Seeking Alpha

Pulling out the big guns in the battle over the debt ceiling, President Obama tells CBS he...

Pulling out the big guns in the battle over the debt ceiling, President Obama tells CBS he cannot guarantee Social Security checks will go out on August 3 if the issue is not resolved. "There may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it."
Comments (77)
  • warrenrial
    , contributor
    Comments (559) | Send Message
     
    This liar will never give up, those checks will go out no matter what.
    12 Jul 2011, 01:29 PM Reply Like
  • Tony Petroski
    , contributor
    Comments (6373) | Send Message
     
    This is "big guns?" We know social-security checks will go out right after the ACORN, (sorry), the Housing for the Poor checks clear.
    12 Jul 2011, 01:30 PM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3531) | Send Message
     
    Scare tactics. Nothing less from this class warrior.
    12 Jul 2011, 01:30 PM Reply Like
  • catamount
    , contributor
    Comments (374) | Send Message
     
    Who is the pundit running around giving all you sheeple the "class warfare" rhetoric? I keep seeing it on SA from all the politically-minded, tv-watching folks, so I assume Limbaugh, Beck, or some such is feeding you this drivel. Do tell.
    12 Jul 2011, 02:02 PM Reply Like
  • DianeLee
    , contributor
    Comments (356) | Send Message
     
    Why not assume the majority of SA people are intelligent, observant people who make a living thinking for themselves? We know rhetoric when we hear it.
    12 Jul 2011, 02:22 PM Reply Like
  • catamount
    , contributor
    Comments (374) | Send Message
     
    DianeLee: Because they never cite any facts at all, and often when I see a phrase repeated by different people, a simple Google search reveals these are recent, regular talking points being used by some popular pundit.

     

    P.S. I've been a registered Republican for 20 years, yet I recognize now that both parties are bunk, and the whole system needs to be re-factored (it's broken).

     

    Edit: To add that Paul Ryan appears to be the first pundit/ politician to have played this card.
    12 Jul 2011, 02:25 PM Reply Like
  • Herr Hansa
    , contributor
    Comments (3080) | Send Message
     
    Lou Dobbs
    12 Jul 2011, 02:39 PM Reply Like
  • Rhianni32
    , contributor
    Comments (2043) | Send Message
     
    When I see intelligent observations I will attribute it to intelligent observant people.
    When I see parrot squawking repetition without substance I will attribute it to parrots.
    12 Jul 2011, 02:45 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4277) | Send Message
     
    Well, since I have not listened to Beck or Limbaugh for years, you might try again. I don't need someone else to tell me the obvious.
    12 Jul 2011, 03:26 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4277) | Send Message
     
    What took you so long? I dropped the Pubbies 12 years ago and became registered as an independent.
    12 Jul 2011, 03:27 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10463) | Send Message
     
    Rhianna. When I see a liberal name calling to someone they disagree with, then I will attribute the "liberalism is a mental disorder" appelation to one. If you don't agree that Obama is playing class warfare (divide and conquer) then why don't you suggest why you think that is not the case. How else would you characterize the rhetoric about "corporate jets"?
    12 Jul 2011, 04:16 PM Reply Like
  • Rhianni32
    , contributor
    Comments (2043) | Send Message
     
    I didnt say anything about Obama playing class warfare but hey thanks for not only making assumptions but applying them to me!
    I was commenting on one specific thing only.
    12 Jul 2011, 04:32 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10463) | Send Message
     
    Sorry, I was following the thread.
    12 Jul 2011, 04:38 PM Reply Like
  • American in Paris
    , contributor
    Comments (5504) | Send Message
     
    Really, well, I am in the top US tax bracket and I don't view him as being 'harsh on the rick'. I suggest you grow up ...
    13 Jul 2011, 11:47 AM Reply Like
  • American in Paris
    , contributor
    Comments (5504) | Send Message
     
    It's obvious that they poor investors and prisoners of ideologically motivated thinking. Between the hyperinflation scaremongers and the US is Doomed crowd is pretty easy to be cynical.

     

    Particularly since I sell puts on TLT. I am betting the hyperinflation crowd and so far every put I have sold has expired worthless.
    13 Jul 2011, 11:53 AM Reply Like
  • American in Paris
    , contributor
    Comments (5504) | Send Message
     
    Well, 'Markaw', where is the class warfare? Taxes are only 18% of US national income. I pay the top tax bracket and I still only average about 20% of my total income in taxes.

     

    This system is loaded with tax gifts for the well off. Consider the SEP IRA. The 2011 contribution is $49k. That's an immense deduction from your taxable income. I maxed the SEP IRA for 8 consecutive years.

     

    No one should be feeling sorry for myself or anyone else in the top 1% of per capital income.
    13 Jul 2011, 11:56 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    AIP

     

    A focus group of one person as in you is not statistically significant.
    13 Jul 2011, 01:40 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    AIP

     

    Again......focus group of one.
    13 Jul 2011, 01:41 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10463) | Send Message
     
    I don't feel sorry for you. I don't feel sorry for anyone able to take advantage of IRA, 401k or any other tax provision that allows people to keep what they earn.

     

    I feel sorry for people, at my company for example, who do not take advantage of a 401k opportunity and miss out on 100% profit by not taking advantage of a dollar for dollar match on up to 5% of their income. Are they dumb? Are they uninformed? Do they not have enough money to save 5% of their income? I don't know.

     

    I don't care what the tax rates are.....they are too high. Taxes last year were only 14.9% of GDP. They have been higher in the past, and we now are in a depression.

     

    When I pay enough taxes to provide for 2 families - and see it being wasted and pissed down the river stupidly it grates severly.

     

    There is more than enough money to take care of the truly needy.

     

    There is not enough money to take care of the truly lazy.

     

    For the politicians to engage on rhetoric that pits the poor against the rich is untoward and unbecomming. Of course we do not have leaders. They are there to satisfy their own self interests.
    13 Jul 2011, 01:48 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4277) | Send Message
     
    Our company matches 401k's at 100% also, yet less than half the employees are in the plan. Fear & ignorance has probably cost people more money than the crash of the economy.
    13 Jul 2011, 04:04 PM Reply Like
  • Bear Bait
    , contributor
    Comments (673) | Send Message
     
    That's fine with me as long as the idiot Republican Congressmen don't get checks either.
    12 Jul 2011, 01:33 PM Reply Like
  • warrenrial
    , contributor
    Comments (559) | Send Message
     
    It was the idiot Democratic Congress and Obama that created this mess. The Republicans now have to fix it.
    12 Jul 2011, 01:36 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4277) | Send Message
     
    Take out the "Republican" part and you got it right.
    12 Jul 2011, 03:28 PM Reply Like
  • Zigg
    , contributor
    Comments (55) | Send Message
     
    You win the Most Wrong Answer of the thread. If you think "the mess" started in 2008, you have a very limited understanding of American history.
    12 Jul 2011, 08:27 PM Reply Like
  • American in Paris
    , contributor
    Comments (5504) | Send Message
     
    That's rubbish. George Bush and the Republican Congress had eight years in which their sole accomplishmtents was adding a couple trillion to the US debt prior to the 2008 crisis and setting the country up for a nightmare real estate collapse.

     

    You can't escape from the things you have done.
    13 Jul 2011, 11:59 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Nightmare real estate collapse?

     

    That was built over many decades but don't let me tax your brain with heavy lifting.
    13 Jul 2011, 01:42 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10463) | Send Message
     
    I agree...Bush was a disaster. And the republicans allowed him to be such. But then again....I don't think there is much difference between the two parties.....as evidenced by the republicans suggesting it might be a good thing for the Chief Executive to have unilateral power to raise the debt ceiling..... That single suggestion from the republicans will precipitate turnover of 10 - 15 seats in Congress....hopefully Boehner and McConnell will be the first to go.
    13 Jul 2011, 01:53 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4041) | Send Message
     
    I doubt it, I suspect everything will keep on going on just as it is and Repubs will attempt an impeachment and there will be some interesting article 14 stuff going on.
    12 Jul 2011, 01:33 PM Reply Like
  • ggr1868
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    Obama should be impeached for treason with these lies and attempts to bring down the US. Tyrannical 'Boss Tweed' dog does not hunt in America in 2011.
    12 Jul 2011, 01:34 PM Reply Like
  • catamount
    , contributor
    Comments (374) | Send Message
     
    Treason? Does that sound reasonable? How about the Weapons of Mass Destruction that were in Iraq? What's that? There weren't any? So, we blew through +$1T because we're good-natured, world police that wanted to democratize Iraq? I lost my cousin in that quagmire.
    12 Jul 2011, 02:06 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10463) | Send Message
     
    Cat...were'nt the Democrats in control of Congress when Bush took office? Why didn't they refuse to authorize the Iraq war? Just like they didn't refuse to authorze the Libya "war"?
    12 Jul 2011, 04:18 PM Reply Like
  • Morg
    , contributor
    Comments (250) | Send Message
     
    Sadly Bush actually had full Republican control of the government in 2001 and squandered it by pursuing wasteful ideas like the Medicare prescription drug plan and a seemingly unnecessary war in Iraq. Most Democrats did support the Iraq war however so I consider that a war equally sponsored by both parties.
    12 Jul 2011, 04:44 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10463) | Send Message
     
    But the Dems regained control in the next election.
    12 Jul 2011, 05:00 PM Reply Like
  • Morg
    , contributor
    Comments (250) | Send Message
     
    True, but the war was already engaged at that point and they did (if I remember correctly) attempt several "bring the troops" home bills and they fought against the surge strategy (which ended up being enormously successful by most reports).

     

    Hindsight being 20/20 that particular engagement looks wasteful and unnecessary. I do not buy into the whole Bush lied us into war mantra. Likely that was a result of bad intel and post 9/11 anti-terrorist "let's get those bastards" hysteria.
    12 Jul 2011, 05:11 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10463) | Send Message
     
    Regardless....we have no business being the world's policeman. We have more military bases in foreign countries...then we have here - i am guessing. I lived in Europe when we had bases in England, France, Germany, Italy, etc. The EU is as big as the US....pull all the troops out of Europe - let them take care of themselves. That should be good for the Dollar and bad for the Euro.
    12 Jul 2011, 05:17 PM Reply Like
  • American in Paris
    , contributor
    Comments (5504) | Send Message
     
    Well, then Bush should have been impeached for ignoring the 4th Amendment during most of his reign.
    13 Jul 2011, 12:01 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10463) | Send Message
     
    I am with you on that one....see, even we can agree on a couple points. Oui !
    13 Jul 2011, 01:53 PM Reply Like
  • llostergaard
    , contributor
    Comments (31) | Send Message
     
    simple again ....stop sending money oversea's, and things like the space program here.... take care of the US citizen 1st .... Damn these idots running the country....
    12 Jul 2011, 01:34 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13576) | Send Message
     
    Oh, yes, by all means, let's stop things, like the space program, especially, that probably spun off more technological advancement than anything in history, and let's convert those funds to something really, really useful, like more vote-pandering welfare payments.
    12 Jul 2011, 01:38 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4558) | Send Message
     
    Tack -

     

    I recall some discussions we had months age during which you discounted as remote the possibility that the debt ceiling issue would be the tipping point for a US fiscal crisis. Do you still hold to that view?

     

    I don't ask this in criticism of you're having made the earlier prediction; That was a logical assumption at the time and, arguably, this political crisis could easily been avoided.
    12 Jul 2011, 01:55 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13576) | Send Message
     
    Bob:

     

    Must be mental telepathy. See my just-posted comment.
    12 Jul 2011, 02:07 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4277) | Send Message
     
    That is absolute 100% Bulls**t. SS breaks just about even right now - the checks could be paid for with current receipts for years.

     

    I hate this stupid fear-mongering by this guy. I hope Charley Sheen wins in 2012, can't be any worse than what we have running now.
    12 Jul 2011, 01:36 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10463) | Send Message
     
    Actually, SS is running and has run a positive surplus to the tune of $2.5 trillion dollars. Last year it was negative (a planned outcome) because of the 2% FICA tax repreive. Those funds should be sequestered, but they are not...because politicians of all stripes are spendaholics.
    12 Jul 2011, 04:20 PM Reply Like
  • American in Paris
    , contributor
    Comments (5504) | Send Message
     
    Markaw,

     

    Show us data to support your opinions. There was no dramatic uptick in government spending. But tax revenues did fall and guys like supported the tax break extension.
    13 Jul 2011, 12:04 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10463) | Send Message
     
    This data is contained in the SS Annual Report. You can find the link yourself. Don't forget the comment I made was solely focused on SS and not the government budget or deficits. The SS trust fund has been pilfered by the politicians and replaced with IOU's. Without the $2.5 trillion having been "borrowed" to fund general government obligations, the trust fund would have $2.5 trillion in it that could be invested in all kinds of vehicles. And....the Treasury would have had to raise another $2.5 from the open market - or had the Fed print some from their copy machine.
    13 Jul 2011, 01:57 PM Reply Like
  • njrobby
    , contributor
    Comments (85) | Send Message
     
