forgotten what makes the economy grow, which is a HUGE body of consumers. Now, I don't think Democrats care much about growing the economy, but they do care about this huge mass of consumers. Hence my fiscal politics is aligned with Democrats.

     

    There is a lot of talk here about taking pain as long as the poor suffers too. I would rather the poor enjoy their lives as long as I enjoy my life even more. That's why I remain a Democrat.
    1 Jan 2013, 10:52 PM Reply Like
  • Paulo Santos
    , contributor
    Comments (33927) | Send Message
     
    MI, the most I can say is to look at those programs in the chart, as they all exist.

     

    There are also people in the UK saying the exact same thing, that families working less than 16 hours per week have no incentive to work more because they'd mostly end up having less income if they did, so the country is importing immigrants to fill those low-end jobs.
    1 Jan 2013, 10:54 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    Paulo, USA is not UK. Welfare reform was passed in the mid 90s by Clinton. Anyway I have no problem if some people voluntarily not work. We have a big unemployment issue in case you have not noticed. And we are not importing immigrants to fill those jobs. Inf act we drove the illegal immigrants out of the country and now Americans are doing those very low paying jobs.
    1 Jan 2013, 10:56 PM Reply Like
  • Paulo Santos
    , contributor
    Comments (33927) | Send Message
     
    Anyway, MI, wouldn't you have a problem if the rules produced that kind of effect? Where lower income persons actually managed to have access to higher discretionary income (or more goods and services)?

     

    The risk is real that it's going that way, especially if entitlements are means tested.

     

    (having no problem with some people voluntarily not working while living off the work of those that do is pretty incredible as it is)
    1 Jan 2013, 10:59 PM Reply Like
  • larocag
    , contributor
    Comments (1469) | Send Message
     
    With the hard limits there are inequities. And it would make sense for you to run around complaining "hey there are hard limits, that is ugly". If I where in charge I would fix that curve so that more earnings always meant more money to spend.
    But you are complaining about their existence at all. There we will remain it absolute disagreement.
    I come from the low end of that scale. The country does get some benefit from that spending. You are lifting the children. Like I was.
    1 Jan 2013, 11:00 PM Reply Like
  • marketwatcher23
    , contributor
    Comments (2200) | Send Message
     
    I am not shorting the dollar. I think this unfortunately goes down the road of financial repression. I am 35 years old. I have a 2yr old daughter. My health insurance is $1,500/mo. Goes up about 10% every year. I started investing in the market when I graduated in 1999. The market is currently right at around 1999 levels with several crashes in between. My bank pays me 0% interest and bonds are paying about the same with interest rate risk. College costs what....40k a year now? Growing every year? Have you seen the 90 day delinquincy charts on student loans? Generations are getting wiped out right now. No jobs and buried in debt. If you have a job like me and my wife you are busting your ass and lucky if you are not going broke anway. My daughter is inheriting a giant shit sandwich. This country is a bunch of individuals out for themselves. Politicans figured out that as long as they cater to that they will always have a job. Eventually an alternative "reserve currency" will emerge and then it gets really ugly.

     

    Growth is not possible with this debt. We need a total reset and it is going to hurt a lot.
    1 Jan 2013, 11:01 PM Reply Like
  • Paulo Santos
    , contributor
    Comments (33927) | Send Message
     
    larocag, I am complaining about those limits/the means testing of entitlements that produces them.

     

    And besides, I'm not even in the US, it's just the unfairness of it all that bugs me.
    1 Jan 2013, 11:01 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    Paulo, This is how I measure the net effect of a social policy. Are more people better off than before? Check. Is anyone worse off than before? Nope. Am I better off than before? Check. Bingo, the policy works for me. Social safety nets pass this set of 3 tests.

     

    Anyway, if you think the main issue is the curve, then let's fix the curve. The main issue people have, though, is not the curve. They just get pissed off that the poor are getting some help.
    1 Jan 2013, 11:03 PM Reply Like
  • larocag
    , contributor
    Comments (1469) | Send Message
     
    "And besides, I'm not even in the US"

     

    So you do understand that life isn't fair. :)
    1 Jan 2013, 11:03 PM Reply Like
  • Paulo Santos
    , contributor
    Comments (33927) | Send Message
     
    It's not about the social safety net - it's about the thing producing that kind of unfairness. I am all for the safety net as well, but not that kind of obvious unfairness.
    1 Jan 2013, 11:04 PM Reply Like
  • Paulo Santos
    , contributor
    Comments (33927) | Send Message
     
    I'm not complaining about not being in the US, either. But the US can quickly go the way of the URSS if it isn't careful about the incentives in its system. The reason the URSS went down the tubes was that it made no particular sense to produce more than the next guy, so no one did. The US is running the risk of slowly producing a similar system (which is what happens when a lower income person can have access to a larger quantity of goods and services).
    1 Jan 2013, 11:06 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    Paulo, Do you think any targeted help to the poor is unfair?
    1 Jan 2013, 11:07 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    Paulo, Can you tell you something? You really do not know what is going on in the USA. This country remains as hard core capitalist and right wing as ever, just even more so. That Congressman object to raising taxes on millionaires goes to show it. The social safety net has been hacked away repeatedly in the USA and now it is a sliver of what it was 20 years back.
    1 Jan 2013, 11:09 PM Reply Like
  • marketwatcher23
    , contributor
    Comments (2200) | Send Message
     
    The US is going the way of the USSR. Slowly but with certainty.
    1 Jan 2013, 11:10 PM Reply Like
  • Paulo Santos
    , contributor
    Comments (33927) | Send Message
     
    I think the provision of services by the State should help both poor and anyone else who wants to use them. For instance, education, health, social security, etc. Those shouldn't be means tested, so that the problem doesn't show up. If healthcare is to be financed by the State, it should be for everybody, for instance.
    1 Jan 2013, 11:11 PM Reply Like
  • larocag
    , contributor
    Comments (1469) | Send Message
     
    "The US is running the risk of slowly producing a similar system"

     

    How did you develop this idea? We are currently arguing about taxing people with more than $400K in income. If it was 1960 I could understand your concern. Here in the US, the poor are poor and the rich are rch. You can sleep comfortably.
    1 Jan 2013, 11:12 PM Reply Like
  • wesinpa2002
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Hello, I have been investing for over 40 years. I have a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering. I now live in Indonesia and have had the opportunity to travel to 22 countries. I now work for an indonesian/chinese company. I have been saying for the last 40 years that we need to focus on economic wars versus a nuclear war. I want my voice heard.
    2 Jan 2013, 02:14 AM Reply Like
  • rasanders22
    , contributor
    Comments (612) | Send Message
     
    In America compared to the rest of the world, the rich are rich, and our poor are rich.
    2 Jan 2013, 03:44 AM Reply Like
  • Paulo Santos
    , contributor
    Comments (33927) | Send Message
     
    larocag, I was discussing the idea of having every entitlement be means tested, not the taxes.
    2 Jan 2013, 06:26 AM Reply Like
  • Tony Petroski
    , contributor
    Comments (6356) | Send Message
     
    This is how great legislation is passed: Run the law through and then count on the Democrat functionaries to do the heavy lifting...

     

    Dow 34,000?
    1 Jan 2013, 08:16 PM Reply Like
  • Seth Walters
    , contributor
    Comments (675) | Send Message
     
    What a whipping for Boehner if this is true. If the Republicans can't work together on this they are finished as a party.
    1 Jan 2013, 08:18 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    What did I tell you Seth?
    1 Jan 2013, 08:49 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4291) | Send Message
     
    Thank God. The republic is saved. Wait, Congress is in session?Where's my wallet?
    1 Jan 2013, 08:19 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (15020) | Send Message
     
    Up Up and away for commodities !!! So whats going to be the new name for the third party this country will have??

     

    Repubs are out of touch, clueless, etc...Donald Trump was right, they have no idea how to negotiate!!
    1 Jan 2013, 08:28 PM Reply Like
  • kyleg17
    , contributor
    Comments (174) | Send Message
     
    Yay or nay? What yAll think? I'm going with Nay I guess. Anyone else?
    1 Jan 2013, 08:28 PM Reply Like
  • larocag
    , contributor
    Comments (1469) | Send Message
     
    I bet it passes. They wouldn't be voting on it if they didn't know how ugly things would get.
    1 Jan 2013, 08:41 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    It will pass with majority of Democrat support with a few Republicans switching over. A nice slap in the face for the Tea Party Patriots.
    1 Jan 2013, 08:52 PM Reply Like
  • wmateri
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    There will be lots of talk against it saying "I don't support it" but the vote will go for it as they will find enough scapegoats and believers to let it go through. A sad day for America but a great day for the markets.
    1 Jan 2013, 08:58 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    People who do not support it will vote against it. Unfortunately they are in the minority. The majority of Representatives support this bill, most of them Democrats. This is the trouble with democracy. A small group of Tea Party Fanatics cannot control the Govt even if they feel it is their god given right to do so.
    1 Jan 2013, 09:01 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (15020) | Send Message
     
    Repubs handcuffs themselves...No choice but pass this now and hope to get cuts later!! Yeah right...
    1 Jan 2013, 09:02 PM Reply Like
  • larocag
    , contributor
    Comments (1469) | Send Message
     
    They are the people.
    1 Jan 2013, 09:03 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    Obama totally outmaneuvered them. Nice!
    1 Jan 2013, 09:03 PM Reply Like
  • Remyngton
    , contributor
    Comments (343) | Send Message
     
    You sound like the British , whining and complaining , when the Tea Party triggered the first uprising .
    Like the Brits , you too will leave in tears
    1 Jan 2013, 09:44 PM Reply Like
  • Remyngton
    , contributor
    Comments (343) | Send Message
     
    You must've hated US history circa 1780's with the Tea Party revolt
    1 Jan 2013, 09:45 PM Reply Like
  • Remyngton
    , contributor
    Comments (343) | Send Message
     
    Obama certainly did .... all taxes , no spending cuts ... Congrats to the "victors "

     

    Obama bows towards Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro , his heroes
    1 Jan 2013, 09:47 PM Reply Like
  • larocag
    , contributor
    Comments (1469) | Send Message
     
    It is hard to tell who you are pointed at.
    1 Jan 2013, 09:49 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    I am not whining, I am gloating. The Tea Party Patriots are whining because they are asked to help those less fortunate than themselves.
    1 Jan 2013, 09:49 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (16281) | Send Message
     
    Mac:

     

    Government doesn't "ask" anybody to do anything. It commands by force of law and backed by guns and incarceration.

     

    Now, I fully realize that you favor the expropriation of people's wealth by force, rather than through voluntary charity, but let's be honest about what's going on.
    1 Jan 2013, 11:05 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    Tack, You make it sound like we have a dictatorship in the USA, when we just had an open election and the Republicans got their rear ends handed to them. The opposing party winning does not make USA a dictatorship.
    1 Jan 2013, 11:11 PM Reply Like
  • bbrady413
    , contributor
    Comments (770) | Send Message
     
    Mac, then why do you claim dictatorial powers? You seem to have no problem yelling from your soapbox that the Dems are in power, and therefore the Tea Party and any other dissenters have no choice but to get in line and do their bidding.
    2 Jan 2013, 12:50 AM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    Majority rule under democracy is not dictatorship, Brady. There will be an election in 2 years.
    2 Jan 2013, 12:55 AM Reply Like
  • bbrady413
    , contributor
    Comments (770) | Send Message
     
    I think we're talking semantics here. A traditional dictatorship has a dictator which is totalitarian in nature. You want to have a totalitarian democracy, but hide behind the flag of being democratic. Democracy is Latin for "power of the people." That means power as a whole, not as in one group of people ruling absolutely over the others. That is a perfect example of tyranny. I'm sure you wouldn't be arguing for totalitarian democracy if the Republicans or libertarians or Tea Party were in control.
    2 Jan 2013, 09:28 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    Brady, What do you think of the Hastert rule? The rule states that as long as the Republican Party maintains control of the Congress, it will not allow a bill to come to general vote unless a majority of the Republican Congressmen and women agree with the bill, even if the bill could pass with a majority of Democrat Congressmen and women, and a minority of Republicans.

     

    The Hastert rule was broken by Boehner yesterday. Democracy triumphed. The people's representatives, majority Democrats and minority Republicans voted for it. That's my ideal of democracy. Let every vote come to the floor, not just the ones a narrow group of Tea Party Patriots favor.

     

    You with me brother?
    2 Jan 2013, 09:37 PM Reply Like
  • bbrady413
    , contributor
    Comments (770) | Send Message
     
    Then tell me, why won't Harry Reid allow a budget to be voted on in the Senate, besides the ones presented by Obama that have gotten voted down with exactly zero votes?
    2 Jan 2013, 09:53 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    Because its a waste of time. The last time a full budget was passed was in 1997.

     

    But are you with me on the Hastert rule?
    2 Jan 2013, 09:56 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (4372) | Send Message
     
    You just said let every vote come to floor... So, when Harry Reid doesn't allow that to happen it's just because it's a "waste of time"?
    2 Jan 2013, 10:39 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    Something that has not been passed in 15 years is no big deal, John. Read up on minibus and omnibus deals and how the real budget is determined.
    2 Jan 2013, 10:43 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (4372) | Send Message
     
    Wait - what happened to "let every vote come to the floor"? Stop deflecting. Answer the question.
    2 Jan 2013, 10:45 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    I answered already. You didn't like the answer. Harry Reid even had the votes to pass the budget. But it was a waste of time which is no Senate, Republican or Democrat has done it in 15 years. The Hastert rule is uniquely Republiacn though. Thank goodness Boehner threw it out last night and we have this bounty of a market rally today.
    2 Jan 2013, 10:49 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (4372) | Send Message
     
    That's a non-answer. and please correctly state that you only want certain votes to come to floor because you think they are not a waste of time.
    2 Jan 2013, 10:53 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    I didn't even know that no budget was passed. I looked it up and the budget control act did pass the budget. So what do you think of the Hastert rule?

     

    Anyway, I do believe passing a budget is a waste of time and 15 years of Republican and Democrat politicians agree with me. Doesn't the Tea Party have better angles, like the Democrats trying to avoid a vote on the fiscal cliff?
    2 Jan 2013, 11:00 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (4372) | Send Message
     
    I think the Hastert rule sounds like what Harry Reid does.

     

    It's cool - just say you don't want to answer the question. Or amend your statement to correctly reflect reality. You actually do NOT want all votes to come to the floor.
    2 Jan 2013, 11:03 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    Got it, so what do you think of the Hastert rule? How long are you going to avoid that question?
    2 Jan 2013, 11:12 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (4372) | Send Message
     
    I, unlike you, can say truthfully that I believe all votes should come to the floor. Dennis Hastert and the "majority of the majority" rule be damned. How's that? Now amend your statement, or retract it in its entirety.
    2 Jan 2013, 11:19 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    All right! So why didn't you say that when we were discussing the fiscal cliff deal?
    2 Jan 2013, 11:22 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (4372) | Send Message
     
    Got it - you don't want all votes to come to the floor. It's not hard - just say it. As I said the first night I "met" you - Mr. High Horse. Zero credibility when you contradict yourself so clearly and only separate the contradiction by one person's response to your liberal talking point.
    2 Jan 2013, 11:28 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    So why did you not say that you don't like the Hastert rule when the Tea Party Patriots were urging for it last night John? Why avoid that question?

     

    Anyway, we have time. in 8 weeks we will be back here and I will remind you then that you do not agree with the HAstert rule.
    2 Jan 2013, 11:30 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (4372) | Send Message
     
    It was not asked of me whether I agreed with the Hastert rule or not, that's probably why. You did this evening, and I replied with how I felt about it.

     

    Now, care to address your conflicting statements separated by only a few minutes? Just say "I do not believe all votes should come to the floor" and I will be placated.
    2 Jan 2013, 11:35 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    John, it is not conflicting at all, the Senate and the House see all kinds of bills, if they were to vote on all of them there won't be enough time, so they have to pick and choose. Not passing a budget has absolutely no impact on the functioning of the Govt. You know that, everyone knows that, the politicians know that. Hence they didn't bother. If that's all that the right wing can come up with, then I can only laugh.

     

    Now that I have answered the question about 5 times, let me ask you this. Why is that so hard for you to accept the answer?
    3 Jan 2013, 12:25 AM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (4372) | Send Message
     
    I would ask you to correct your statement. Just say "Only some votes should come to the floor"... Retract it entirely and say "I do not believe all votes should come to floor"... Pick one. Your initial statement was a bald-faced lie.

     

    I answered your question. Answer mine. How can you say that "all votes should come to the floor", then turn around and say it's okay if some votes don't deserve (in your opinion) to come to the floor?

     

    Don't deflect again - just a straight answer is required. All votes should come to the floor, or not all votes should come to the floor. Two choices, man, come on!
    3 Jan 2013, 12:41 AM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    Fair enough John. I correct my statement, all votes that have majority support (combined, across the two parties) should come to the floor.

     

    You cool?

     

    Now, did you see the spanking Boehner is getting for blocking the Hurricane Sandy vote? Heh heh heh, the Republicans are going to lose the north east completely now.
    3 Jan 2013, 12:45 AM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (4372) | Send Message
     
    Okay, so you support the Hastert rule. Got it.

     

    I've noticed that Boehner was getting the flack for not calling for a vote on that pork bill. Last I looked it was $9B for relief aid, and $51B of other crap that had nothing to do with relief aid. I would call that a good business decision. If your business is bankrupt, you ought not to be paying billions of dollars to re-roof buildings and re-pave roads 3-4 years from now.

     

    Do you read any of the junk you support?
    3 Jan 2013, 12:50 AM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (4372) | Send Message
     
    Oh, P.S. - you said Harry Reid had the votes to pass the budget bill (with your straight majority thing), but he tabled it. So only those bills that have a chance of majority across both parties that Harry Reid agrees with should be brought to the floor, right? Trying to get a clearer picture on what should actually be brought to the floor for a vote...
    3 Jan 2013, 12:54 AM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    LOL, How did you conclude that I support the Hastert rule? The Hastert rule would have prevented the cliff bill from coming up for vote. My position would have allowed it to come up for vote, and win, obviously. Nice attempt though.

     

    So you are against the people affected by Sandy from getting aid, eh? Nice compassion. Anyway, Hastert has realized that pissing off the North East Republicans won't help, and is bringing that vote back to the House on Friday when it will pass. Heh heh heh.
    3 Jan 2013, 12:55 AM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (4372) | Send Message
     
    No, I would be fully in favor for immediately passing a $9B bill for immediate disaster relief for the people affected by the Hurricane. I think the roof on the museum can wait until the gov has spare cash to cover it. Maybe they should raise admission prices, or ask for donations if they need a new roof so bad.

     

    Ok, I misspoke - you did not support the Hastert rule (at least as far as the Republicans are using it), but more like you support any bill that you think can score a majority combined between both parties. Which brings us to "Shouldn't all bills be brought to the floor for an up or down vote"? The Hastert rule could just as easily be the "Pelosi rule". I'm sure you'd be fine with that.

     

    I'm all for the Congress voting on every bill, regardless of chance of passing. I'm also for clean bills - no pork. Didn't Obama say he was getting rid of the "earmark" problem? The Hurricane bill was 30% relief and 70% other stuff. We gotta get away from passing all the "other stuff".
    3 Jan 2013, 01:07 AM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    How would you feel when the Sandy bill is passed in its entirety? Boehner is not an idiot. He knows that he can fight pork and make the North East Republicans wait, and then start voting against him, or he can just pass the bill as is.

     

    This is Pelosi on the Hastert rule (which is a true Republican obnoxious tradition till Boehner broke it):

     

    Nancy Pelosi (2007 - 2011): "I have to take into consideration something broader than the majority of the majority in the Democratic Caucus."
    3 Jan 2013, 01:11 AM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (4372) | Send Message
     
    Ah, the same one who said (of a bill she voted for) “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it". Our taxpayer dollars hard at work paying that vacuous windbag's salary...

     

    Don't kid yourself - the Democrats will use similar tactics when they get the majority in the House. I think everything is cool for up/down voting. The problems occur when one side or the other holds all 3 branches of government. That's when bad stuff happens.
    3 Jan 2013, 01:20 AM Reply Like
  • bbrady413
    , contributor
    Comments (770) | Send Message
     
    I agree John, like Obamacare. Big trouble.

     

    By the way, Macro will never admit he is wrong, even when you completely disprove his arguments (which are very easy to do). Just wanted to let you know (but I'm sure you already figured that out).
    3 Jan 2013, 09:00 AM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (15020) | Send Message
     
    I smell something fishy going on....We shall see after the vote!!
    1 Jan 2013, 08:30 PM Reply Like
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (881) | Send Message
     
    Republicans know in their heart that President Obama is a world leader and will do whats right for 98% of American families. GOP is in serious decline,with all their extreme positions against workers-women-poor-eld...
    1 Jan 2013, 08:36 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (15020) | Send Message
     
    Terry

     

    Go back under that rock please....
    1 Jan 2013, 08:40 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4291) | Send Message
     
    Give Terry a break. In her spare time, she's trying to save the seals.
    1 Jan 2013, 09:06 PM Reply Like
  • Tomcat101
    , contributor
    Comments (969) | Send Message
     
    Put that crack pipe down Terry...
    1 Jan 2013, 09:07 PM Reply Like
  • Larry Smith
    , contributor
    Comments (3172) | Send Message
     
    SO what you are saying is that raising the deficit even more is good for the country? I don't think so, it is a shame. http://bit.ly/TFnt65
    1 Jan 2013, 09:14 PM Reply Like
  • Tomcat101
    , contributor
    Comments (969) | Send Message
     
    The payroll tax is going up for all of us, including low income workers. You think that's good for American families Terry?
    1 Jan 2013, 09:33 PM Reply Like
  • Remyngton
    , contributor
    Comments (343) | Send Message
     
    ---and smoking pot in her parents basement whilst reading OWS manifestos

     

    --- today a Starbucks barista , tomorrow .....
    1 Jan 2013, 09:48 PM Reply Like
  • Remyngton
    , contributor
    Comments (343) | Send Message
     
    Terry's a secret Hugo Chavez ... " rojo rojito"
    1 Jan 2013, 09:51 PM Reply Like
  • rasanders22
    , contributor
    Comments (612) | Send Message
     
    A friend if mine recently evicted some OWS people from a apartment. I asked him how could they occupy wall street if they couldn't even occupy a apartment. What was really funny was they had over a grand of hydroponic growing equipment(I'm sure it wasn't being used for marijuana at all) but couldn't pay their rent. I wonder If they feel like the 1% was evil for evicting them.
    1 Jan 2013, 10:45 PM Reply Like
  • bbrady413
    , contributor
    Comments (770) | Send Message
     
    Terry (and all the people who liked her comment) how is raising $40 billion per year in revenue going to help 98% of American families?
    2 Jan 2013, 12:51 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS-2.0
    , contributor
    Comments (528) | Send Message
     
    What's another $4T?

     

    It's only the Kid's money anyway.

     

    Vote buying is expensive, and the last election results, showed results.
    2 Jan 2013, 02:53 AM Reply Like
  • Snoopy1
    , contributor
    Comments (1126) | Send Message
     
    All this means is that the TGOP will hold the debt limit hostage to get the cuts they didn't get this time.

     

    We all know how that worked the last time - I expect the market to drop when we get closer to that debate.
    1 Jan 2013, 08:36 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (4372) | Send Message
     
    The liberal redistributionists are already bending over and looking for the grease. They got their higher revenues from the "wealthy". Now they'll have to pay the piper.

     

    Lube it up good, boys and girls.
    1 Jan 2013, 08:41 PM Reply Like
  • citizenleung
    , contributor
    Comments (324) | Send Message
     
    The conservative redistributionists have bent over the American middle class for the last thirty years--taking their money and giving it to the rich in the U.S. and the poor in China.
    1 Jan 2013, 08:51 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    I will be buying if the market drops then. I predict the Tea PArty Patriots will roll over like good boys and girls when the time comes.
    1 Jan 2013, 08:53 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    I am sorry John. See, the Republican Party is splintered because of the Tea Party Patriots. Otherwise the Republicans could have gathered up the votes to amend the bill. But they couldn't. You know why?

     

    Because of the fracture within the Republican Party in the form of Tea Party Patriots.

     

    You get what you vote for.
    1 Jan 2013, 08:57 PM Reply Like
  • wmateri
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    If the GOP can't hold the line here, how much chance will they have in the debt ceiling talks? Will they look for revenge or turn away like whipped puppies over fear of being blamed for ruining the country's credit rating, incurring another recession and making interest rates soar?
    1 Jan 2013, 09:01 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4291) | Send Message
     
    Guess again citizen. Both parties are in hock to the Big Banks who couldn't care less about partisan squabbles as long as they get first dibs at the money.
    1 Jan 2013, 09:09 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    " If the GOP can't hold the line here, how much chance will they have in the debt ceiling talks? Will they look for revenge or turn away like whipped puppies over fear of being blamed for ruining the country's credit rating, incurring another recession and making interest rates soar? "

     

    They will look for revenge and get exposed as sulking kids and then turn away like whipped puppies over fear of being blamed for ruining the country's credit rating, incurring another recession and making interest rates soar.
    1 Jan 2013, 09:24 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (4372) | Send Message
     
    They got the tax increase bar raised by $200k. Good for them. Mr. "You aint gonna get nothing, Boehner" Obama can stick that in his pipe and smoke it.

     

    They won't get away with another tax increase on anyone, but boy-o-boy, those cuts are a-comin'.
    1 Jan 2013, 09:26 PM Reply Like
  • larocag
    , contributor
    Comments (1469) | Send Message
     
    I think the Dems will agree cuts in exchange for that $200k.
    1 Jan 2013, 09:31 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    "I think the Dems will agree cuts in exchange for that $200k. "

     

    I think that will be a very fair deal. I also think they should ask for 2 dollars in spending cuts in defense for each dollar in spending cuts in the social safety net.
    1 Jan 2013, 09:33 PM Reply Like
  • citizenleung
    , contributor
    Comments (324) | Send Message
     
    Geoff:

     

    Note that I said "conservative," not "Democratic" or "Republican." Clinton and Rubin did their part in redistributing wealth from the middle class to the rich. They weren't nearly as good as Reagan or Bush 43, though.
    1 Jan 2013, 09:43 PM Reply Like
  • Remyngton
    , contributor
    Comments (343) | Send Message
     
    47,000,000 food stamps
    31,000,000 welfare checks
    18,000,000 section 8 housing

     

    Obama's won ... He's turned the US in a Socialist paradise that Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez are envious about
    1 Jan 2013, 09:53 PM Reply Like
  • Remyngton
    , contributor
    Comments (343) | Send Message
     
    You got Obama , while we liked Clinton

     

    anti-business vs pro-business
    1 Jan 2013, 09:54 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    "Obama's won "

     

    Are you sad?
    1 Jan 2013, 10:02 PM Reply Like
  • rasanders22
    , contributor
    Comments (612) | Send Message
     
    Yeah. They got a tax increase on the rich. Now we can fun the government for what, 8 days?
    1 Jan 2013, 10:47 PM Reply Like
  • wes4rocknroll
    , contributor
    Comments (8) | Send Message
     
    There is a part of me that still wishes I was brainwashed into being a member of one of these parties. Things were much easier then. I'm shocked at how many people are so proud that they're a member to either of these parties.
    2 Jan 2013, 03:37 AM Reply Like
  • wes4rocknroll
    , contributor
    Comments (8) | Send Message
     
    I agree.
    The republicans have lost track of what its like to stand united as a brainwashed party. They should model the democrats because they stand united and brainwashed. This country has no hope because of these two power hungry groups.
    2 Jan 2013, 03:37 AM Reply Like
  • Seth Walters
    , contributor
    Comments (675) | Send Message
     
    Boehner isn't even standing as speaker for this vote.
    1 Jan 2013, 08:51 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times
    , contributor
    Comments (15020) | Send Message
     
    This passes easy !!
    1 Jan 2013, 08:58 PM Reply Like
  • kyleg17
    , contributor
    Comments (174) | Send Message
     
    Yea it looks like it's gunna pass
    1 Jan 2013, 09:02 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (16281) | Send Message
     
    Vote pushed back to 11PM. Obviously, the votes aren't there yet.
    1 Jan 2013, 09:19 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    I suspect there is some last minute pleading going on from the Tea Party Patriots to get some bone thrown at them. It won't work, because that alters the bill and the Senate is quite clear that it won't vote on the bill again. It has to be a straight up or down vote (which will pass with majority Dem and slim minority Republican support, a slap in the face of the Tea Party Patriots) or no deal. I love it! The Dems have really played it well. They should do the same on the debt ceiling crisis. Paint the Republicans in a corner as the one trying to put the country into BK.
    1 Jan 2013, 09:26 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (4372) | Send Message
     
    The debt ceiling is not quite as important a thing to bend on as raising taxes on the middle class... If the Republicans play hardball on the ceiling, so what? The government will have to furlough a bunch of overpaid drones?

     

    Hopefully Boehner will come to the debt ceiling talks with a gigantic scissors and use that as a gavel.
    1 Jan 2013, 09:30 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    Remember what happened last time there was this debate over the debt ceiling? The Republicans folded. They always do. What makes you think this time it will be different?
    1 Jan 2013, 09:34 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (4372) | Send Message
     
    Because the deficit is in the spotlight. The math will be done and the public will see that this meager tax increase on a very small %'age of the population will do nothing to address it. Even Obama voters will want the government to cut the fat.

     

    I'm not toeing the party line, either - cut defense. Cut it big. I say $1 in defense cuts for every $4 in "social safety net" cuts. That's a good start.
    1 Jan 2013, 09:40 PM Reply Like
  • larocag
    , contributor
    Comments (1469) | Send Message
     
    Problem is that GOP voters are old people that count on the social safety net. That is why the GOP cannot ever propose anything concrete. That's why we got part D.
    1 Jan 2013, 09:44 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    "I say $1 in defense cuts for every $4 in "social safety net" cuts."

     

    Why not the reverse?

     

    Look, fact is the public cares far less about the govt deficit than about not having their social safety nets cut.
    1 Jan 2013, 09:51 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (4372) | Send Message
     
    I'm not "old"... Matter of fact, did not see a whole bunch of "old" folks where I voted. Yet my precinct went something like 96% for all Republicans running for office.
    1 Jan 2013, 09:55 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    How is the racial diversity in your precinct John?
    1 Jan 2013, 10:03 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (4372) | Send Message
     
    What difference does that make?
    1 Jan 2013, 10:08 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    Just curious.
    1 Jan 2013, 10:13 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (4372) | Send Message
     
    Fairly mixed, fairly rural. Stone's throw from Shelby county, TN (Memphis). That county leaned Dem, which is probably why nobody wants to live there.
    1 Jan 2013, 10:17 PM Reply Like
  • rasanders22
    , contributor
    Comments (612) | Send Message
     
    96%, not bad. Doesn't compare the the 100% Obama got in some parts of Philly. Or 100% voter turn out in other parts. Some very interesting statistical anomalies this election
    1 Jan 2013, 10:50 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (4372) | Send Message
     
    Go to the places that voted disproportionately one way or another and look around. I'm just guessing, but I would think it would speak volumes.
    1 Jan 2013, 10:59 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    That's why I was curious. So it's rural, got it. When you say fairly mixed, what's the share of non-whites?
    1 Jan 2013, 11:00 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (4372) | Send Message
     
    Feel free to look it up - Tipton County. Again, what difference does that make? I'm fairly sure all residents are American....
    1 Jan 2013, 11:13 PM Reply Like
  • mp0125
    , contributor
    Comments (16) | Send Message
     
    Did you ever think, for a moment, the Republicans or the Democrats were not going to protect themselves from large increases in estate tax?
    1 Jan 2013, 09:24 PM Reply Like
  • moneyTalksBSWalks
    , contributor
    Comments (194) | Send Message
     
    Won't pass imo
    1 Jan 2013, 09:33 PM Reply Like
  • Andrew Shapiro
    , contributor
    Comments (2152) | Send Message
     
    Republicans screw this up again the market will be down big on Wednesday
    1 Jan 2013, 09:37 PM Reply Like
  • wmateri
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    Yes, but which vote screws it up.
    1 Jan 2013, 09:45 PM Reply Like
  • rsengara
    , contributor
    Comments (21) | Send Message
     
    Bingo. In order to pay down the deficit more than a token amount both taxes and spending need to be adjusted.

     

    At a rate of 60 billion a year it will take almost 300 byears to pay down the debt...
    1 Jan 2013, 09:48 PM Reply Like
  • Andrew Shapiro
    , contributor
    Comments (2152) | Send Message
     
    We reenter recession then deficit and debt will skyrocket faster as freshly unemployed workers will get safety net payments regardless of whether payments are continued for long-term unemployed.
    1 Jan 2013, 09:56 PM Reply Like
  • rsengara
    , contributor
    Comments (21) | Send Message
     
    I had a great post typed out then I accidentally hit back on my browser.

     

    I agree with you that the country can't go full pace off the cliff but more meaningful steps must be taken.

     

    From the point of view of a foreigner from a socialist country, the united states has really taken the worst sides of socialism and capitlism. Social programs disincentivize work, incur serious amounts of debt and have really provided marginal return. On the other hand vertical movement within American society is limited, education and healthcare are prohibitively expensive and require a majority of people to go into debt.

     

    The united states needs to identify what social programs give value - welfare and unemployment benefitsshould not be sustained in virtual perpetuity like they are currently. The reality is, in my opinion, the united states spends a lot of money on people that don't return a red cent to society in terms of productivity... And while trying to help people is never a bad thing, helping people who won't do anything for themselves, while making other people pay for it (literally and figuratively) is beyond stupid.
    1 Jan 2013, 10:06 PM Reply Like
  • Johann Galt
    , contributor
    Comments (247) | Send Message
     
    rs:

     

    We need more "foreigners from a socialist country" to slap us into some sense of reality.
    1 Jan 2013, 10:35 PM Reply Like
  • btrahan
    , contributor
    Comments (16) | Send Message
     
    Haha, I was thinking the same thing.
    2 Jan 2013, 02:53 AM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4560) | Send Message
     
    Even assuming that the House votes within the requisite time to adopt the Senate Bill unamended, it is increasingly clear that a proverbial Mexican Standoff over the debt ceiling will occur within a very short time thereafter between the Senate and President, on the one hand, and the Republican controlled House, on the other. Even the details of the current Senate Bill under discussion merely set the stage for that confrondation.

     

    The following article describes that Bill in some detail and, from this together with the activities of the House Republicans today, one can clearly see that the debt ceiling debate will become the focus of a renewed deadlock. How that will play out is anyones guess and one has the feeling that the key players in this melodrama are making up their roles as they go along.

     

    http://slate.me/S422yA
    1 Jan 2013, 09:53 PM Reply Like
  • mp0125
    , contributor
    Comments (16) | Send Message
     
    The cause of our debt was a recession induced by the housing bubble.
    The recession caused government expenditures to increase and government revenues to decrease because people out of work cost money and don’t bring in tax revenue.
    The faked Republican idea of cutting spending is designed to screw the country out of spending induced stimulation so that things will get worse and Republicans will be elected.
    The fiscal cliff backfired on the Republicans and to a lesser extent on the Democrats because our leaders are in a category of net worth that will result in passing most of their estate value on to the government and not to their heirs.
    Republicans couldn’t take this and are forced to vote for something they didn’t like.
    They will try to justify their vote by saying it is for a tax decrease since we went over the cliff already.
    With all the publicity this issue has gotten, the public has gotten a little wiser.
    1 Jan 2013, 10:48 PM Reply Like
  • RSI Raistlin
    , contributor
    Comments (474) | Send Message
     
    Votes basically over the measure passes. Early market rise will lead to a quick sell off and I will be completely out of the market tomorrow
    1 Jan 2013, 10:55 PM Reply Like
  • btrahan
    , contributor
    Comments (16) | Send Message
     
    You are predicting the market will be down by end of day or the sell off will continue over numerous days?
    2 Jan 2013, 02:13 AM Reply Like
  • larocag
    , contributor
    Comments (1469) | Send Message
     
    Captain Grover said it was OK for the GOP to pass the cliff deal because they cut taxes. Everyone is happy.
    1 Jan 2013, 11:05 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9252) | Send Message
     
    I think the market will rally for the next 6 weeks. Then it will dip in preparation for the debt standoff, when it till be time to go on cash and buy options for the gap up after the Republican Party rolls over again.
    1 Jan 2013, 11:35 PM Reply Like
  • Timeisup
    , contributor
    Comments (6) | Send Message
     
    Finally
    2 Jan 2013, 03:32 AM Reply Like
  • tkrupczakcpa@gmail.com
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    It passes, the market responds favorably and the American public is fooled again
    2 Jan 2013, 03:37 AM Reply Like
  • tough times
    , contributor
    Comments (57) | Send Message
     
    here is live feed of the House from Bloomberg.

     

    http://bloom.bg/UlqFnx

     

    Looks like its gonna pass n we can expect peaceful opening tomorrow...
    2 Jan 2013, 04:07 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs