US debt default

[Guard Dog]

 

Just to point out, almost the entire 8 years of Clinton's Presidency he had to deal with a congress where both houses were controlled by the other party. I keep telling you guys, we are the best off when the white house and congress are controlled by different parties. When democrats held all the cards they went hog wild, spent a ton of money and gave us Obamacare. When the republicans held all the cards they went hog wild, spent a ton of money and gave us the Patriot Act. when one party is running the show it's a BAD thing!

 

GD wouldn't another solution be to arrest every politician for sedition that is associated with the Tea Party? Then there would be less political conflict? Problem solved...  

 

 

Yeah what the hell. If there is going to be an armed insurrection let's go ahead and get on with it! 

[Meshugger]

Any bets on Obama invoking section 4 in the 14th amendment? 

 

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

 

It would be....interesting.

Edited October 16, 2013 by Meshugger

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I would say that Governments can somewhat influence economic situations, but not really enough to make up for private activities one way or the other. It would seem the best thing for the US to do at this time would be to peruse stimulus policies and save the austerity for an expansion, but I'm a bat**** Keynesian.

 

Oh and I personally think the idea of a debt ceiling is stupid. It would be better to determine how much you were going to borrow in a budget, but I don't see that getting passed until DC chills the **** out.

[Walsingham]

Just to point out, almost the entire 8 years of Clinton's Presidency he had to deal with a congress where both houses were controlled by the other party. I keep telling you guys, we are the best off when the white house and congress are controlled by different parties. When democrats held all the cards they went hog wild, spent a ton of money and gave us Obamacare. When the republicans held all the cards they went hog wild, spent a ton of money and gave us the Patriot Act. when one party is running the show it's a BAD thing!

 

Purely as a counter-argument I would say that Clinton sidestepped every macro-issue facing America: Islamic extremism, securing energy supplies, healthcare costs, environmental protection, reorienting the US military...

 

A paralysed government can't spend your money, but it also can't protect it.

[Enoch]

The only thing I think they should have insisted on is a provision that forces Congress and it's staff to participate in it without subsidy. After all if it's so ****ing great why did they exempt themselves from it. Where's my exemption?

 

This talking point is so unbearably stupid. 

 

Here's the history:  When PPACA (that's the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, popularly known as 'Obamacare') was under consideration, Sen. Vitter introduced an amendment that would force members of Congress, their staff, and political appointees in the executive branch to participate in the state-run exchanges that the bill would set up.  This was an act of pure trolling, designed simply to force Democrats into an uncomfortable vote.  (Or, well, a vote that would be easy to misconstrue in political ads as "exempting themselves from Obamacare.")  Unexpectedly, though, the amendment was adopted.

 

This created a bit of a paradox.  The exchanges were designed so that people who couldn't buy health insurance through their employers would have an option outside of the (hideously expensive) individual marketplace.  The exchanges don't have anything to do with folks who already buy insurance through their employer.  Congresscritters, Hill staffers, and executive appointees, of course, have an employer who provides health insurance coverage.  The Vitter amendment, metaphorically speaking, mandated that fish buy bicycles.  The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) administers federal employee benefits and was charged with figuring out a way to make this work.  That solution was to observe the new legal requirement that the affected employees buy their policies from the appropriate state-run exchange, but to extend to these employees a premium subsidy in the amount that other federal employees enjoy. 

 

The "Full Vitter" demands by some in the GOP right now would undo this OPM decision and strip all employer subsidies for health insurance premiums for affected employees.  Again: pure trolling.  No legitimate policy goal is furthered by it.  Indeed, it is pointlessly cruel to Hill staffers, who are essentially being told that they don't deserve to be treated like professional employees are elsewhere in the public and private sector.  But, none of that really matters, politically, because it doesn't make nearly as good a bumper sticker as "They exempted themselves from Obamacare," the total intellectual dishonesty of that statement notwithstanding.

 

 

(Also, in case you were wondering, no, I would not be personally affected.) 

Edited October 16, 2013 by Enoch

[BruceVC]

 

The only thing I think they should have insisted on is a provision that forces Congress and it's staff to participate in it without subsidy. After all if it's so ****ing great why did they exempt themselves from it. Where's my exemption?

 

This talking point is so unbearably stupid. 

 

Here's the history:  When PPACA (that's the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, popularly known as 'Obamacare') was under consideration, Sen. Vitter introduced an amendment that would force members of Congress, their staff, and political appointees in the executive branch to participate in the state-run exchanges that the bill would set up.  This was an act of pure trolling, designed simply to force Democrats into an uncomfortable vote.  (Or, well, a vote that would be easy to misconstrue in political ads as "exempting themselves from Obamacare.")  Unexpectedly, though, the amendment was adopted.

 

This created a bit of a paradox.  The exchanges were designed so that people who couldn't buy health insurance through their employers would have an option outside of the (hideously expensive) individual marketplace.  The exchanges don't have anything to do with folks who already buy insurance through their employer.  Congresscritters, Hill staffers, and executive appointees, of course, have an employer who provides health insurance coverage.  The Vitter amendment, metaphorically speaking, mandated that fish buy bicycles.  The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) administers federal employee benefits and was charged with figuring out a way to make this work.  That solution was to observe the new legal requirement that the affected employees buy their policies from the appropriate state-run exchange, but to extend to these employees a premium subsidy in the amount that other federal employees enjoy. 

 

The "Full Vitter" demands by some in the GOP right now would undo this OPM decision and strip all employer subsidies for health insurance premiums for affected employees.  Again: pure trolling.  No legitimate policy goal is furthered by it.  Indeed, it is pointlessly cruel to Hill staffers, who are essentially being told that they don't deserve to be treated like professional employees are elsewhere in the public and private sector.  But, none of that really matters, politically, because it doesn't make nearly as good a bumper sticker as "They exempted themselves from Obamacare," the total intellectual dishonesty of that statement notwithstanding.

 

 

(Also, in case you were wondering, no, I would not be personally affected.) 

 

 

Enoch what you saying  makes sense but if you could say it in plain English it would make even more sense

[BruceVC]

Okay a deal has been reached  

 

I am watching several Republicans making there various concession speeches around accepting Obamacare.

Good news, well USA !!!!

[kgambit]

Okay a deal has been reached  

 

I am watching several Republicans making there various concession speeches around accepting Obamacare.

Good news, well USA !!!!

 

Are you sure Bruce?  I know CNN just announced that the Senate had agreed on a deal but it also said it wasn't clear how the House would react.

 

I hope you're right though because this bovine scatology has gone on way too long.  

[Guard Dog]

Jeez Enoch. It's gotten to the point a guy can't even engage in a little internet hyperbole without some one coming in ans screwing it all up with facts. 

[Guard Dog]

Like I said before guys, this whole thing was just political theater. There was never any serious threat of a collapse or default here. Just a giant monkey feces throwing fight.

[BruceVC]

Jeez Enoch. It's gotten to the point a guy can't even engage in a little internet hyperbole without some one coming in ans screwing it all up with facts. 

 

[BruceVC]

Guys for those interested the News Room on CNN is discussing this right now. Its always interesting as its got highly intelligent and articulate people hosting it like Wolf Blitzer and Newt Gingrich

[Wrath of Dagon]

The growth of government spending during his first term has been the slowest since before 1982.

Yeah, as Kgambit pointed out, this is total bull, done by comparing the year of the financial crisis (2008) which included TARP and everything else to the more normal spending patterns of later years. The actual slow down in the rate of growth in the last couple of years is attributable solely to the sequester, the first real cuts in decades, that the Democrats love so much. 

 

Here's the history:  When PPACA (that's the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, popularly known as 'Obamacare') was under consideration, Sen. Vitter introduced an amendment that would force members of Congress,

I thought the Vitter amendment was to the current CR, and the original one was by Grassly, but I may be confused here. Also there is a legal question, the ACA did not authorize a subsidy for the premiums, Obama implemented that by executive order.

[Gorth]

 

The growth of government spending during his first term has been the slowest since before 1982.

Yeah, as Kgambit pointed out, this is total bull, done by comparing the year of the financial crisis (2008) which included TARP and everything else to the more normal spending patterns of later years. The actual slow down in the rate of growth in the last couple of years is attributable solely to the sequester, the first real cuts in decades, that the Democrats love so much.

 

For those curious about how the GFC impacted the "debt ceiling"

 

 

It's impact wasn't exactly trivial. As for the latest budget skirmish:

 

Meanwhile...

 

"Meanwhile, ratings firm Standard & Poor's said on Wednesday that the partial US government shutdown, the first in 17 years, had already shaved $24bn from the American economy and would cut growth significantly in the fourth quarter."

 

Remember to say thanks to the people masterminding this standoff.

[Hiro Protagonist]

 

I want to see it hit 20 trillion. Come on USA, I know you can do it.  

[Walsingham]

I feel that 'masterminding' might be an inappropriate term, Gortho.

 

Like when the press describe some dust covered halfwit of being a terrorist mastermind for saying "You know how we've been killing people? How about we kill MORE people? Eh? Eh?"

[Gorth]

"You know how we've been killing people? How about we kill MORE people? Eh? Eh?"

"Eh?"... So, you're implying that's a Canadian terrorist mastermind?

 

Maybe I should have used quotation marks to indicate sarcasm. I didn't intend to attribute anything positive to the people involved. They happily play a game of 'Chicken' with other peoples lives and livelyhoods at stake, not unlike the same way corporate fat cats gambled away other peoples money in the constant hunt for excessive bonuses (at least up until the GFC exposed some of the dirt that had been going on for a while).

 

All for a bit of territorial pissing and personal glorification?

[Walsingham]

The thing is that US politics is high stakes, isn't it?

 

Much like high stakes poker the winners play the game, not for the love of it, but to win. The system is designed and has evolved to reward venal self-service. So that's what it has produced.

 

I'm not a high minded revolutionary. I don't appeal to higher instincts. I just think that having a stronger Party system in Congress, capable of over-riding lunatic fringes, would prevent this kind of thing.

 

On the other hand, as I'm sure GD would point out, a strong Party system is what has given us in the UK um... my mind's gone blank. Something awful.

[BruceVC]

I love the way the anti-American doom and gloom soothsayers have predicted that this political wrangling  around the debt ceiling shows how the American economic hegemony is at an end and the world needs to start looking at other markets to lead us financially

 

The latest GDP figures shows that the American GDP is almost  same as the total of the next 3 countries for the last year. Those other  countries are China, Japan and Germany. This is just one point that shows the recovery and strength of the USA economy.

 

http://allzinfo.com/top-10-countries-with-highest-gdp-in-2013/

 

 

American will continue to be the most influential  and powerful economic power in the world for a long time and this is something as Westerners that we should celebrate

[Guard Dog]

Well not to cast a shadow on your optimism Bruce but there still is a bear in the woods called deficit spending. Nothing in the last 24 hours has changed the problems in our governments economic behavior. 

[BruceVC]

Well not to cast a shadow on your optimism Bruce but there still is a bear in the woods called deficit spending. Nothing in the last 24 hours has changed the problems in our governments economic behavior. 

 

But GD would you acknowledge that the USA economy is showing signs of recovery? You have to admit eventually that Obama and his policies are not all bad

[kgambit]

 

Well not to cast a shadow on your optimism Bruce but there still is a bear in the woods called deficit spending. Nothing in the last 24 hours has changed the problems in our governments economic behavior. 

 

But GD would you acknowledge that the USA economy is showing signs of recovery?

 

 

Considering how bad things were?  Yes, things are better, but this economic recovery is sluggish at best.  This is the slowest job market recovery since WW2. 

 

 

Good news:

Interest rates are still low

Job growth is positive

Unemployment rate has been consistently dropping (now at ~7.3%)

US external debt per capita (50k$ per person) is only 23rd in the world behind such countries as UK, Germany, France, Australia, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark,

http://mecometer.com/topic/external-debt-per-capita/

Housing market is heating up

 

Bad news:

Housing market may be headed to another bubble.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/business/housing-market-is-heating-up-if-not-yet-bubbling.html?_r=0

Job growth  is simply treading water not actually expanding - new jobs added are barely sufficient to match population growth 

Job market is still 1.9 million jobs short of the high in January 2008 and 8.3 million jobs short of what the economy could support

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/august-jobs-report-unemployment-rate_n_3879325.html

 

GDP is entirely too service industry based; manufacturing job losses have not been recovered

"Real" Unemployment is 14.3%, according to Forbes columnist Dan Diamond

Debt ceiling continues to increase in real terms

Deficiti spending is at record highs

GDP growth rate is (and has been) consistently below average at less then 2% average during Obama's term of office

 

Edited October 17, 2013 by kgambit

[Hurlshort]

The US Economy has been recovering quite well.  That is happening in spite of a ridiculous government.

[Keyrock]

The US Economy has been recovering quite well.  That is happening in spite of a ridiculous government.

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say "quite well", but I agree that the economy has been getting better.  Anyone that thought in 2008 that is would be something that could get fixed in 2 or 3 years then we'd be in the clear and back to the way it was before was living in a fantasy world.  This is going to take over a decade, maybe multiple decades.  Then we'll be living well for a little while while the bigwigs cook the books and cover up the money they've lost year after year while they collect multi-million dollar bonuses, until the books can't be cooked any longer, the bottom falls out, and we do this all over again.  Hopefully I'll be a corpse by then.

[Enoch]

Well, I'm back at work.  Going through the board emoticon menu, the best expression of my mixed feelings on that point is this one: