Seeking Alpha

The sky hasn't fallen, and the Obama administration's persistent warnings that the market would...

The sky hasn't fallen, and the Obama administration's persistent warnings that the market would react negatively to the debt ceiling crisis may have undercut its negotiating position. “They have lost all credibility,” former TARP chief Neil Barofsky says. “It’s so typical of the way Treasury and the Fed treat everything - always to warn that Armageddon is coming.”
Comments (418)
  • Fran Murphy
    , contributor
    Comments (34) | Send Message
     
    Are you serious Neil! You don't think the markets are going to react if the debt ceiling doesn't get increased in time??
    26 Jul 2011, 06:19 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3416) | Send Message
     
    Credit to Bob Adamson on this one:
    seekingalpha.com/curre...

     

    I bet you can't tell me when the longest government shutdown in history occurred on this chart.
    www.google.com//financ...
    26 Jul 2011, 07:20 PM Reply Like
  • JB1982
    , contributor
    Comments (100) | Send Message
     
    Very interesting! So, not a default just more government accounting schenanigans?

     

    Oh, the joy...
    26 Jul 2011, 09:37 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4263) | Send Message
     
    At this point I think I agree with Neil far more than I do with Obama and the other Armageddon/Apocalypse predictors. Obama in the past few months has been one of the most negative sounding presidents in recent history. And I thiink the market has heard it so many times from him and other politicians that it is like the boy that cried wolf too many times - they get ingored, rightly or wrongly.

     

    But I also think the market to a large extent is not that worried about it - everyone knows there will not be any default, and that any effect will likely be temporary. Basically, so what if the US passes the deadline - how is that going to affect my stocks - which have anywhere from 65-90% of their operations and sales outside the US? There might be a temporary glitch - which is why I am in abut 1/3 cash - to buy longer term bargains. But otherwise, BLEH.
    26 Jul 2011, 10:05 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3995) | Send Message
     
    The sky not falling means that no one has any motivation to budge. Not the President not Repubs, not Dems, no one.
    26 Jul 2011, 06:19 PM Reply Like
  • Ted Bear
    , contributor
    Comments (589) | Send Message
     
    We saw the same 'end of the world' scenario played out by that traitor Paulson with regard to the entire financial system, so we threw a trillion dollars at them, and where did it end up? Other than sweeping the problem under the carpet for a few years, has anything been resolved? (Ask Bank America or Citibank if THEIR bad mortgage loan problem has gone anywhere?)

     

    People are unlikely to be fooled again by a bunch of self serving politicians who have made promises to lobbyists and campaign donors which they will be unable to keep unless they find a way to shove the cost down the taxpayer's throats. Yes Neil, it took several votes to get TARP through because the people were strongly against it, and knew exactly what it stood for (hint: It wasn't designed to help the avergae working slob). The crybaby's sold the market off in a temper tantrum until Paulson's cry for the end of the world was self fulfilling. As soon as the fat cats got their money, and the great unwashed got the bill, the market miracuously went back up.

     

    What's the expression? Fool me once, shame on you.....
    26 Jul 2011, 06:32 PM Reply Like
  • Karen Consumer
    , contributor
    Comments (155) | Send Message
     
    Here Here Ted Bear! I (one of the great unwashed) smelled a rat as soon as POTUS decided he had to have a talk with the American people on Monday. I'm tired of the Def Con 5 reaction the government (thats both parties) has had since 2007. If I could take their credit cards away, I would. Stop the freaking spending you idiots!!! I don't have it to spend, so I know you don't either.
    26 Jul 2011, 08:04 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Yep. Even Bush couldn't get the "shame on me/shame on you" correct:-)

     

    www.youtube.com/watch?...
    26 Jul 2011, 08:19 PM Reply Like
  • psmith819
    , contributor
    Comments (535) | Send Message
     
    Even Obama couldn't get his own kids ages correct :-)
    26 Jul 2011, 10:19 PM Reply Like
  • Agbug
    , contributor
    Comments (1091) | Send Message
     
    My thumbs up was the fifteenth. Off topic, I had a thought recently that SA should have a "post of the day" ranking system as the comments are one of the primary reasons I use the site, and I imagine I'm not alone there. So what do you say SA, add a "Posts of the day" on the header?
    26 Jul 2011, 11:18 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Geez, neither can I!!!!
    27 Jul 2011, 03:08 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    The person that gets the job of picking the "Posts of the day" should get a hefty salary with bonuses that would make Wall Street blush. Just for the abuse we would heap on them.

     

    Additionally, they should provide him a full time shrink. No offense to psychiatrists meant.
    27 Jul 2011, 03:13 AM Reply Like
  • Agbug
    , contributor
    Comments (1091) | Send Message
     
    It wouldn't be an individual, or SA Editors picking their choices. I should have been more clear. The comments that get the most thumbs up in a 24 period would simply be listed on a page with a link back to the Article or news item the comment was made on.

     

    I would agree with you, if it were left to a single martyr.
    27 Jul 2011, 08:42 AM Reply Like
  • Machiavelli999
    , contributor
    Comments (829) | Send Message
     
    I think the market at this point truly believes that this will get resolved one way or another. And it doesn't necessarily mean legislatively.

     

    First of all, the President and the Fed can keep things going well into September without any new legislation. Second of all, if this President can find lawyers to tell him that his Libya adventure was not "war" then should be able to find lawyers to tell him that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional.

     

    Either way, markets at this point seem to be comfortable in thinking that this will get resolved.
    26 Jul 2011, 06:34 PM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3529) | Send Message
     
    Good points. Then again, maybe the man in the street just considers the government irrelevant and this whole business a bunch of posturing that won't affect him.
    26 Jul 2011, 07:46 PM Reply Like
  • 7footMoose
    , contributor
    Comments (2266) | Send Message
     
    Only the Supremes can declare it unconstitutional and the House will immediately impeach the POTUS once he tries the 14th amendment gambit so the poop will hit the fan either way.
    26 Jul 2011, 08:10 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    That's what the Repubs are good at......investigating and impeaching.

     

    Not much else though.
    26 Jul 2011, 08:23 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    Democrats hold a majority in the Senate. The 14th Amendment would hold. More important, it would be popular, assuming enough damage has been done before it's invoked to make things real to investors. Like you.
    26 Jul 2011, 08:48 PM Reply Like
  • warrenrial
    , contributor
    Comments (558) | Send Message
     
    The Republicans took control of the House to clean up and prevent a further mess Obama and the democrats made. They are at least putting their best effort forward to accomplish that goal.
    26 Jul 2011, 09:18 PM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3529) | Send Message
     
    Yep, the Dems are the ones that do the crooked deals
    26 Jul 2011, 09:52 PM Reply Like
  • Killer454
    , contributor
    Comments (816) | Send Message
     
    There isn't anything in the 14th Amendment that allows the President to increase the debt ceiling.
    26 Jul 2011, 11:33 PM Reply Like
  • flyer652
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    There isn't anything in the Constitution that allows the Congress to impose a debt ceiling in the first place.
    26 Jul 2011, 11:59 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3416) | Send Message
     
    Article I, Section 8. It lies in the Congress, not the executive branch.
    27 Jul 2011, 12:14 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    No they were elected to create jobs. Haven't done a damn thing since they got in.

     

    The need to be thrown out as fast as they were brought in.
    27 Jul 2011, 03:16 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    There isn't anything in the 14th Amendment that says he can't.

     

    That's my Marine Corp logic.
    27 Jul 2011, 03:17 AM Reply Like
  • 7footMoose
    , contributor
    Comments (2266) | Send Message
     
    I disagree with your 14th Amendment point. The use of it to bypass the Congress will not likely be upheld by the Supremes because to do so undermines the intent of the Constitution which is what the Judicial Branch was created to defend.
    27 Jul 2011, 05:59 AM Reply Like
  • 7footMoose
    , contributor
    Comments (2266) | Send Message
     
    Perhaps there is cause to have the Supremes review the constitutionality of the debt ceiling but it will take a while.
    27 Jul 2011, 06:01 AM Reply Like
  • psmith819
    , contributor
    Comments (535) | Send Message
     
    PLEASE - don't blame the job situation on the HOUSE. You are crazy!
    27 Jul 2011, 06:58 AM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    What has the US House done since January to create jobs? What has it passed that would create jobs? Anything?
    27 Jul 2011, 08:23 AM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    Congress has the power to appropriate, yes. But the 14th Amendment says the bills run up by the Congress, and the interest on the debt, must be paid. (Except for compensation on slaves, of course.)
    27 Jul 2011, 08:24 AM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    By the time a case on the 14th Amendment got to the Supreme Court the controversy would have been over years before. I think you realize that.
    27 Jul 2011, 08:25 AM Reply Like
  • 7footMoose
    , contributor
    Comments (2266) | Send Message
     
    The use of the 14th Amendment gambit would create so much chaos in the market and within the US government that it would do more harm than good. The House impeachment proceedings would begin before Timmy could write a single check. Even if it were ultimately found to be Constitutional, which I doubt, the intervening crisis would paralyze the US.
    27 Jul 2011, 08:38 AM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    No it wouldn't.

     

    Because an assurance the bills will be paid would stabilize the market. It can't happen until the market is de-stabilized, I admit, but ending an ongoing crisis won't be seen as an impeachment offense in the clear light of day. And if the House moves in that direction it seals the majority's doom.
    27 Jul 2011, 08:40 AM Reply Like
  • 7footMoose
    , contributor
    Comments (2266) | Send Message
     
    I believe that you need a refresher course in the American Constitution and the working of our government. BTW, any attempt to use the 14th Amendment would be viewed with great skepticism by the Markets around the world. This is not the government of Argentina.
    27 Jul 2011, 10:15 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3416) | Send Message
     
    I wasn't speaking of appropriations. I was referring to the topic of this thread which is the express power to borrow:

     

    "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;"

     

    It's Congress not the Executive that is given the power to set the amount borrowed, not the Executive.
    27 Jul 2011, 02:44 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    Which is why the 14th Amendment was enacted, to prevent Congress from reneging on previously-agreed borrowing and spending, and to keep future southern-dominated Congresses from seeking compensation for lost slaves.
    27 Jul 2011, 03:22 PM Reply Like
  • psmith819
    , contributor
    Comments (535) | Send Message
     
    What has Obama done? How about another stimulus.....he's probably on vacation, nevermind.
    27 Jul 2011, 03:42 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    This President has done a lot, despite concerted, united operation every step of the way. We're out of the ditch, we are starting to control health care costs, we've had a full year of positive private unemployment news, and we have honest people in the executive departments.

     

    Contrast that with the record of the previous Administration.
    27 Jul 2011, 04:00 PM Reply Like
  • psmith819
    , contributor
    Comments (535) | Send Message
     
    Let me know when you wake up from dreaming. I'm a libertarian, not a republican or democrat.....I believe in freedom, the constitution, and I'm wholeheartedly against big government. So I tend to disagree with everything Obama stands for.
    27 Jul 2011, 04:10 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    You are NOT a libertarian. You're a Republican. A libertarian is just a Republican who doesn't want to admit he hangs out with wackos.

     

    Government must be big enough to enforce the law against all bad actors. Foreign and domestic. Otherwise the bad actors are the government.

     

    Which means we're both out of luck, because this looks like the second Dimon Administration. <g>
    27 Jul 2011, 04:13 PM Reply Like
  • psmith819
    , contributor
    Comments (535) | Send Message
     
    And you are not a Democrat. You are a horse's ass. As far as I'm concerned the Donkeys are the wackos.....aka Reid, Pelosi, Obama, etc. Hopefully Obama's teleprompter never fails him!!!
    27 Jul 2011, 04:45 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3416) | Send Message
     
    Bingo DB. The 14th Amendment was enacted SPECIFICALLY to confirm that the victorious North (i.e. federal government) was not obligated to pay claims for loss of slaves or any debts that were incurred by the Southern Confederacy. It wasn't enacted to say, "hey guys, now when we borrow we actually have an obligation to return what we borrowed." That would clearly be a nonsensical interpretation and contrary to the history that brought about the insertion of that clause into the 14th Amendment.

     

    What the 14th doesn't do is strike out or nullify the Article I, Section 8 power to borrow clause, or transfer the power to borrow to the Executive. Nothing in the 14th addresses the power to borrow. The power to borrow (and obviously to set the amount borrowed) lies with Congress.
    27 Jul 2011, 05:17 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (12978) | Send Message
     
    Cin:

     

    For many liberals, the Constitution is merely a quaint historical relic to visit with the kids in a big building in Washington. It has nothing to do with modern governance or in any way places any constraints on the assertion of bald-faced power.
    27 Jul 2011, 05:25 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    This President doesn't require a Teleprompter, as he's proven in the past. Unlike his predecessor.

     

    And for those who cry "socialism" at every opportunity, they probably don't know there's a word for an ideology that consistently puts the interests of major corporations ahead of those of the people. It starts with the letter f. And the second letter isn't r.

     

    You are welcome to your ideology, sir. But I don't think you're profiting from it.
    27 Jul 2011, 05:26 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    Actually, it does. Remember that the original Constitution was created with a 3/5th compromise for census purposes, counting slaves as partial people.

     

    The Executive doesn't appropriate money, But the executive power includes a requirement to follow the Constitution, to see to it the bills are paid. If the President doesn't pay the bills he's violating his oath to see to it the Constitution isn't violated. He violates the will of Congress in not doing anything to pay the bills, but the choice is pretty clear, IMO.
    27 Jul 2011, 05:28 PM Reply Like
  • psmith819
    , contributor
    Comments (535) | Send Message
     
    I'm profiting quite well thank you very much. I never said a word about socialism. Stop putting words in my mouth. When has Obama proved he doesn't need a teleprompter by the way? His scare tactics aren't working....and you know it.
    27 Jul 2011, 05:29 PM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1511) | Send Message
     
    somebody got scared today
    27 Jul 2011, 05:33 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    Actually, there was an event about a year ago when the Teleprompter went out and the President went right along as though nothing had happened. With his actual speech. I think it might have even been a State of the Union address.

     

    I know conservatives have created a cottage industry in claiming the President is lost without one, but that was his predecessor.
    27 Jul 2011, 05:37 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    I hope so. The sooner the scare gets into Wall Street, the sooner this thing can end.
    27 Jul 2011, 05:37 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (12978) | Send Message
     
    DB:

     

    Obama's own lawyers have told him he'd be out of his mind and that attempting to gerrymander the 14th is a nonstarter. Imagine, if a gaggle of liberal attorneys even think it's a bad idea, how bad it must really be.

     

    The 14th amendment merely iterates that the "validity" of legal debts of the U.S. isn't in question. It says nothing about the terms or timing of payment thereof.

     

    The real clincher, as if it's even needed, is Section 5:

     

    "Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

     

    This specifically grants to Congress the enforcement power of this Amendment, not the Executive.
    27 Jul 2011, 05:41 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    Let 'em impeach, then. I can't wait. The markets tank, the President saves the day, and the Republicans in Congress try to impeach him for it.

     

    I'll be laughing right through November, 2012.
    27 Jul 2011, 05:46 PM Reply Like
  • psmith819
    , contributor
    Comments (535) | Send Message
     
    I'm buying into it.
    27 Jul 2011, 05:52 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3416) | Send Message
     
    Actually it does what? Create a new power to borrow? You can't even follow your own argument.

     

    That the Executive doesn't appropriate money isn't at issue. You've painted yourself into a corner and now you're dissembling. There's more than enough revenue flow to service the debt.

     

    In fact if things were indeed so bad that we needed to borrow on the national credit card just to make the interest payments on the national credit card then we'd have long since been downgraded to junk status and should just recognized the inevitable and default. However I think you well know that we're not at that point yet.
    27 Jul 2011, 05:54 PM Reply Like
  • psmith819
    , contributor
    Comments (535) | Send Message
     
    Riddle me this......why does Republican talk radio thrive while the Dems have no such luck? By does Fox News drown CNN is viewership? I was hoping Baldwin would move out of the country when Bush was re-elected!
    27 Jul 2011, 05:55 PM Reply Like
  • psmith819
    , contributor
    Comments (535) | Send Message
     
    I think you should take Biden's spot as VP!
    27 Jul 2011, 05:56 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (12978) | Send Message
     
    DB:

     

    Nobody gets impeached. The Supreme Court, if it considers itself any longer relevant, could assert original jurisdiction over the Constitutional issue and decide whether Obama did or did not hace the power he claimed.
    27 Jul 2011, 06:19 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (12978) | Send Message
     
    Mon:

     

    Let's hope the Marines are smarter than your logic.

     

    The Constitution restricts ALL Federal powers, except those specifically enumerated therein. All other powers are "reserved to the People and the States."
    27 Jul 2011, 06:28 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4263) | Send Message
     
    Dana, so what you are saying is that the president should just ignore the consititution when it is "expedient" to do so?
    27 Jul 2011, 06:46 PM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3529) | Send Message
     
    And there's nothing to keep him from declaring a state of national emergency and dissolving the congress. It may not be legal but who does the enforcement?
    27 Jul 2011, 07:14 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (12978) | Send Message
     
    PT:

     

    Unlike Hugo Chavez, Mr. O would face two big --and rather swift, I'd imagine-- problems:

     

    1) An antipathetic military, unwilling to follow the "Supreme Commander"

     

    2) An armed citizenry (despite the tireless efforts of the left to obviate the Second Amendment)

     

    Frankly, I'd love to see him make that proclamation, just so we could count the remainder of his existence, as President, in minutes or hours, at most.
    27 Jul 2011, 07:23 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    I think it has something to do with audiences. Liberals do have better comics. And more of them. We needed them when Bush was around.
    28 Jul 2011, 08:19 AM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    You print it. You write the check and it's money, backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. You think there's some sort of special "money place" that's going to be empty August 2? Nixon got rid of that.
    28 Jul 2011, 08:21 AM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    I love these right-wing revanchist fantasies. I loved "Seven Days in May" myself, but even Burt Lancaster lost to Fredric March in that one.

     

    And you're expecting an armed insurrection against what? The government paying its bills? Really? Really.

     

    No wonder liberals have the better comics. Conservatives give them such great material, only the conservatives are serious.
    28 Jul 2011, 08:23 AM Reply Like
  • psmith819
    , contributor
    Comments (535) | Send Message
     
    Liberals are like comedians............full of sh**t.
    28 Jul 2011, 08:44 AM Reply Like
  • Agbug
    , contributor
    Comments (1091) | Send Message
     
    TV ratings tell another story; June 5th, 2011

     

    Comedy Central and "The Daily Show" both surged in the May Nielsen ratings, posting their best numbers yet. "The Daily Show" dominated its time slot across all of television, cable and broadcast, and boasted a very impressive 19 percent increase in viewership in May alone.

     

    Meanwhile, according to Mediabistro's TV Newser, Fox News suffered an overall decline in viewers in the highly sought-after 25-to-54-year old demographic for May, with total ratings down 10 percent. Bill O'Reilly's viewership dropped 9 percent, Sean Hannity's 6 percent, with Greta Van Susteren and Glenn Beck suffering the steepest losses with Van Susteren's "On the Record" losing 12 percent of its audience and Glenn Beck sliding a whopping 17 percent.
    28 Jul 2011, 08:48 AM Reply Like
  • psmith819
    , contributor
    Comments (535) | Send Message
     
    You are comparing comedy to a news show! I bet Fox News still is running circles around CNN viewership! Stop looking for a needle in a haystack. Fox News rules news network plain and simple. Donkeys have nothing to hang their hat on other than Jon Stewart!!!
    28 Jul 2011, 09:22 AM Reply Like
  • psmith819
    , contributor
    Comments (535) | Send Message
     
    Could you imagine Democrat talk radio? They have tried and utterly failed.
    28 Jul 2011, 09:23 AM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4557) | Send Message
     
    psmith819 -

     

    FDR's fireside chats were rather effective though.
    28 Jul 2011, 10:22 AM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4557) | Send Message
     
    Dana -

     

    We foreigners know that you Americans are really frustrated with each other when the "right-wing revanchist fantasies" start to pepper the discourse.
    28 Jul 2011, 10:31 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3416) | Send Message
     
    You're confusing the Federal Reserve and monetary policy with the US Treasury. Two entirely different institutions. This isn't about printing money - this is about debt instruments. Borrowing requires authority and that doesn't come from the Federal Reserve.
    28 Jul 2011, 10:33 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3416) | Send Message
     
    DB, it's not that liberals have better comics, it's that there is more demand for liberal comics. As you've illustrated here you're about emotion, not cognitive ability. That plays to what comics is about, and they will feed you, and you'll happily swallow it whole whatever it may be.
    28 Jul 2011, 10:38 AM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    Please don't tell me what I'm about. I know it's yet another attempt to dismiss people who disagree with you, and not engage in arguments, or consider the idea that you or your friends may have some responsibility for the state of the country. I get that kind of nonsense all the time.

     

    But it's tiresome.
    28 Jul 2011, 10:40 AM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (12978) | Send Message
     
    Bob:

     

    Wait just a minute.

     

    Obama declaring a "national emergency" and "dissolving Congress" isn't a leftwing fantasy?

     

    All you have to be is a proponent of Constititutional law and order to savor what would occur if Obama tried to pull off some half-baked Hugo Chavez imitation. Honestly, as an American, I'd love to see him try because then his ideology would be unmasked unmistakenly.
    28 Jul 2011, 11:07 AM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4557) | Send Message
     
    Tack -

     

    Are there those on the US political left significant in numbers or public standing actually advocating that Obama declare a "national emergency" and "dissolve Congress" ? I'm observing some loose and somewhat misguided fantasy talk on the left about possible invoking of the 14th Amendment but that really doesn't qualify.

     

    What is needed on all sides, in my humble outsider's opinion, is some serious political thought and discourse leading to the difficult but necessary compromises that will actually begin to address the current challenges facing the US - not coup fantasy.
    28 Jul 2011, 11:28 AM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    I agree 100%. Unfortunately each time the President has moved toward the GOP, the Republicans have backed away. Takes two to tango.
    28 Jul 2011, 11:47 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3416) | Send Message
     
    DB, nearly every one of your posts as been to disparage those you disagree with. That is what you are about. You have nothing substantive to say. It doesn't surprise me that you thought you were going to waltz in here and fling around your scat without objection, but you miscalculated.
    28 Jul 2011, 11:58 AM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    I just tell the truth and you think it's hell. Oh, the real Cincinnatus en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... returned power to the people and retired, which is the origin of the city name of Cincinnati. Although the city's namesake is actually George Washington, who retired to his farm after the Revolution rather than marching against the government of the time, and who later retired from the Presidency voluntarily.

     

    The emphasis here is on respect for other people's opinions. Try it sometime.
    28 Jul 2011, 12:01 PM Reply Like
  • psmith819
    , contributor
    Comments (535) | Send Message
     
    Bottom line - Obama wants a blank check. Not going to happen.
    28 Jul 2011, 12:19 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3416) | Send Message
     
    DB,
    Here is an example of your rendition of the "Truth" and respect for other people's opinions:

     

    "A libertarian is just a Republican who doesn't want to admit he hangs out with wackos."

     

    You're not only highly emotional, you're also very hypocritical - the left-wing authoritarian "do as I say, not as I do" type.
    28 Jul 2011, 12:28 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    No, I was stating a fact. Libertarians almost invariably vote Republican. Look it up. Their vote for Republicans is actually more reliable than Republicans' votes for them.

     

    You can do what you want, think what you want. No one is stopping you. But I'm not agreeing with you, either.

     

    Sorry if that bothers you.
    28 Jul 2011, 12:41 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4263) | Send Message
     
    "..Libertarians almost invariably vote Republican.."

     

    True, but only because that is about the only choice they have. If a viable 3rd party ever came along, it might be different (lottsa luck on that).

     

    However, I also think that you and many others here are guilty of lumpng people together based on just one or two factors or opinions. I don't like Obama (I voted for Hillary) for several reasons - but that does not make me either a Pubby or a Libby. I think Obamacare is a disaster in progress, but that does not mean i want to pull the plug on poor folks (I was one of those once).
    28 Jul 2011, 02:01 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4263) | Send Message
     
    "Obama declaring a "national emergency" and "dissolving Congress" isn't a leftwing fantasy?"

     

    Not sure if it is Left or Right, but it is a fantasy - mostly (FDR actually considered doing so at one time, and supposedly so did Lincoln). But it is actually as pretty common scenario - it was pretty much what Hitler and several Latin American, Middle East, and Asian countries have done in the past.
    28 Jul 2011, 02:06 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3416) | Send Message
     
    DB, I was referring to your "wackos" name calling. One aspect of the child-like mind is the inability to move from one's own frame of reference to another's. It's due to that that you can on the one hand disparage and show disrespect, while on the other attempt to lecture here on a need to respect other folks opinions.
    28 Jul 2011, 02:21 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3995) | Send Message
     
    DB Cincinnatus routinely resorts to insults and can't handle it when they are directed at him. I find it funny how much you have riled him up, clearly he is at a loss to make real, legitimate, arguments and has fallen back on his traditional ad hominum attacks.

     

    Like he will when he responds to my comment here.
    28 Jul 2011, 02:31 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3995) | Send Message
     
    bob,

     

    I've seen a half dozen different mechanisms that can be invoked to avoid default posted even here on SA. From intentionally writing 'bad' checks to making 'fake' deposits in the Fed gov'ts accounts, to minting coins with exorbitant face values etc.

     

    14th amendment is hardly the only 'imaginable' fallback position, and the it is becoming clearer by the day that the 'debt ceiling' is a mere technicality with no real meaning.

     

    I suspect that Repubs won't let any mechanism interrupt or override the 'debt ceiling' vote by Congress since they would be responsible for losing said authority from Congress, and would not like it if things were reversed (Red Pres Blue Congress).
    28 Jul 2011, 02:37 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4557) | Send Message
     
    kmi -

     

    There are so many layers to this debt ceiling issue.

     

    The first is that the ceiling itself is purely artificial (in the sense that it is a creation of legislation and can be changed at will if the necessary legislation to do so is enacted). The debt ceiling issue has, however, become a proxy whereby the verious factions withing and between the Republican Parties can dook it out to their hearts content over issues about they care deeply (fiscal policy, taxes, the scope and role of government etc.). This isn't going to be resolved quickly.

     

    Regretably, there is no way for the debt ceiling issue and the real issues underlying that issue can be properly addressed through the political process short of a new election but these issues are being brought to the boil now, at great risk to a fragil economic recovery and to US credit standing, in the absence of a context whereunder a consistent public police can be now adopted and implimented. In other words, some cludge temporary patch-up job may happen but the issues will boil on until at least after the next US Federal election results take effect.

     

    Then there are the many expedients that are suggested to somehow delay technically hitting the debt ceiling and avoiding partial default for weeks or months in the absence of a legislative settlement. On further reflection can anyone think that such skirting of the impasse for some brief interval by measures of doubtful validity or practicality would promote efforts to calm the debate and resolve the debt ceiling matter satisfactorily. Rather, such efforts would simply further cloud the fiscal status of the US goverment and inflame further the political passions to no good end.

     

    I have my own strong doubts whether US fiscal austerity, implimented deeply and immediately and in the absence of further effective monetary easing, can do anything but scotch the current fragil recovery and itself worsen the fiscal crisis. My comment above, however, are directed to the following propositions:
    (a) If such a course of action is to be seriousely attempted, what needs to be done to give it legitimacy and some prospect that it will be carried out for a continuing period in a consistent manner.
    (b) THe political process itself, in the sense of democratic governance of the US, must be made to work better better and not be unduely subordinated to partisan political trench warfare manovering.
    28 Jul 2011, 03:09 PM Reply Like
  • psmith819
    , contributor
    Comments (535) | Send Message
     
    Dana - i somewhat agree with you. 99% of libertarians do vote republican. Because republicans believe in most of the same ideals such as the constitution, and minimal government intervention. Three years ago i knew plenty of libertarians who voted for King Obama and now wish they had never done so.
    28 Jul 2011, 03:31 PM Reply Like
  • psmith819
    , contributor
    Comments (535) | Send Message
     
    KMI - you are more than welcome to bring your INTELLIGENT blurts to this friendly conversation. Hell - if Dana has some good stock ideas to make money - I'm all for it!
    28 Jul 2011, 03:32 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Bob

     

    It does not matter what is discussed in DC. The downgrade of our credit is inevitable as we are in too deep. This is a number problem not a political problem.
    28 Jul 2011, 06:39 PM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1511) | Send Message
     
    I have to disagree in that this is very much a political problem. The politics prevent anything realistic from being done about the numbers. No matter what gets proposed, someone's constituents, or donors take a hit and someone might not get re elected.
    28 Jul 2011, 08:23 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4557) | Send Message
     
    Tomas -

     

    But, as Hendershott says below, the political problem gives rise to the number problem,
    28 Jul 2011, 09:31 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    You don't get the point which is why this problem still exists and we hear politicians spinning their positions and stories on TV. You believe it is a political problem and it is as long as the numbers are reasonable and parties can argue over various plans.

     

    But when the numbers get too big the politics become irrelevant. Cuts are going to happen or we are going to drive inflation. Arguing over who pays the dinner bill on the Titanic does not change the fact it is sinking. That is where we are at. Politicians and people like you believe they have control but the evidence is all around that they have lost control. The numbers are dictating the news and the policy.
    28 Jul 2011, 11:54 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4557) | Send Message
     
    Tomas -

     

    You and I are going in a semantic circle here. All I'm saying is that the political maneuvering is obscuring serious public discussion discussion of the very real underlying problems (one of which is the very magnitude of the financial and fiscal issues, as you properly suggest). The challenge, therefore, is how to move the national discussion beyond the political gamesmanship and onto finding real solutions to these very real problems.
    29 Jul 2011, 12:37 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4263) | Send Message
     
    "The politics prevent anything realistic from being done about the numbers'.."

     

    This is 90% of the problem, not just in the federal government, but state and local also. I would bet that you could gather up a dozen random people here on SA (excluding a couple of fanatics), and come up with a really logical plan that makes sense and would reduce the debt to zero in 12 to 15 years.

     

    But the key word is "logical" - politics and people are seldom logical, but some are much less so, and that is where the problem we have now comes in. This is not really a failure of the Left or Right - it is failure of common sense and self interest.
    29 Jul 2011, 01:28 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Bob

     

    You speak like a policy wonk and borderline politician. You still are not getting it. All that analysis and discussion and political talk is being washed away by the numbers. Read up on countries that went through severe economic crisis and the politicians lose control and the populace is left to ride out the storm. What they say becomes noise and BS which is what we have now.

     

    Downgrade talks are driving the polemics. Europe is going through bailout after bailout. They don't have control but are trying to feign they do. Forget the talk and just look at the sequence of events. It is all downward and nobody is in control.
    29 Jul 2011, 01:57 AM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4557) | Send Message
     
    Tomas -

     

    We're into one of those chicken and egg sorts of discussions that don't end well. Let's call it a draw.
    29 Jul 2011, 02:03 AM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1511) | Send Message
     
    The answer, which was logically worked out, without regard to anyone's ideology, is the Simpson Bowles plan. Logical, not smoke and mirrors, not pleasant for anyone, effective. But both parties act as if it doesn't exist.
    29 Jul 2011, 09:02 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    maybe because, technically, it doesn't exist. The committee agreed that a super-majority was needed to issue a report. They didn't get one.
    29 Jul 2011, 09:14 PM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1511) | Send Message
     
    The non existent elephant in the room.
    29 Jul 2011, 09:29 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    They were elected to do something about it and they haven't done on f*^*&^ing thing. I might be crazy, but, they are a do nothing House so far. Maybe when they get off the "I'm gonna tank the whole country" kick and start doing their jobs, it'll be different.

     

    I don't think they will though. They are to obsessed with making the President look bad to do anything GOOD.
    31 Jul 2011, 11:58 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    It's been my experience that "Libertarians" are a hair breadth away from being Republicans.

     

    Geez, do you believe in Apple Pie too??? I do!!!
    1 Aug 2011, 12:01 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Noooooo. Your not a Republican.

     

    But, you are in "Mammby Pammby Land".
    1 Aug 2011, 12:05 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Because there are more NUT CASES in the Republican party and they are voracious NUT CASES too.

     

    Try asking a question that taxes our deductive reasoning next time.
    1 Aug 2011, 12:09 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Nope, I was one of the smarter ones.

     

    Glad your a Constitutional Lawyer. However, you a Constitutional Lawyer that doesn't know "diddly s#!+". Smarter people than you can't really determine if it's an option or not. I'd leave it up to the Supreme Court and let them decide.

     

    I'd give them the opportunity though. However it looks like that won't be necessary now.

     

    TOO BAD. I'd have kicked that can in a NY minute.

     

    But, that's the Marine in me. I wouldn't have taken any of their S#!+.

     

    The Constitution says the validity of the U.S. government’s debt “shall not be questioned.”
    1 Aug 2011, 12:25 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Ya, but it is really funny sh**t. And it's the sh**t you idiots do that make it so funny.
    1 Aug 2011, 12:28 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    I'm sorry, but, I'm sitting here and I can't think of one Conservative comic that says anything funny. In fact, I can only think of one Conservative comic. The guy that tries to brighten up O'Riley's show.

     

    He doesn't succeed.
    1 Aug 2011, 12:31 AM Reply Like
  • psmith819
    , contributor
    Comments (535) | Send Message
     
    ACTUALLY i do believe in APPIE PIE. HAHA - I really got your panties in a bunch huh! Donkeys are lunatics - your posts back that up!
    1 Aug 2011, 01:31 PM Reply Like
  • psmith819
    , contributor
    Comments (535) | Send Message
     
    And KING OBAMA has done so much more! Hopefully he gets back from vacation in time to sign this debt bill. Were you really in the military? I question your ethics and moral.
    1 Aug 2011, 01:33 PM Reply Like
  • psmith819
    , contributor
    Comments (535) | Send Message
     
    I'm sorry that liberals game to fame is comedians and not radio or news. NUFF SAID. Stewart and Bill Maher are so f---ing funny and cool!
    1 Aug 2011, 01:34 PM Reply Like
  • psmith819
    , contributor
    Comments (535) | Send Message
     
    Hardee har har.
    1 Aug 2011, 01:36 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    I'd be interested in where this myth that the President is always on vacation comes from? Because the last guy set a record, and this one seems to only take a few weeks off a year.
    1 Aug 2011, 02:57 PM Reply Like
  • Stoploss
    , contributor
    Comments (1727) | Send Message
     
    There is a new video on zerohedge, might want to take a look at it.
    26 Jul 2011, 06:34 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    Investors don't find the idea of a default credible yet. When they do, Mr. Barofsky will change his tune.

     

    It won't be too late to save most positions, because the President will act under the 14th amendment, but this can't end until the threat becomes real.
    26 Jul 2011, 06:43 PM Reply Like
  • youngman442002
    , contributor
    Comments (5131) | Send Message
     
    I think he already wants to do the 14th amendment deal...it will make him look strong...he thinks...a leader..take control of the reins so to speak...grab the football...but I hope he gets impeached for it...thrown out...I want to see his priorities too about what he would pay and not pay....he has already called the banks secretly and told them they are safe....I think people need to know what his true colors are...red baby...this mans reeks of socialism
    26 Jul 2011, 06:54 PM Reply Like
  • Stoploss
    , contributor
    Comments (1727) | Send Message
     
    Absolutely, he will wait until the last minute, do it himself, and it's gonna be on. That is the day you want to be clear of the market.

     

    That's what they're waiting for.
    26 Jul 2011, 07:02 PM Reply Like
  • Anwar Bhamla
    , contributor
    Comments (96) | Send Message
     
    He is helping the banks and he reeks of socialism?? Make up your mind! He is either a bank loving Capitalist pig or a pinko socialist. He cannot be both.
    26 Jul 2011, 08:18 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    He reeks of socialism because your so far right you'd call Thomas Jefferson a lefty.
    26 Jul 2011, 08:25 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    I wouldn't be more please with him if he told the wackos he'd take care of the debt ceiling himself.

     

    I'm tired of all this compromising crap. Kick 'em in the ass!!!
    26 Jul 2011, 08:27 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    Most of what you've written here are either things you have no evidence for or assumptions based on bias. You can vote against him next year if you don't like his performance.

     

    Barack Obama is not a socialist. Period. If you claim he is then you don't know what socialism really is. He did not pass a single-payer health care system, he did not nationalize any banks. He has done nothing to interfere with our democratic processes. Quite the contrary.
    26 Jul 2011, 08:50 PM Reply Like
  • coddy0
    , contributor
    Comments (1182) | Send Message
     
    Anwar Bhamla
    He is either a bank loving Capitalist pig or a pinko socialist. He cannot be both.
    ======================...

     

    we have seen already many very different kinds of socialism, with very different objectives and ways to achieve these objectives

     

    Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party
    French Socialist party
    National Socialist German Workers' Party

     

    Note:
    Leaders of all parties above were/are sort of pinko pigs with appeal to humans, while never were hateful to power money and other pleasures of old good bank loving Capitalists

     

    In summary
    If one able to avoid speaking the truth by any part of own mouth, every combination is possible
    26 Jul 2011, 09:02 PM Reply Like
  • 2PP
    , contributor
    Comments (349) | Send Message
     
    Dana, you damn well know he would have passed a single payer program if he had the votes. He had to bribe 20% of Congress to pass Obamacare without the single payer and they paid for it in 2010. I believe 2012 is going to swing conservative all the way and the last 4 years will all have been a waste of political time and sacrificed careers.
    26 Jul 2011, 10:12 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4263) | Send Message
     
    I think that a lot of people, especially those that follow the market, have figured out that all of his daily and nightly cries on TV about disaster are far overblown. He might have been more credible had he not invoked Bush and "the problems I inherited" in every speech.

     

    Did anyone even bother to watch his last prime time speech?
    26 Jul 2011, 10:15 PM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3529) | Send Message
     
    2PP

     

    I pray you're right.
    26 Jul 2011, 10:17 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4263) | Send Message
     
    Actually, after almost 3 years in office, I would be very hard put to define even one single core belief that he has. He seems to have no vision, and no core principles (wrong or right).

     

    If the answer is blowing in the wind, then he is the pure defintion why we should outlaw wind...
    26 Jul 2011, 10:20 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4263) | Send Message
     
    Monngie, for you everything that happens is some shade of politics.

     

    I looked back over weeks of your posts, and not once have you offered up any kind of data, investment advice, facts, or anything at all pertinent to the discussion at hand. Almost everything you say is some bumper sticker slogan taken from the pages of Media Matters, with no substance and nothing to offer.
    26 Jul 2011, 10:24 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4263) | Send Message
     
    "..Barack Obama is not a socialist.."

     

    I agree. He is more of a cipher, a moving target with no core at all except playing to his base.
    26 Jul 2011, 10:26 PM Reply Like
  • ltsgt1
    , contributor
    Comments (1392) | Send Message
     
    If this loser doesn't get impeach for violating the 14th amendment, I hope he would get impeached for Operation Gun Walker. Holder and him should rot in hell.
    26 Jul 2011, 10:57 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    First Barack is an egotist. Then everything comes after that.
    26 Jul 2011, 11:28 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3416) | Send Message
     
    He would have done all those if given the chance. Moreover your definition of socialism is nonsense. Socialism isn't mutually exclusive with democracy, nor does it mean that all assets must be held in the name of the state. Obama's injection of state control into private enterprise is socialism. Obama's takeover of GM and firing CEOs is socialism. His forcing banks into transactions was socialism. His shutting down of the GOM oil industry without due process and contrary to the adivce of industry experts was socialism.
    27 Jul 2011, 12:26 AM Reply Like
  • billknowsall
    , contributor
    Comments (266) | Send Message
     
    obama does have a core- free travel for michelle&kiddies, free all-you-can-golf for him. Gypsies in the palace...
    27 Jul 2011, 01:12 AM Reply Like
  • billbrad
    , contributor
    Comments (46) | Send Message
     
    Passing a single payer health care system would not make him a socialist, only make us like every other industrialized nation in the world. All of whom by the way pay half of what we pay per capita for our health care. But correct. Obama is definitely not a socialist
    27 Jul 2011, 01:38 AM Reply Like
  • billbrad
    , contributor
    Comments (46) | Send Message
     
    Wrong
    27 Jul 2011, 01:40 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Your posts are no better.

     

    For instance, just look at your last post.

     

    How can you say s#!+ like that to me after posting crap like that.

     

    P.S. I love bumper stickers
    27 Jul 2011, 03:24 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Well, Windsun33, there's a lot of fact a substance in this post. Isn't there?
    27 Jul 2011, 03:26 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Jeez Windsun33 you really laid out the facts and substance in this post.
    27 Jul 2011, 03:29 AM Reply Like
  • 7footMoose
    , contributor
    Comments (2266) | Send Message
     
    There is a difference between Obama being a Socialist and the passing of socialist leaning laws by Congress. He can be and is socialist leaning in his beliefs, note his wealth redistribution bent, but there are not yet enough others in Congress to pass his agenda. The last election saw to that.
    27 Jul 2011, 06:05 AM Reply Like
  • psmith819
    , contributor
    Comments (535) | Send Message
     
    Well said Windsun.....take away his teleprompter and who knows what comes out his mouth!
    27 Jul 2011, 07:00 AM Reply Like
  • psmith819
    , contributor
    Comments (535) | Send Message
     
    Windsun actually has good insights on stocks. His opinion is usually one that I agree with.
    27 Jul 2011, 07:01 AM Reply Like
  • psmith819
    , contributor
    Comments (535) | Send Message
     
    Hey Windsun - may Obama can take another vacation in a few days! His 2,303 vacation this year!
    27 Jul 2011, 07:03 AM Reply Like
  • psmith819
    , contributor
    Comments (535) | Send Message
     
    haha - great post. Monngie has a man crush.
    27 Jul 2011, 07:04 AM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    We'll see.

     

    But the idea of paying 11% of GDP to cover everyone instead of 17% to cover just two thirds sounds attractive when you describe it.

     

    And in the 2008 debates the President never said he supported VA care for everyone. So you're projecting.
    27 Jul 2011, 08:27 AM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    You may be right there, by your own lights. But consider what might have happened had he note enforced the TARP law passed by the previous Congress (and pushed by the previous President), or bailed out the auto companies and passed the stimulus.

     

    I know that in your world everything would have been hunky-dory, but in the real world things weren't that way.
    27 Jul 2011, 08:29 AM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    Critics of the President are right in that no pain has come yet, from the debt ceiling debate. His warnings that it would come notwithstanding.

     

    Problem is, once the default happens the damage is done. Where do we go then to get our credit-worthiness back?
    27 Jul 2011, 08:30 AM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    I'd feel sorry for Republican ideologues, but since they have yet to accept responsibility for the $2 trillion Bush wars and tax cuts I find it difficult.

     

    Pay your bills, and then we can talk about socialism.
    27 Jul 2011, 03:24 PM Reply Like
  • psmith819
    , contributor
    Comments (535) | Send Message
     
    Obama has spent more than both Bush's combined! Stop with your tom-foolery!
    27 Jul 2011, 03:44 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4263) | Send Message
     
    Dana, it is the idea-saurs on both sides that make this process so difficult. There are just enough fanatics on each side to kill any reasonable compromise. I bet that the stock market - and retirement accounts - have lost more in the past week than any cuts and/or tax increases that we finally end up getting.
    27 Jul 2011, 04:13 PM Reply Like
  • psmith819
    , contributor
    Comments (535) | Send Message
     
    and in 3 years I might add.
    27 Jul 2011, 04:46 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    Actually, no. Not at all. The total unmet cost of the Bush wars, during his Administration, which he didn't put into the budget but left for supplementals, was over $1 trillion. The total loss to the Treasury of the tax cuts that wasn't met was another $1 trillion.

     

    Compare that to the $787 billion of the stimulus and you can do the math yourself. Or are you now blaming Obama for trying to wind down the Bush wars and for keeping the tax cuts through to their 10-year sunset?

     

    Yeah, I know. Math has a liberal bias.
    27 Jul 2011, 05:30 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    The "false equivalence" of the media is as much to blame for this as anything. This idea that an equal distance between the two sides represents truth. It only encourages one side to go all wacky, and thus push truth closer to its own view.

     

    Thank God for markets, which tend to see things clearly. The descent into hell has begun, and it will accelerate until someone does something rational.

     

    (Oooo, I had a real nasty thought on that last sentence. If I changed the word God to Allah (which is literally, God in Arabic) I'd bet the Tea Party people here would have a fit and fall in it. Glad I didn't do that.)
    27 Jul 2011, 05:33 PM Reply Like
  • psmith819
    , contributor
    Comments (535) | Send Message
     
    I guess the stimulus is the only thing Obama has contributed to the deficit! Your flawed views/opinions are actually very hilarious. I feel like I'm reading the comics in the Sunday paper!

     

    Much appreciated!
    27 Jul 2011, 05:35 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3416) | Send Message
     
    DB,
    Obama has added $4.5 trillion (a 45% increase since Obama took office) to the national debt in but 2 1/2 years. Bush was bad, and Obama is much worse, and his recent whining in front of the cameras indicates he has his foot firmly planted on the ineptitude accelerator. That you won't acknowledge that is due to you being an extreme left-winger with a hard-on for the child King in the Oval office.
    27 Jul 2011, 06:03 PM Reply Like
  • ltsgt1
    , contributor
    Comments (1392) | Send Message
     
    You should do a little research about Islam. Islam condones slavery, apostasy and child marriage or pedophilia.

     

    Both Christians and Muslims had participated in the slave trade. But Christian church never took a stance regarding slavery while Muhammad had captured and traded slaves himself. There are written instructions in the Koran regarding proper conducts of slave masters.

     

    Arabic Muslims used to capture slaves from all over Europe and Africa and profit hugely from it. I wonder why they called the captured white slaves as "white gold" but they never called the African slaves "black gold".
    27 Jul 2011, 06:29 PM Reply Like
  • psmith819
    , contributor
    Comments (535) | Send Message
     
    haha......i almost choked while reading your post! I'm sure big Dana will have some flawed rebuttal.
    27 Jul 2011, 08:05 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    And if we'd bugged out of Afghanistan and Iraq on January 21, 2009 you would have been OK with that? Had we cancelled the 2001 tax cuts on January 21, 2009 you would have been OK with that?

     

    I love the way this "heads I win tails you lose" mind works. It's quite funny.

     

    And when worse comes to worse, call the other person gay. Is that the worst thing you can say about someone? Really?
    28 Jul 2011, 08:26 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3416) | Send Message
     
    psmith, you can bet on that. He's guaranteed to flutter off onto some new tangent without a clue as to where he's been or where he's going. It takes cognitive ability to make an argument and stick with it and DB can't go there.
    28 Jul 2011, 10:44 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3416) | Send Message
     
    DB, you're too predictable. Run away from your prior assertion and dissemble into another. The fact is the debt taken on by Obama has been a far greater amount, and in a much shorter time. By the end of his term Obama will have created under his watch an amount about equal to 60% of the debt that was created under all prior Presidents. That's an infamous achievement.

     

    And no, that $4.5 trillion in new debt isn't attributable to Iraq and Afghanistan. If that were so then the debt created under Bush would have been much greater than under Obama. Iraq was the major defense expenditure and the Iraq war was over and winding down well before Obama came into office. The vast majority of Obama's spending binge has been on various stimulus with the help of the Pelosi/Reid Congress. That tingle you get down your leg when you see Obama is blinding you to reality. I suggest spending less time in front of the boob tube watching comics and more reading up on current events.
    28 Jul 2011, 11:09 AM Reply Like
  • ltsgt1
    , contributor
    Comments (1392) | Send Message
     
    As a Tea Party Libertarian, I would have no problem bugging out of Afghanistan in 2009. However, I think Iraq has a lot more strategic and economic concerns to make a hasty withdrawal.

     

    I would have no problem if we cancelled the 2001 tax cuts on multi-national companies such as GE, GM, Whirlpool ...... which had taken the tax cut savings and invested it oversea. I do have a problem if we cancelled the 2001 tax cuts on small businesses barely making over $250,000.
    28 Jul 2011, 11:18 AM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    This is stage 2 of the dehumanization process. Instead of attacking me directly, you talk to a third, agreeable party, and both of you get into the act.

     

    When are you children going to learn that if you disagree with someone, just say so and move on? Probably at the same time you take responsibility for things like $2 trillion deficit of the last 10 years and its true cause.
    28 Jul 2011, 11:48 AM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    I understand your ideology requires that you believe nonsense, but the $787 billion in stimulus isn't the "vast majority" of the deficit over the last three years. It's tax cuts and unpaid-for war.

     

    Also, if you want to be taken seriously by anyone who disagrees with you, you might stop the sexual fetish-ization of the President, and of his supporters. Just because we agree with someone's position doesn't mean we want to have sex with them. Did you Monica-ize Bush? No. It's equally silly, and equally offensive.
    28 Jul 2011, 11:51 AM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    Then take responsibility for those choices and raise the debt ceiling to cover them. And pay for "Iraq strategic concerns" going back to 2003. Also, if you're going to maintain the Bush tax rates on the 2% who make "only" $250k/year, tell us please where the new rates should kick in and how you're going to make up that money.
    28 Jul 2011, 11:53 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3416) | Send Message
     
    DB, the person here that is ideological to the extreme is you. I've stated Bush was a poor president. You fail to recognize that Obama is much worse precisely because all he's doing is following the same path Bush took, but with far more zeal. You're so caught up in your emotions and your infatuation for the cult of personality that is Obama that you see the same actions as distinct for no other reason than the actors have changed.

     

    It's also completely over your head as to why we debate. I have no expectation of you taking anything seriously - you're far too much of an ideologue to expect that in any case. A public debate is about swaying the audience to your position, so you can stop whining about the "please try to please me" nonsense. Ain't gonna happen.
    28 Jul 2011, 12:17 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3995) | Send Message
     
    itsgt1 your candidate Bachman is isolationist.
    28 Jul 2011, 02:41 PM Reply Like
  • ltsgt1
    , contributor
    Comments (1392) | Send Message
     
    That is simple. All we have to do is to get rid of Obamacare, stop paying benefits to those fresh of the boat immigrants whom have never contributed a dime toward social security and medicare - Obama's aunt is costing us $700 a month plus free medical and housing benefits, stop educating illegal immigrants for free the moment they get across the border, withdraw our troops from Libya, Afghanistan, Europe, Philippine and S. Korea until they beg us and pay us to go back, stop subsidizing ethanol, solar and wind energy except R&D, cut the size of government in half - we will do just fine with half of Dept. of Energy, Education, Environmental Protection........... Tax and punish the multinational when they invest oversea unless the products are for oversea consumption. There are more ways to make up the money. The aforementioned are just a few ideas off the top of my head.

     

    $250K/year is not a whole lot of money if you are running a small business or living in NYC.
    28 Jul 2011, 05:00 PM Reply Like
  • ltsgt1
    , contributor
    Comments (1392) | Send Message
     
    So am I. However, mid-east is a matter of national security until we can manage to be energy independent.
    28 Jul 2011, 05:03 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    No. Most of what you're complaining about are things we don't do. Social Security and Medicare are called entitlements because people pay taxes for them all their lives -- and millions of people depend on that money.

     

    I can't wait to see you tell the Defense Department they're going to be downsized 50%.

     

    More important, all that fiscal retrenchment on that scale does is drop a torpedo into the economy. Spending is spending, whoever does it. And eliminating trillions from the economy, all at once, kills it.

     

    Try looking up Andrew Mellon sometime. You and he would get along famously.
    28 Jul 2011, 05:16 PM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3529) | Send Message
     
    Yes. Screw this democracy b.s.:-(
    28 Jul 2011, 05:48 PM Reply Like
  • ltsgt1
    , contributor
    Comments (1392) | Send Message
     
    I am 49 y/o and am not counting on getting my Social Security or Medicare. Millions of people do depend on that money but that money is running out a lot faster due to Clinton's generosity with our money. In NYC, immigrants of all colors are taken advantage of the system. In a way, I don't blame them. I blame the bleeding heart liberals for corrupting their ethics and dampening their ambitions the moment they get here.

     

    Downsizing military!!!! I guess you don't know much about right wingers' philosophy. However, I would scrutinize their purchasing system.

     

    Iceland and Ireland are both tightening their belt and they are heading toward the right direction. What you don't understand about the trillions that would be eliminating from the economy is that it has to be first taken from the real private sector economy, or borrow from the future causing inflation and mal-investments, to be redistributed by the government. What is the multiplier of Obama's disastrous stimulus? He saved uncompetitive union jobs and prevented Boeing from creating more competitive non-union jobs. The worst is that he created more public sector jobs which are draining precious resource from the economy for the next 2-3 decades - federal employees don't get fire once they are hired.

     

    We are becoming more like the Greek - 40% of Greece's GDP is from public sector. They will eventually drag down the whole EU. We will drag down the entire world.
    28 Jul 2011, 06:03 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    "Spending is spending, whoever does it."

     

    Not true.

     

    Spending dependent on theft(taxes) from the creator/earner class to the parasitical recipient class is a misdirection of resources and usually encourages poor future choices. "Hey, its not my money right? I can do whatever the hell I want with it!" And while demand is artificially pushed in, capital creation is further disincentivized in the form of zero hiring. Translation: its not organic. Thus, productivity goes down. Waste goes into the system as well as fraud plus there's no carrot to want to hire since further profit has zero additive value to the creator class as it will just continue to be taken away to fund more and more lard.

     

    Its about earnings, always has been. Production. Freedom to choose. Making things. Creating things. Investment.

     

    Its not about putting more Thunderbird into a hobo's bloodstream by political graft/theft(taking from someone else, an inventor/job creator) and calling that economic growth. Its not growth. Its static subsistency.

     

    Let people have their own money. Shrink the size of government. Let people have the freedom to create, buy and sell, generally be left alone. Let them keep their own personal property. Lower regulations on businesses. Break up unions. This is what creates jobs. Period.
    28 Jul 2011, 06:19 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    I know you don't like facts to disagree with your ideology, but in this case they do.

     

    And we don't have a debt problem. We have a growth problem.
    28 Jul 2011, 06:41 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    DB

     

    Defense will have to be downsized. Pretty much every federal outlay will have to be downsized or we do it through the backdoor by driving inflation.

     

    Put aside the emotion, look at the numbers, study some economic history and not in Rolling Stone and you will find a lot of this political discourse does not matter.
    28 Jul 2011, 06:46 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Wyatt

     

    It is pathetic you even have to explain this concept but highlights why we have the problems we do.
    28 Jul 2011, 06:47 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    He sounds like he's been institutionalized at some point. And by 'institutionalized' I mean Berkley educated. He also has 'that look'.
    28 Jul 2011, 06:50 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    Thank you. It's Berkeley. But no, I didn't go there. I did go to Rice, though.
    28 Jul 2011, 06:54 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4263) | Send Message
     
    itsgt1... We have not had troops in the Philippines for close to 20 years. We have no troops in Libya. Those kind of obvious errors make the rest of your conclusions suspect.
    29 Jul 2011, 01:33 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4263) | Send Message
     
    itsg1 - why?

     

    We get most of our oil imports from Canada and Mexico. Why do we need to be in the Middle East so heavily?
    29 Jul 2011, 01:39 AM Reply Like
  • ltsgt1
    , contributor
    Comments (1392) | Send Message
     
    Well, I believe it's the other way around. Facts disagree with your ideology.

     

    Printed or borrowed money resulted in mal-investments and inflation. Under Bush, we had mal-investments in housing, gold.... Under Obama, we have more mal-investments in commodities, gold.... These are facts.

     

    Obama has the benefit to see what easy money had done under Bush's term, but Obama learn nothing from that and triple down on more debt and easy money. Debt can indeed boost temporary growth but it cannot last more than 2-3 years. Bush had overplayed this hand and it blew up on him and us big time. Obama is too dumb to reverse course.
    29 Jul 2011, 10:16 AM Reply Like
  • ltsgt1
    , contributor
    Comments (1392) | Send Message
     
    If there is disruption of oil production in any part of the world, oil price will shoot straight up. If the Chinese cannot get their oil from mid-east, they will buy it from Canada, Mexico........

     

    2nd, OPEC demands dollar for all transactions which means they support the global reserve currency status of the dollar. It means we can get away with printing a lot of money - we have been abusing this privilege lately. That is why we are wise to give them protection along with Japan and UK.

     

    Get it.
    29 Jul 2011, 10:25 AM Reply Like
  • ltsgt1
    , contributor
    Comments (1392) | Send Message
     
    I know we don't have troops in Philippines. What I meant was we should stop offering them protection or alliance. We just had a joint naval exercise with them last month. That didn't go very well with China, one of the biggest supporters of our dollar. BTW, I'd love to see any nation which had protested against our military presence being bully by China now.

     

    As far as Libya goes, every time we drop a bomb there, it costs us a few million dollar. Our primary objective there should be keeping the region stablized in order not to cause any disruption in oil production.
    29 Jul 2011, 10:44 AM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    Hey, I'd like to cancel the Bush tax cuts tomorrow, too. And I'd like Republicans to pay for their wars. But the economic impact of the stimulus is done, according to the CBO.

     

    If you turn stimulus to austerity too quickly you crack the economy. The UK has already seen that. Growth has stopped dead in its tracks.

     

    The boat has to be turned slowly, and it has to be done in a balanced fashion. That's what the President has suggested, and it's what economists are saying is the right way to do it.
    29 Jul 2011, 10:47 AM Reply Like
  • Agbug
    , contributor
    Comments (1091) | Send Message
     
    Oil and it's pricing mechanism is the key to the kingdom in an idustrial economy. Iran just happens to be directly in between Iraq and Afganistan, and Iran and China have been said to be discussing settling oil contracts in other than the US$. Saddam chose to settle "food for oil" in Euro's. Look what happened there. It was never about WMD. It was about jumping on the lid of Pandora's box of oil priced in something other than US$.

     

    Imagine that oil was not transacted in US$. How are we going to pay for those tanker loads that come from the rest of the world, or Canada and Mexico? Hummmm, might be a problem.

     

    Cramer, and I know Cramer is not perfect, looked into the camera Tuesday morning and said "buy gold, not GLD, real physical gold coins." What is he worried about?
    29 Jul 2011, 10:49 AM Reply Like
  • ltsgt1
    , contributor
    Comments (1392) | Send Message
     
    That is why I am not worrying too much about our debts owe to China, Japan..... I do worry about the Pandora's box.
    29 Jul 2011, 11:42 AM Reply Like
  • ltsgt1
    , contributor
    Comments (1392) | Send Message
     
    Bush tax cut - $ 300 to 500 billion

     

    wars - $130 billion

     

    deficit - $1.4 trillion or $ 14,000 billion

     

    $14,000 - $ 430 or 630 = $ 13,570 or 13,370 billion

     

    That is $ 1.3 trillion deficit remaining without the wars and Bush tax cut.

     

    Facts and numbers. Hmmm.....................

     

    BTW, what has Obama done to turn the boat around slowly?
    29 Jul 2011, 12:30 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    The Bush tax cut was $1 trillion, and the wars another trillion.

     

    Neither has been rescinded. You want to blame the President for not raising taxes at the bottom of the worst crisis since the Great Depression. You want to blame him for not cutting-and-running from Iraq and Afghanistan immediately upon entering office.

     

    You want to blame him for not immediately turning from the Bush policies when the problem was the economy was collapsing and it was all anyone could do to prevent it?

     

    I fault the President for not seeing that the recession was worse than it was. I fault him for not doing enough to stimulate growth before going all-austerity. The numbers he was seeing have since been steadily adjusted downwards - growth in 2009 was -3.5%.

     

    But by the time any sort of mending had begun, he faced a determined Republican Congressional opposition, one that would not (and still won't) countenance any revenue enhancement, and one determined (apparently) to destroy the social safety net the majority of our people have built over 50-80 years of hard work, in order to cut more taxes and destroy law enforcement on business excesses.

     

    That's the way it is. The boat is tough to turn. And the most important thing that must change for the boat to turn is the minds of the people. So long as people think crazy is sane and sane crazy, the boat won't turn.

     

    Which really what this week is about.
    29 Jul 2011, 02:35 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    It has nothing to do with democracy. There is no need for this contrived, make believe, debt crisis the Republicans pulled out of their ass.

     

    14th Amendment.
    29 Jul 2011, 02:55 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    I blame Obama for ramming down Zerocare on a weak economy with high unemployment which immediately raised the next year's cost of healthcare by as much as 30% while simultaneously causing businesses, especially small ones, from adding on additional hires. He used the weakness of the economy as an opportunity to take advantage of 'the people'. Its the same as date rape, or giving your wife pills so she won't cry during sex.

     

    A total dictator move.
    29 Jul 2011, 03:00 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    But not until the damage becomes obvious. Otherwise the power grab will be seen negatively by voters. It has to be seen as necessary, and those who criticize it be seen as idiots, or it will fail.
    29 Jul 2011, 03:57 PM Reply Like
  • ltsgt1
    , contributor
    Comments (1392) | Send Message
     
    The total of Bush tax cut and wars for the past 11 years is around a trillion each. But if you want to play that game, the total deficit is around $14.7 trillion. Without the Bush tax cut and wars, we are still $12.7 trillion in the hole. Numbers and facts are such pain, isn't it.

     

    You want to raise tax amid a recession and believe that will somehow stimulate the economy. Hmmm. You don't understand the responsibilities attach to the privilege for having the global reserve currency status. The Iraq war was necessary to maintain that status on top of few other things. I don't blame Obama for not leaving Iraq. I blame him for not only staying but expanded the war in Afghanistan, especially after we killed bin Laden. I also blame Bush for not installing another strongman in Iraq and leave the Baath Party intact, but then what do you expect from a dummy.

     

    I also fault the smartest president we ever have for not seeing that the recession was worse than it was. I saw it and I don't think I am smart. I fault him for not using the stimulus properly to stimulate growth. He used whatever little precious credibility we had and squandered it on saving uncompetitive union jobs, creating more government jobs, allowing multinational using tax payer money and invest in factories oversea - Obama's job czar is doing a fantastic job creating jobs in China. He shot the last few economic ammo we desperately needed into the ground. I would be a lot more supportive of this loser if he had actually created shovel ready jobs - I almost leap over into the TV and strangle him when I saw him jokingly said that "oh, I guess shovel ready is not really shovel ready, hahahaha."

     

    I don't even want to go into how many jobs he destroyed via EPA, Frank-Dodd bill, Gulf moritorium, class warfare........... I WOULD HAVE TO WRITE A BOOK.

     

    Old school republicans are not Obama's enemies, they are his friends and the enemies of the people. Tea Party republicans are the only ones who are doing something to turn this boat around at the peril of their own political future.

     

    Can you see that "the social safety net the majority of our people have built over 50-80 years of hard work" is what is destroying Greece. Why stop at 40% of Greece GDP is from the public sector? Lets make it 100%. That didn't work out too well for USSR or Cuba - Cuba just laid off more than half of its civil servants, gee, I wonder why. Ireland and Iceland had cut public servants salary by 10-15%. I think Iceland cut retiree's pension by 20%. Greece think they can keep all their benefits by burning buildings and riots. They would rather burn the boat down then to turn it around.

     

    What is this week about? I would make a few predictions. Tea Party lost. Hyperinflation. Total collapse.

     

    Well, at least we don't have to worry about recession anymore. BTW, you will still have your social security check but I doubt if you would be able to buy anything with it.

     

    Yeah, that's is the way it is. The boat is indeed tough to turn. So long as people think crazy is sane and sane crazy, the boat won't turn.
    29 Jul 2011, 04:06 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    I appreciate the honesty of admitting your Ayers-like manipulation so openly. I bet there are conversations in WDC that sound just like your three disgusting little sentences.

     

    'It has to be seen as necessary...'

     

    '... and those who criticize it be seen as idiots, or it will fail.'

     

    And the perverse plotting....

     

    'Otherwise the power grab will be seen negatively by voters.'

     

    This is quite literally a conversation the Wicked Witch of the West had with her flying monkeys concerning Dorothy the moment they turned over the sand dial.

     

    Thanks for outing yourself fella.
    29 Jul 2011, 07:39 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Excellent analysis, at every level.

     

    >3
    29 Jul 2011, 07:43 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4263) | Send Message
     
    "..That's the way it is. The boat is tough to turn.."

     

    Problem is that Obama has not even found the rudder yet, much less the right map. Not even sure he knows which boat he is on. While Obama has been using a map of Oz for the first 3 years, the country was on the Island of Doctor Moreau, and congress is off in some map of Fantasy Island.
    29 Jul 2011, 10:17 PM Reply Like
  • psmith819
    , contributor
    Comments (535) | Send Message
     
    utter garbage....Itsgt1 post below = THE REAL TRUTH
    29 Jul 2011, 10:34 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7710) | Send Message
     
    “It’s so typical of the way Treasury and the Fed treat everything - always to warn that Armageddon is coming.”

     

    The administration did the same lying to get the stimulus and health care bills passed.
    Next will be the same lies to get immigration reform passed so Obama can get votes in 2012.
    26 Jul 2011, 06:59 PM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3529) | Send Message
     
    "Next will be the same lies to get immigration reform passed so Obama can get votes in 2012."

     

    Perhaps we should pass immigration laws that mirror those of our North American neighbors. Oh wait, they don't want poor immigrants.
    26 Jul 2011, 07:49 PM Reply Like
  • Texast
    , contributor
    Comments (30) | Send Message
     
    The market is not reacting because it has nowhere to go. The normal safehaven, bonds, is not an option, because bonds will be killed if interest rates go up. Cash sucks because the dollar will sink also. What do you do but stand pat and hope for the best if your a big fund manager.
    26 Jul 2011, 07:03 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5692) | Send Message
     
    Many analysts have told you where to put your money if you believe default is imminent. European stocks, Euro-denominated assets generally. I think some funds with heavy exposure to China might do well, too.
    26 Jul 2011, 08:52 PM Reply Like
  • billknowsall
    , contributor
    Comments (266) | Send Message
     
    Europe is as big a mess as we are. The euro is on thiiin ice. PMs seem to be the safe haven of the year, but too crowded for me... Cash for me with a bit of oil.
    27 Jul 2011, 01:17 AM Reply Like
  • lavalyn
    , contributor
    Comments (58) | Send Message
     
    What is the impact of bank capitalization (Basel II) if the government bonds were to suddenly require additional risk capital? Or money supply, for that matter?
    26 Jul 2011, 07:15 PM Reply Like
  • 7footMoose
    , contributor
    Comments (2266) | Send Message
     
    If the worst happens as a result of the debt ceiling impasse, and I'm not saying it will, nothing in the way of financial assets will be safe in this country for some time into the future.
    26 Jul 2011, 08:13 PM Reply Like
  • mitchll
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    If you don't think the market is reacting negatively yet, you must be in a different world.
    26 Jul 2011, 07:40 PM Reply Like
  • neutrinoman
    , contributor
    Comments (700) | Send Message
     
    The debt ceiling itself is an annoyance and probably should be gotten rid of. But it's not Armageddon. The real story is the coming US credit downgrade.

     

    Neil Barofsky is great. If he, Volcker, and other conservative Democrats were in charge of that party, they would be again worth looking at.
    26 Jul 2011, 08:13 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4263) | Send Message
     
    neutri - very true. The debt ceiling is a unique US invention that was passed after WW1 to address a specific perceived problem (which turned out to also be a non-issue).

     

    There is really no reason to have it, and it should be repealed.
    26 Jul 2011, 10:29 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Holy Crap.......a fact......with substance!!!!

     

    And, it could almost fit on a bumper sticker:-)
    27 Jul 2011, 03:34 AM Reply Like
  • psmith819
    , contributor
    Comments (535) | Send Message
     
    I actually made a bumper sticker.......it was obama's face then "the tingle is gone".

     

    The "CHANGE" has worked oh so well!
    27 Jul 2011, 07:05 AM Reply Like
  • InvestorCP
    , contributor
    Comments (155) | Send Message
     
    Even if the default is avoided, I think the AAA credit rating gets downgraded by both Moody's and S&P. Then all the holders who are mandated to hold only AAA rated debt, have to sell, and many others will want to sell and buy German, Canadian, Dutch, and other AAA government securities. Dollar falls and interest rates increase, which actually may not be a bad thing in the short term for manufacturing at least (dollar falling). But I bet it triggers oil being priced in Euro's instead.
    26 Jul 2011, 08:52 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3995) | Send Message
     
    I'll add - Europe and European countries lack the size to allow everyone to move over there or even half of everyone. And there really isn't any other good option, there just isn't anywhere rich enough with where the dollar's value still is.

     

    Any migration away from the dollar will either be slow or cataclysmic.
    26 Jul 2011, 08:59 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4263) | Send Message
     
    If the US loses it's AAA rating, does that mean I will get more interest on government bonds?
    26 Jul 2011, 10:30 PM Reply Like
  • coddy0
    , contributor
    Comments (1182) | Send Message
     
    Neil Barofsky says. “It’s so typical of the way Treasury and the Fed treat everything - always to warn that Armageddon is coming.”
    ======================...
    Neil Barofsky forgot that on August 3 we have the same trinity as on August 1.

     

    If they say it is coming, it is coming
    26 Jul 2011, 09:20 PM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1511) | Send Message
     
    A US debt downgrade is now the base case, therefore already priced into the market. The bond market appears to be ignoring all the drama. Downgraded or not, there is no viable alternative to the US treasury market for settlements, or the dollar for commerce. There is just no other debt market with the size and breadth that can take it's place. At the moment the treasury market is literally too big to fail and will remain so until there is an actual failure. Stocks react to corporate profits, which continue to be terrific, although 2H guidance in some areas like tech (ex AAPL, AMZN etc) appears to be softening. Uncertainty about government policy is hindering corporate decision making and the likelihood of austerity is hindering expansion plans. The public isn't much interested in the deficit discussion being much more interested in jobs, the price of gasoline and the continuation of the payroll tax break enacted this year i.e. their own pocketbooks.
    26 Jul 2011, 09:25 PM Reply Like
  • rwkoch
    , contributor
    Comments (18) | Send Message
     
    I strongly disagree with your statement regarding the fact that the US debt downgrade is already priced into the market. Stocks react to earnings but they also react to interest rate increases, which will be the likely result of the downgrade. Uncertainty and surprises are not favorable for the market and that's what we have here. So, if the downgrade is already priced into the market, let's see who is correct when the downgrade happens. I believe it will set us back to the beginning of the year, at least.
    26 Jul 2011, 09:56 PM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1511) | Send Message
     
    Maybe you're right, but the bond market participants already know that a downgrade is coming and probably unavoidable. So far the reaction in the bond market has been barely discernible. Moody's et. al. have pretty much telegraphed a downgrade, if rates are going to move they should have already reacted, at least to some extent. A downgrade now would hardly qualify as a surprise.
    26 Jul 2011, 10:24 PM Reply Like
  • billbrad
    , contributor
    Comments (46) | Send Message
     
    We didn't have this problem until we had the tea party
    27 Jul 2011, 01:44 AM Reply Like
  • AnchorMan
    , contributor
    Comments (115) | Send Message
     
    .....and a democrat in the white house. in '06, the bill to raise the debt ceiling was 1 sentence long and signed off by EVERY republican in both chambers.....
    27 Jul 2011, 01:52 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    We didn't have a lot of problems until we had the tea party.
    27 Jul 2011, 03:35 AM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4557) | Send Message
     
    Neil Barofsky is being highly selective in making the observations quoted. Republican House Leader Boehner himself over the last weekend was predicting dire consequences if the markets opened on July 22 without a settlement of the debt ceiling issue in hand. Arguably, Treasury Secretary Geithner, Fed Chairman Bernanke, Senator Boehner and most if not all the senior officials in both Parties directly involved in these negotiations are sincerely worried that the markets for US sovereign debt could become unstable at any time and that each of them may not be able to count on the unity of his own Party let alone on the capacity of all involved to act together to craft and implement a viable way through this political impasse.

     

    The investing public along with the public generally (in part through cynicism, in part through hope and in part because there hasn’t been a situation like the one in question within living memory) is hopeful that some solution will be cobbled together and unsure what failure to strike a deal in early August would really entail. It all seems so contrived (although the associated issues of government deficits and scope of programs are viewed as both real and important) and how it really relates to issues like jobs and economic recovery unclear in timing and detail. People hear that August 2nd or shortly thereafter is when this all become really important and are prepared to wait and see; having no precedents to guide them in these matters. This is equally so for the deemed sophisticated investor as much as laymen in financial matters.

     

    All concerned are holding their collective breath but it’s a bit early metaphorically to break out a brewski and settle down under the sun and into a lawn chair on this one. With both the Republican and Democratic Parties now experiencing incipient revolts against their leaders efforts to compromise and with the toxicity developing in these negotiations, the path to settlement is becoming increasingly murky and time for settlement increasingly short. August 2nd may well pass without settlement and the markets may initially respond with unexpected calm but both the public mood and the markets may well be roiled at any time if negotiations truly stall of some unexpected event occur.
    26 Jul 2011, 10:05 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    The fact is that we suck less.

     

    If there were better investment alternatives in the world then we would be in big trouble. Those alternatives may emerge in the next decade in enough volume to move capital from the US but they are not here today. We are better off than many of the European countries although we could spend our way into the same condition in very short order.

     

    And nobody believes that the US will not ultimately pay its bills. Whether we pay them a bit late with extra interest it really does not matter because we have the largest economy in the world and the ability to pay if we really put our minds to it.

     

    The issue is serious but not end of the world. This is just another episode to get us all riled up and get us watching the drama on TV. I have lived through Y2K, Octomom, the OJ trial, Casey Anthony, reporters tapping cell phones, Monica Lewinsky, etc, etc, etc, etc and there are more on the way.
    26 Jul 2011, 11:36 PM Reply Like
  • Killer454
    , contributor
    Comments (816) | Send Message
     
    The maket hasn't reacted becuase it knows that Obama, tax cheat Timmy and the rest of the administration lackeys are flat out lying when they claim the government will have to default on the debt if the debt ceiling isn't raised on August 2nd.

     

    The federal government collects more than enough tax revenue to pay interest on the outstanding Treasury bonds, bills and notes. All it has to do is prioritize paying them first.

     

    The chicken little routine is wearing thin on this. Too many people know the actual facts and are saying so know despite the attempts of the slavishly sycophantic steno pool press constant regurgitation of the adminstration's hysterics.
    26 Jul 2011, 11:40 PM Reply Like
  • Duude
    , contributor
    Comments (3368) | Send Message
     
    What the market already understood was the administration was initially clueless, or chose to mislead and exaggerate what would happen if the debt ceiling wasn't increased on August 2. With the deadline fast approaching I find it interesting the administration has now chosen to stop with the doomsday scenarios even though they are still threatening senior's social security. Their social security isn't affected by the debt ceiling. The treasury gets more than enough in tax revenue to cover the interest on the debt, social security, medicare and the overseas conflicts. After that they need to pick and choose and plan things out a bit more. But even that can be managed with various accounting measures and help from the Federal Reserve.
    27 Jul 2011, 12:13 AM Reply Like
  • Trever99
    , contributor
    Comments (105) | Send Message
     
    Silly US politics.

     

    Last go around Boehner wanted a ceiling increase and Obama was fighting against it. But with a republican president.

     

    Should there really be any surprise that the political system in the US accomplishes nothing?

     

    I think anyone in the USA who thinks their political party is "better" is delusional. Each without a distinct ideology or guiding principle.. aside from politics of obstruction and denial.
    27 Jul 2011, 12:36 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3416) | Send Message
     
    So you're saying Boehner doesn't want a ceiling increase now? It's delusional to believe you have a handle on the issues involved. I don't see you added anything to the discussion here, and the one "fact" you cite is incorrect.
    27 Jul 2011, 01:06 AM Reply Like
  • billbrad
    , contributor
    Comments (46) | Send Message
     
    We've never taken it quite so far as this. We're here because of the tea party. It's the most dangerous destructive force in the United States today.
    27 Jul 2011, 01:50 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    The only thing the Democrats are trying to obstruct is the Republicans obstructionism.
    27 Jul 2011, 03:40 AM Reply Like
  • Trever99
    , contributor
    Comments (105) | Send Message
     
    whoops!!

     

    You're right. Tea Partiers have asked Boehner for more debt.

     

    The point I was trying to make was that they were on different sides of the table this time than they were last time. Look it up.

     

    The rest of what I said is perfectly correct. The parties in the US benefit more by allowing the party in power to fail than to succeed. The beauty of a perversely flawed political system.

     

    I think this sums up the direction of the USA:

     

    gwynnedyer.com/2011/th.../

     

    "When President Obama cancelled the “Constellation” project in 2010, he talked about doing things in a “smarter way,” and how private enterprise would develop “space taxis” that would put people into orbit more cheaply. In reality, however, he was ending federal government support for manned space flight – though he did promise to invest a little more than a billion dollars a year in those “clever” private companies.

     

    That is not serious money: the US defence budget gets through that much every twelve hours."

     

    This is fairly representative of the direction of the US.
    27 Jul 2011, 10:19 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3416) | Send Message
     
    Obama wants the debt limit raised. Boehner wants the debt limit raised. Your original comment implied they'd both flopped, when in fact only one of them has.

     

    The actual difference is one wants a blank check. If the Republicans really wanted Obama to fail as you claim, they'd go along with his request. The ratings agencies have made it clear the issue is not raising the debt ceiling which is a given. It's that the reduction in spending increases proposed isn't sufficient to retain the current US rating, and that the growth in the debt (and debt servicing) must be brought down below GDP growth. The consequence of giving Obama what he wants is rates rise, the cost of servicing the debt rockets, the economy stalls and falls, and Obama faces an angry electorate in 2012.

     

    I say go for it if that's what you want. The pain would probably be worth getting rid of the child King.
    28 Jul 2011, 12:37 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Obama's heeeelharryass. It was only a few months ago that he was teleprompting about 'investment' in public schools and roads. Now he's hysterically shrieking about entitlements.

     

    Meanwhile, the rating agencies have already said that unless there is a minimum cut of $4 trillion in the next decade, a downgrade will be inevitable. Right now, we're only at $2 trillion, so the downgrade is coming. Book it.

     

    And that alone will spike rates a minimum of 50 bips which will make all Obama's wonderful 'investments'(or should I say 'borrowings' of the future taxpayer) that much more expensive to service.

     

    The guy in the white house is very close to an emotional white lab coat crack up. There never was any logic here since 2009. His prompter feed writer is a damn twentysomething year old. Meet the 'leader of the free world', some white frat boy reject scribbling boring Hallmark drivel. Its no wonder we are where we are.
    27 Jul 2011, 12:37 AM Reply Like
  • AnchorMan
    , contributor
    Comments (115) | Send Message
     
    obama v. boehner, repub v dems, really, who gives a shit??? how can I maximize profit based on what these idiots are doing is all I'm thinking!

     

    Shorted some oil today going into the close (USO puts) tempted to go long the dollar, (i think a deal gets done before the weekend) and if we get a nice drop over the next few anxious days might be a good time to go long the s&p on friday.
    27 Jul 2011, 01:57 AM Reply Like
  • psmith819
    , contributor
    Comments (535) | Send Message
     
    Hilarious!!! And totally agree!!
    27 Jul 2011, 07:07 AM Reply Like
  • forgetalpha
    , contributor
    Comments (14) | Send Message
     
    Does anyone else think its hilarious that it's Barofsky who made this statement? The man who delegated and managed a very principal and crucial portion of the massive bailout package that is a significant portion of our current deficit?

     

    That aside...if the risk free rate gets downgraded, that means (according to theory) that all other securities that are priced based off of the risk free rate will have to be re-rated. If you don't think that alone will have major reprucussions for global financial markets, which we have seen are increasingly interconnected, and thus more risky...well, then, I dont know what to tell you. But it will be a major credit event.

     

    I hope I'm wrong, but regardless, the clowns in DC will make a deal anyway.
    27 Jul 2011, 01:12 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3416) | Send Message
     
    Why is it hilarious? He was the inspector general meaning he was the "watchdog" for the TARP program. It wasn't his job to "manage" the program. You're confusing functions.
    27 Jul 2011, 01:23 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    If we are more risky then what is everyone else?

     

    I continue to think that we suck less. At least for now.
    27 Jul 2011, 01:35 AM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (557) | Send Message
     
    Reminds me of a quote-"You don't have to be the best, just the least shitty option. Example-We're eating at the Olive Garden tonight."
    27 Jul 2011, 09:34 PM Reply Like
  • billbrad
    , contributor
    Comments (46) | Send Message
     
    I'm pretty sure we don't suck less than some countries and I think it's instructive to pay attention to which ones. This is in response to all you socialist screamers out there. Norway has an unemployjment rate of 2.5.% Denmark is 3.3% Sweden is slightly higher, almost 4%. All have had strong growth rates throughout the the last decade. They chose not to be overly invested in our free-for-all market fraudulent freak show. Have any of you right-wing maniacs noticed that a communist country is kicking our butt? Meanwhile we give power in the country over to the neo John Birch Society (tea party) and obstruct whatever progress might be possible. We're cooked if we continue down this path.
    27 Jul 2011, 02:23 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Geez billbrad, how did you manage to put so many facts and so much truth into one paragraph. BRAVO!!!!

     

    Regrettably, it may be wasted here, but, you might make 'em twitch a little bit. I love it when they twitch.
    27 Jul 2011, 03:46 AM Reply Like