StrangeSox

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 02:43 PM) Ah yes, hindsight. In 2009? You can't pass a stimulus package that Keynesians said wouldn't work and then claim Keynesianism failed to work when the package fails.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 02:38 PM) That's funny, I keep hearing if we just spend more money the economy will recover... I think we were supposed to have 8% unemployment by now, right? That's funny, I've been hearing Keynesian economists complaining that the stimulus wouldn't work since 2009.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 02:34 PM) Especially since we essentially have an "introductory rate" that will be expiring soon. that inflation always seems to be just around the corner...

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 02:32 PM) Aren't really perfect? True. Don't work at all? I disagree. I wasn't going for the perfect analogy, just a simple one. But you guys go right on ignoring the entire risk piece of the investment picture, and the Republicans go right on ignoring the investment reward part. I can't print my own money to pay off my debts, and my credit card won't inject a whole boatload of money into an economy with depressed demand, which could actually increase my revenues and help me pay off my debt.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 02:17 PM) Again, yeah, great time for that, if you have the money. If you have maxed out your credit card, but the rate on getting another credit card is insanely low, and you think you can invest some money smartly... sure, it is tempting. It should be. But do you just entirely dismiss that at some point, if you run up so much debt, the risk is too high? No investment, infrastructure or otherwise, is without risk. You are failing to see that side of it. analogies to personal finance don't really work.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 02:08 PM) Never said that QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 01:37 PM) At some point you gotta say enough is enough. Going through the worst economic recession in 80+ years followed by 2-3 years of absolute horses*** for recovery will do that.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 02:06 PM) How on earth is that talking in circles? My "it's routine" argument is that I don't understand why Wall St would all of the sudden freakout just because the decision for the terms of raising the ceiling is being kicked another 6 months. Has the market been freaking out the last 6 months because of uncertainty? No. But that doesn't mean we don't have a deficit problem that needs to be addressed. They didn't think the GOP would actually turn down the various incredibly favorable deals they've been offered. You're still going in circles because the current brinksmanship is absolutely nothing like any debt ceiling increase before. Cantor's been opposed to revenue increases period. Boehner's refused them as well. Where have you been the last few weeks? They've had months already. Why will this be easier in 6-8 months? Will the 90+ House Republicans disavow their pledge to vote against increase no matter what? It's me-first, f*** the country for Obama to want to avoid this being the focus of American politics for the next year, but not for Republicans to insist that it is?

incredibly low interest rates

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 01:46 PM) He's wrong. The House voted 318 to 97 against a clean debt ceiling bill earlier in the year. (Most of the Democrats voted against it so that the Republicans couldn't use it as a political noose). Right now there's nearly 100 Republicans in the House who have signed a letter saying they wont' vote for a debt ceiling increase under any circumstances, I believe. Enough that Boehner can't pass a bill without substantial Democratic support. That means he'd have to bring the bill up for vote with substantial opposition from his own party, nearly half his caucus. That's a mess. I know, I was saying that had such a bill actually passed through the House, the Senate would have passed it and it'd be signed. I was laughing at the idea that the House GOP has done this twice. But this is just a noble stand against out-of-control spending, not political or ideological fighting at all.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 01:42 PM) ? I seriously don't believe so. I don't think it would get through the House. I'm not sure about the Senate. Jenks thought that the House-controlled GOP already did this twice. I'm fairly certain that the Senate would pass this quickly, but I guess I assumed we were talking about a long-term increase, not a 6-8 month one.

Heard a good chunk of that Saturday. Our laws are seriously broken.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 01:38 PM) Hasn't the GOP done this? Twice? (to the zero for Democrats) But the Senate said no? And why waste all that time/effort if ultimately the President is going to say no, like he did last night? LOL no, a clean increase with no strings would pass easily.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 01:37 PM) At some point you gotta say enough is enough. Going through the worst economic recession in 80+ years followed by 2-3 years of absolute horses*** for recovery will do that. You're talking in circles. Either the debt ceiling increase is routine and non-problematic to do in two stages, or this dragged out fight is noble and necessary because we're in a bad recession that certainly won't be any better in 6-8 months. But, magically, in 6-8 months the GOP will see the light and realize they almost destroyed the US economy. But you must absolutely refuse any revenues increases and insist that the cuts should come heavily from all the programs you've ideologically wanted to cut for decades anyway. Even if the deficit was largely created by your tax and foreign policies and some significant domestic policy spending as well. Nothing political there, nope. Sarcasm aside, you'll need to explain why it'll be any easier to pass an increase once it's become the Presidential campaign issue that Obama wants to avoid in 6-8 months and how this isn't Republicans setting this up as beneficial as possible for themselves, but Democrats insisting on a deal into 2013 is a cold, calculated "me-first, f*** the country" move, despite various ratings agencies and financial people saying a short-term deal is a bad idea.

Hey, I have an idea. How about if Congress just passes a bill to raise the debt ceiling and sends it to the president? That would work, wouldn't it? I wonder why no one's thought of this before?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 01:32 PM) If you want to make the deficit go away completely, just stick to current law. Thanks to the PPACA, if you stick to current law, the budget is fully balanced by 2015. There is only a short term deficit if Congress does things like extending the Bush tax cuts. There's also this.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 01:31 PM) And I think those are both stupid ideas. Burying us in more debt is a horrible idea of the long term, we need to start making dents in the deficit, then the debt, ASAP for many reasons. And even larger tax cuts is equally idiotic. You know what would really help the deficit? Increasing revenues and decreasing outlays on safety net spending by focusing on jobs. It'd be a particularly good time to invest heavily in infrastructure repairs and upgrades, what with incredibly low interest rates. There's not even any private sector spending to crowd out right now, either!

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 01:28 PM) Oh please. If the tables were reversed we'd be in the exact same f***ing position with the Dems. Bush wants to finance his two wars of choice but the deficits out of control. Of course the Dems would have used this as political leverage to reign in "wasteful" spending. Well, surprise, the GOP is smart and is doing the exact same f***ing thing. You just sunk your own argument. As you pointed out, this happened 30+ times before with some posturing but no really big show. The Insane Caucus of the GOP that was elected last fall changed that. Democrats did not do this, and pretending that there's symmetry is just lying to yourself.

Even ss2k5's said now's not the time for large austerity measures. What happens when the extremes both agree?! FWIW I don't see any economists embracing this middle-of-the-road plan. You've either got guys like Krugman calling for a huge stimulus plan instead or conservative economists calling for even larger tax cuts.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 01:24 PM) Really? I swear some days I live on another planet. That read is just dripping with agenda. Obviously so. Who cares if it is right or not. Well, sure, it's an editorial, his agenda is to point out the media's inconsistent usage of phrases like terrorism. Still not sure how analysis of media reporting is exploitation, though. I guess I don't get what you're objecting to.

I think you'll need to explain what's exploitative about that article.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 01:09 PM) Do people really accept this logic? Honestly? It seems like such a complete and total copout to me. I read it as saying "I can't be troubled to learn the logic of either side or both sides, so I'm just going to point at the one that sounds like they're in the middle of the 2 sides" Not only does it leave you open to having your own politics totally shifted because of either side shifting towards their extremes, but IMO, it also leaves you unprepared to evaluate proposals critically. Yeah, it's the whole idea behind the Overton Window and a formal fallacy."

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 01:07 PM) I agree if we were at this point 3 weeks ago. But it's obvious that NO agreement will be made until the last minute, at which point the markets will probably already drop in fear of the possibility of default, even if slight. All indications are that both parties in Congress agreed to the two step plan to avoid that, but Obama said no and Reid quickly followed. He's afraid of this becoming a campaign issue. He's putting his campaign before the country. Let's put it this way, if the two step plan added 6 months to the timeline, don't you think Obama would jump all over it? (yes, he would) And the feasibility of the two stage plan is a crap argument. An extension of less than 5 months has been done like 38 times over the last few decades. It's been done before without a problem. You can accept all of this as true. It still doesn't mean that the Republicans aren't intentionally trying to make this a campaign issue and trying to hurt Obama over this as much as possible. Yeah, duh, Obama's going to try to avoid having this same dumb manufactured problem clog up American politics for the next year. Why are Republicans putting the GOP presidential campaign ahead of the country?!!?!?!!?!?!11 The feasibility isn't a crap argument because these extensions are generally routine, not opportunities for one party to force a complete reworking of domestic fiscal policy, but this is exactly what it's become. This includes several GOP Presidential candidates, 90 House members and right-wing pundits all saying we shouldn't raise the debt ceiling period. It's like you've completely ignored that we're slightly more than a week away from starting to fail to meet debt obligations. Why on earth would you assume this will be any easier once it becomes a "campaign issue?" "I'm not disagreeing that the GOP hasn't acted like a bunch of giant idiots and said "NO!" to every incredibly favorable plan they've been presented with, but they've held out for so long we've just got to give them exactly what they want!"

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 12:45 PM) So, NSS, tell me how Obama getting out of the way is a bad thing. As of today, Congress is in agreement for a short term increase (with matching cuts) with the promise to form a bipartisan committee to decide how to obtain 3-4 trillion in cuts within the next 5-6 months. Obama said no. Why? Because he doesn't want this to become an election issue. So, even the moronic Democrats in the Senate understand how important this issue is, but Obama is making it about politics and campaign issues. It's really easy to turn that around and say the Republicans are making this an election issue by refusing to reach any agreement whatsoever with Obama, no matter how heavily it leans in their favor, because it will be seen as a political win for him. There's also no reason they couldn't accept the all-cuts Reid plan unless they want this to be a political issue for Obama and Democrats in general by insisting on bipartisan cuts to Medicare. Moronic House Republicans, don't you understand how important this is?!!! Comments from the financial sector on the feasibility of Boehner's two-stage plan:

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 12:20 PM) I'm not even getting into that clusterf*** again. I know you and Balta went back and forth on it, but in the context of "balancing the budget" or "federal budget deficits" it's an important distinction to make.

Norwegian reactions via Sullivan Greenwald has a meltdown over the media's use of the word "terrorism" and how Al Qaeda is still at fault, even when the act was carried out by an anti-Islam extremist. Also doesn't appear that this guy was "crazy" in the same way that Loughner was. His writings are coherent and make sense if you accept his premises. That's very different from the schizophrenic writings of Loughner.