    They currently have the money available to pay whatever checks they want to pay. So instead of not paying on the less important programs or paring down the bureaucracy, he want's to use the "Old people will suffer if you don't bend to our will" card. How about we stop pandering with scare tactics and actually pay our bills in order of importance instead of in order of who will get them the most votes.
    12 Jul 2011, 01:45 PM Reply Like
  • Morg
    , contributor
    Comments (250) | Send Message
     
    Normally I would accuse the president of scare mongering, but in this case he is telling the truth. No debt deal will force the Treasury to prioritize debt payments over other social commitments and will cut government spending almost in half overnight. Not a good thing for anyone relying on a government payment (i.e. the elderly and the military). I can argue that this would be a good thing in the long run but it would create an immediate economic mess.
    12 Jul 2011, 01:46 PM Reply Like
  • warrenrial
    , contributor
    Comments (559) | Send Message
     
    He has never told the truth.
    12 Jul 2011, 01:53 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4277) | Send Message
     
    "..He has never told the truth..."

     

    Not true. Just a few days ago he said that "some of those shovel ready projects were not quite shovel ready.."
    12 Jul 2011, 02:03 PM Reply Like
  • 2PP
    , contributor
    Comments (349) | Send Message
     
    Not true part two.

     

    In an August 5, 2009, interview on NBC News, Obama said that:

     

    “The last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of a recession, because that would just suck up, take more demand out of the economy and put businesses in a further hole.”
    12 Jul 2011, 02:16 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10463) | Send Message
     
    Morg....I don't hear any rhetoric from the Pres about failing to write checks to NPR or to Planned Parenthood. I guess he's not interested in scaring those folks is he?
    12 Jul 2011, 04:22 PM Reply Like
  • Morg
    , contributor
    Comments (250) | Send Message
     
    WMARKW,

     

    He is definitely citing the scariest source of cuts, but that doesn't make him a liar in this case. If the debt ceiling is not raised I completely expect that everything will be cut off that can be before they go after Social Security, Medicare and Defense.

     

    Considering that spending will be drastically reduced in that scenario, and those three areas make up the majority of government spending on their own, the government will have no choice but to immediately make significant cuts to all three of those programs. Even if they cut everything else but these three areas completely it would not make up for the shortfall.

     

    So is he focusing on the scariest cut to most people....you bet he is, but that doesn't make him a liar. In this case I believe he is unfortunately very truthful.
    12 Jul 2011, 04:51 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10463) | Send Message
     
    I think the first thing I would do is cut all the baloney totally....Dept Education, DOE, the NPR's etc. etc. I would force all government employees to take a 15% pay cut. That would not include military folks. I would immediately close 20% of all foreign military bases - prioritzed by the JCS. I would immediately raise the minimum retirement age of SS to 65 not 62. I would cut all Congressional staff by 50%. I would cut all Congressional salaries by 25%. I would put all government employees (non - military) into a voluntary type 401k plan - not a guaranteed benefit plan. And that would be just the first day.
    12 Jul 2011, 05:05 PM Reply Like
  • Morg
    , contributor
    Comments (250) | Send Message
     
    Agreed, but imagine the economic turmoil all those signficant changes will cause. Especially considering how dependent the country still is on government support.

     

    Like I said in my first post I can make the case that the end result of that scenario could be a positive. However, the shorter term economic impact would be very harmful to asset values as the economy dealt with the resulting turmoil from our own austerity.

     

    I would really like to see a middle road approach where the ceiling is marginally raised, with matching or greater spending cuts, and no tax hikes in order to start weaning the country and economy off the government teat. I am concerned going cold turkey like we are discussing could have very adverse affects, if only for a potentially short period while we adjust.
    12 Jul 2011, 05:16 PM Reply Like
  • Zigg
    , contributor
    Comments (55) | Send Message
     
    They already have a voluntary type 401k plan.
    12 Jul 2011, 08:30 PM Reply Like
  • youngman442002
    , contributor
    Comments (5131) | Send Message
     
    This shows the level of intelligence of this President...a fear monger..rather than speak the truth..and the truth is we are broke...he scares people...hwo about we shut down the EPA...Education.OSHA..... thousands of other programs....

     

    Typical Chicago Politics...I wonder when the Dog food line will come out...
    12 Jul 2011, 01:48 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4558) | Send Message
     
    It's to be expected that negotiators will make their fiercest case as the negotiation deadline nears. The problem with these negotiations, however, is that the route to a negotiated compromise is not apparent at this late stage, some key players see no need and have no will to compromise and the negotiators are increasingly hardening their positions.

     

    Does anyone else see a risk that arc of both the US and EU will hit a very troubling patch simultaneously over the next four to eight weeks?
    12 Jul 2011, 01:50 PM Reply Like
  • njrobby
    , contributor
    Comments (85) | Send Message
     
    bob might be right. my bigger fear is that a deal will be reached where the house ok's a whole slew of tax increases with only a few cuts in budget. we'd get the shaft again and have to pony up even more taxes when we should be cutting, restructuring and coming up with actual solutions other than more taxes.
    12 Jul 2011, 01:56 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13576) | Send Message
     
    Bob:

     

    My take:

     

    The problem is squarely in the Republicans' camp because the Democrats are in a win-win situation, as far as their own scorched-earth strategy goes. If the Republicans blink and allow the slighest tax increase, then, they are dead as door nails with their own constituencies. If the Democrats don't allow cuts without tax increases (what's needed, in fact), then, the U.S. will likely enter a technical default (with or without accompanying Moody's downgrade) and panic and chaos are likely to reign. The problem for Republicans is that the Democrats know (correctly) that they can frame the issue, with the media's help, that the disaster was occasioned because Republicans refused to add "modest" new taxes on "the rich." In essence, the Democrat have nothing to gain, politically by forestalling collapse of talks and default unless they get their tax increases.

     

    I'd add that, even though many argue that the funds are there to avoid default, the Democrats may actually force a default because they will see themselves as the beneficaries of the ultimate fallout. That's why Geithner is so vocal about the consequences of no agreement.

     

    If the U.S. goes the "nuclear" route, then, I'd expect the Europeans to follow, whether they wish to do so, or not. Events would just run away from them.

     

    To say the least, it's not a pretty scenario for anybody who wants to be long any class of investments, save, maybe, gold. And, likely, a long depressed economic period would follow.

     

    The real question, now, is do the armed assailants (the Democrats and the Republicans) kill all the hostages, us, and commit suicide?
    12 Jul 2011, 02:06 PM Reply Like
  • njrobby
    , contributor
    Comments (85) | Send Message
     
    A pretty grim assesment. But I can't disagree with most of it. If the Repubs can stand their ground, get a large amount of cuts and restructuring through with only a modest increase (pre Bush cuts, maybe, although, raising taxes when the economy is already showing signs of weakness and stalling is a stupid idea,) then an agreement might be plausible. I don't have a heck of a lot of faith in that, personally.
    12 Jul 2011, 02:22 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4277) | Send Message
     
    "..do the armed assailants (the Democrats and the Republicans) kill all the hostages, us, and commit suicide?.."

     

    That seems to be the game plan. Mutual suicide based on ideology seems to be what both sides are trying for here.

     

    While I can see the Pubbies points in relying on promises from the Demmies - after getting burned on the Bush tax increase where they promised cuts and instead increased spending - Their total refusal to consider killing some of the tax breaks makes them look like the kid that stabs his basketball rather than let all the kids play.
    12 Jul 2011, 02:25 PM Reply Like
  • catamount
    , contributor
    Comments (374) | Send Message
     
    Windsun33: I'm just curious if you are aware of the tax rates over the history of the last 50 years and how low they are now, historically speaking?

     

    Simultaneously, I'm curious if you are aware of how much strength the US had as a result of a large middle-class built-up through the 50's and 60's?
    12 Jul 2011, 02:32 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4558) | Send Message
     
    Tack -

     

    Not that some Americans much care what the rest of the world thinks but US international credibility will take a major hit if a reasonable resolution of what is essentially a political problem i(i.e. the debt ceiling and the settling of a budget)s not achieved in a timely fashion.

     

    This on top of the US handling of its fiscal affairs and financial markets in the years leading up to the 2007/8 meltdown will not be well received by those of us in other countries suffering collateral damage from US handling of its domestic affairs.
    12 Jul 2011, 02:45 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4277) | Send Message
     
    Yes, I am aware of the tax rates. I am also fully aware that few, if any, people or corporations actually pay those full rates due to the vast multitude of tax breaks and incentives for everything from mortgages to llamas. And I am also aware that though federal tax rates have gone down, state and local have gone up.
    12 Jul 2011, 03:31 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Tack

     

    If the Reps are in a position where they lose no matter what then it is unpredictable what they might do as there is a core of the party that likely will not change their view of taxes. A bad outcome will hit everyone in WDC and I think Obama senses this and is trying to figure out a way to make something happen that avoids unpredictable outcomes. He likely feels he can win the next election if we roll into 2012 without any major catastrophies. And he does not want some major default on his record.

     

    So it is possible he may throw the liberals under the bus and do a deal with Reps and Dems of some sort that leave the far right and left out but get something done.

     

    I don't believe he can afford to just dig in and see a major event and then get away with blaming other parties.

     

    I would not bet on this with your money!
    12 Jul 2011, 06:40 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4558) | Send Message
     
    Tack -

     

    Not that one wants to overstate the obvious but the following articles and reports give some flavour of what the press in Canada and the UK are saying in reaction to the US debt ceiling debate.

     

    fullcomment.nationalpo.../

     

    business.financialpost.../

     

    www.theglobeandmail.co.../

     

    www.guardian.co.uk/wor...

     

    The Continental European press are understandingly focused at present on the EU's own pressing problems but will be predictably outraged if those problems are exacerbated by a political impasse in the US over the debt ceiling issue.
    12 Jul 2011, 06:43 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10463) | Send Message
     
    My unpredictable outcome would be for no solution and a catastrophic election in 2012 where all incumbants get tossed out. If only.
    12 Jul 2011, 06:46 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13576) | Send Message
     
    TVP:

     

    Good points, but.....

     

    The "but" is, just watch the rest of the Dems, like Pelosi, when Obama tries his own grandstanding for a deal. If Obama leans rightward, the rest of the Dems in Congress may just wave at him. He can't do a deal by himself.

     

    My guess is that whatever happens, it happens at 11:59PM. And, it's unclear what the outcome will be. Therefore, I'd expect mounting pressure on markets as the anxiety mounts and time dwindles.
    12 Jul 2011, 06:47 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Bob

     

    Nothing earth shaking in those article. The comments under the Frum article in the National Post reflected a lot of the same beliefs here in the US and some were funny.

     

    Europe is a mess and needs to focus their rage on themselves. They cannot even get Greece under control and now have Italy in play.
    12 Jul 2011, 06:53 PM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3531) | Send Message
     
    "My guess is that whatever happens, it happens at 11:59PM. And, it's unclear what the outcome will be. Therefore, I'd expect mounting pressure on markets as the anxiety mounts and time dwindles."

     

    I also believe that. Unfortunately, I'm afraid what gets done will be another solution that we have to pass so we can find out afterwards what was written.
    12 Jul 2011, 06:55 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Tack

     

    It is a tough call. If he is smart he will grab the Dems by the ear right now while he still has time and tell them he is going to work out a deal with Reps and if they don't support him then he will chuck them so far under the bus they will never come out.

     

    Basically pull a Clinton.
    12 Jul 2011, 07:18 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13576) | Send Message
     
    TVP:

     

    The difference, though, is that Clinton was a scallywag and just wanted to be loved by all; Obama is a true believer, who wants to masquerade otherwise from time to time.
    12 Jul 2011, 08:23 PM Reply Like
  • enigmaman
    , contributor
    Comments (2686) | Send Message
     
    Obama says- "There may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it."

     

    He can definitely say whether there is or isnt, will or will not be enough money available to pay out SS benefits, that he isnt being clear about this proves that he is playing the fear card trying to force the Republicans hand.
    12 Jul 2011, 02:05 PM Reply Like
  • davidingeorgia
    , contributor
    Comments (2713) | Send Message
     
    That should read, "Pulling out the big lies..."
    12 Jul 2011, 02:23 PM Reply Like
  • Morg
    , contributor
    Comments (250) | Send Message
     
    Here are some interesting videos on the subject from Brian Wesbury, Chief Economist of First Trust Portfolios.

     

    www.ftportfolios.com/C...
    www.ftportfolios.com/C...
    12 Jul 2011, 02:35 PM Reply Like
  • jackdeaton
    , contributor
    Comments (30) | Send Message
     
    Obama can just pay all the social security with those dollars that they printing

     

    He is probably more worried about giving money to the non working youth and whoever else he can deceive into voting for him though
    12 Jul 2011, 09:55 PM Reply Like
  • jackdeaton
    , contributor
    Comments (30) | Send Message
     
    You notice that our government only mentions cutting off support and aid to Americans.........What about denying aid to other nations first?? And especially to those that are known to support and harbor terrorism
    14 Jul 2011, 02:11 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector