The Tea Party is back in business! (1 Viewer)

[jon_mx]

Both Obama and Bush were big spenders. HTH.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You still owe me an account of the $10 trillion in new Obama spending added to the budget. You have had three years or so to put the list together. Have it ready?

Sure. Here's the number for the 2009 federal budget. We were slated to spend 3107 in 2009, 3,091 in 2010, 3,171 in 2011, 3,222 in 2012, and 3,399 in 2013. A total of 15,990.

Under Obama's "New Era of Fiscal Responsibility" we were slated to spend 3938 in 2009, 3552 in 10', 3625 in 11', 3662 in 12', and 3856 in 13'. A total of 18,633.

So we've got about 3 trillion there in just a few years. Then we can toss Obamacare on here. Since you like taxes so much, we'll go ahead and add in the money he pissed away by extending the Bush tax cuts for all. Then we'll go ahead and add in the money that he pissed away extending it for most, permanently.

10 trillion is probably generous...what's even scarier is knowing that he did this with the Republicans obstructing him the entire time. We can only imagine how much he really wanted to add to the debt.

That should have been $1.7 trillion, not $10 trillion - my bad.No. You said "additional outlays" meaning new spending (because you rejected tax expenditures or taxes in general). In fact you rejected how I turned the increases in spending from that first spending authorization bill (the one with earmarks) and the one the second year into roughly a trillion dollars over ten years. Also the tax cuts were not in place "permanently" during this discussion. I agree that these tax cuts should have expired across the board and that they will do damage, but they don't count. So want to show the $1.7 trillion in new spending from August 2010?

But ultimately the problem is that you see the year over year increases in spending as meaning new or additional spending. That is not the case. It is just more bills coming due - especially among the aging demographics. (i.e. those that changed from liberal to conservative because they turned 30 (or whatever age you want) a long time ago.)

Cool, I didn't know what you were referring to with this number. Coming up with the 1.7 trillion here is pretty easy.

2010 "New Era Of Responsibility" Budget - http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2010-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-2010-BUD-28.pdf

42.29 trillion from 2010 through 2019.

2011 budget that would have been out at the time I made that statement: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2011-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-2011-BUD-28.pdf

43.81 trillion from 2010 through 2019.

So I guess it was only 1.52 trillion. Not quite 1.7 trillion. Darn, I was off by 10%.

As a blow by blow breakdown:

2010: 3552 vs 3721 (169B higher)

2011: 3625 vs 3834 (209B higher)

2012: 3662 vs 3755 (93B higher)

2013: 3856 vs 3915 (59B higher)

2014: 4069 vs 4161 (92B higher)

2015: 4258 vs 4356 (98B higher)

2016: 4493 vs 4665 (172B higher)

2017: 4678 vs 4872 (194B higher)

2018: 4868 vs 5084 (216B higher)

2019: 5158 vs 5415 (257B higher)

These differences are trending particularly poorly at the end here...

Numbers look accurate to me. Not sure where you're taking exception to this still, 3 years later.

The point is that you threw numbers around three years ago to make points with little to no knowledge of what those numbers represented, you still don't know even though it was explained in detail. Now it is just $80 billion a month in cuts this time around. Easy! No difference! The same kind of understanding that drives these budget starting to be constant showdowns.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

In response to Dr. J vs. Bottomfeeder Sports, I believe that the claim that Obama is a big spender really isn't rooted in reality. As BFS points out, much of the spending, having to do with entitlements, is beyond his control. Of the major items during his Presidency: the stimulus package was, according to most economists, a necessary tool for revitalizing the economy. In many cases, such as GM, it has actually produced revenue for the government. Obamacare may end up costing us a lot of money but it hasn't done so yet, and the CBO estimates are that it will actually save money (this remains to be seen.) Personally, I believe that since we already spend an astounding 17% of our GDP on health care, Obamacare will probably end up being somewhat of a wash.

Other than those two items, what else is there? He's prolonged the Afghanistan War which he did not start, but now it's winding down. Iraq is over. He agreed to the sequester cuts, which may have reduced spending (though I doubt it.) And he raised taxes this last January, which has led to a significant shrinkage in the deficit for the first time in 10 years.

Compare this record to Bush's record of two wars, tax cuts, Medicare Plan B, and TARP. That is not to say that I necessarily approve of everything Obama spent money on, or that I necessarily disapprove of everything Bush spent money on. But to believe, as most conservatives seemingly do, that Obama is the one responsible for our debt problems is to deny reality.

That very first appropriations bill (the one that was controversial because it had the earmarks in it increased spending for various departments an average of 10% or $40 billion. If you just times ten that number you get $400 billion, but of course you can't just times ten that )in fact year 2 this went up again) so (absent stuff that happened since) that would be close to a trillion added over a decade. You have to charge this to Obama and the democrats for this spending to "reorder priorities", though with the sequester, Obama's budget to freeze these departments, etc. it is tough to measure this accurately now. (An exercise I don't have time for.) But this didn't count!

 

[Don Quixote]

Latest from Costa...

House Conservatives Revolt

By Robert Costa
October 15, 2013 8:51 AM

[SIZE=1em]In a few minutes, House Republicans will meet in the Capitol’s basement. The chief topic of conversation: the emerging Senate deal. But before the meeting even begins, House conservatives are bashing it behind the scenes, and they’re pushing the leadership to reject the compromise. A flurry of phone calls and meetings last night and early this morning led the consensus among the approximately [/SIZE][SIZE=1em]50 Republicans who form the House GOP’s right flank. They’re furious with Senate Republicans for working with Democrats to craft what one leading Tea Party congressman calls a “mushy piece of s—t.” Another House conservative warns, “If Boehner backs this, as is, he’s in trouble.”[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1em]But that’s unlikely to happen. As of 8:30[/SIZE][SIZE=1em] a.m.[/SIZE][SIZE=1em], House conservatives believe the leadership is well aware of their unhappiness, and they expect Boehner to talk up the House’s next move: another volley to the Senate, which would extend the debt ceiling, reopen the government, and set up a budget conference, plus request conservative demands that go beyond the Senate’s outline.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=1em]“What they’ll come up with in the Senate will not get the support of most House Republicans,” predicts a House conservative strategist. “And thus, after a lot of hand-wringing, it’ll be DOA. Just like with BCA in 2011, the most important question is, what can pass the House? Everything else is subordinate to that. So, while the Senate is taking the lead right now, I expect the focus will soon shift back to the House, and back to the idea of doing a 6-week extension of the debt ceiling. While Obama and Reid won’t like it, they don’t want to go past Oct. 17, either. The politics of the debt ceiling are different from the shutdown. And so, we feel they’ll reluctantly accept it as a stopgap measure.”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=1em]“How can folks be satisfied with income verification being put into place?” asks a top House conservative aide. “That was already law of the land, and the administration just chose to delay it. Just another thing that I think McConnell can be dinged on. I just don’t see how there can be widespread support for this in the conference in the House, and I am amazed at how much bad blood has developed between House and Senate Republicans the past few days.”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=1em]Senate conservatives, for their part, are also skeptical, and at least a handful of them are planning to complain to Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell this morning when Senate Republicans meet. Senators Lee, Cruz, and their allies aren’t expected to back it. “Things are still fluid,” explains a Senate Republican aide. “The initial buzz wasn’t great. It was seen as a really small step forward, like a free Coke and pack of crackers. Nice, but nothing to write home about.”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=1em]“The larger problem, particularly as we go forward for House members, is a free Coke and crackers aren’t going to cut it with Cruz, Heritage, FreedomWorks, and the Senate Conservatives Fund,” the aide adds. “They have been selling the idea they know the winning Powerball numbers and we are about to hit the jackpot. Expectations of what is achievable and what we can get out of this remain way out of whack…. Keep in mind the activists are still calling offices pushing for the full defund of Obamacare. The message has not been relayed to the grassroots that the defund option isn’t going to happen no matter how long we hold our breath or how much we wish it would happen.”[/SIZE]

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

If The house doesnt bring this to a vote, they just really don't care about anything but elections and a twisted agenda.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

If The house doesnt bring this to a vote, they just really don't care about anything but elections and a twisted agenda.

All these a-holes on both sides only care about elections and their own personal agendas.

 

[jon_mx]

If The house doesnt bring this to a vote, they just really don't care about anything but elections and a twisted agenda.

All these a-holes on both sides only care about elections and their own personal agendas.

There were no winners in this. This process has made the most people just more disgusted with Washington. All that come out of this were losers and bigger losers.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

Tim what is your daily schedule like if I may ask? How do you find time to make 150 posts per day, listen to all this conservative talk radio, and keep up with all the tea party groups?

I don't really post 150 a day. I wish I did...

Shocking

 

[The Commish]

If The house doesnt bring this to a vote, they just really don't care about anything but elections and a twisted agenda.

All these a-holes on both sides only care about elections and their own personal agendas.

There were no winners in this. This process has made the most people just more disgusted with Washington. All that come out of this were losers and bigger losers.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing though. I'd suggest it's necessary if the goal is to get a viable third party. The more light they shine on themselves, the better IMO. Might be painful right now, but it's necessary. However, it relies on the general public being sensible at the voting booths.

 

[Redwes25]

Tim what is your daily schedule like if I may ask? How do you find time to make 150 posts per day, listen to all this conservative talk radio, and keep up with all the tea party groups?

He is in "commercial real estate". Which I think translates to living on his Mom's couch and posting all day.

 

[glock]

Has this- House Rule XXII, Clause 4, and the change made to it by the GOP been discussed? because I can't find it up in here...??

Was discussed just a little bit.

Repubes are by and large trying to ignore it.

It lets you know exactly who forced this shutdown. The GOP.

And who is keeping it shutdown.

All of those vets tearing barricades down in DC and piling them in front of the White House need to know that the whack jobs- Cruz and Palin- who were egging them on are responsible for the National Parks and memorials being closed.

Anyone who hadn't watched that video needs to.

You guys keep saying this but it isn't true. Obama was willing to negotiate and make deals with his political cronies and big business, but won't for the American people. So much for the left fighting for the common man. You guys are full of so much hypocrisy it oozes from your the pores of your skin.

You didn't watch the video, did you?

 

[Sammy3469]

If The house doesnt bring this to a vote, they just really don't care about anything but elections and a twisted agenda.

All these a-holes on both sides only care about elections and their own personal agendas.

There were no winners in this. This process has made the most people just more disgusted with Washington. All that come out of this were losers and bigger losers.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing though. I'd suggest it's necessary if the goal is to get a viable third party. The more light they shine on themselves, the better IMO. Might be painful right now, but it's necessary. However, it relies on the general public being sensible at the voting booths.

The thing more insane than what the Tea-Party is doing, is the belief that there will ever be a viable third-party.

 

[Slapdash]

You still owe me an account of the $10 trillion in new Obama spending added to the budget. You have had three years or so to put the list together. Have it ready?

Sure. Here's the number for the 2009 federal budget. We were slated to spend 3107 in 2009, 3,091 in 2010, 3,171 in 2011, 3,222 in 2012, and 3,399 in 2013. A total of 15,990.

Under Obama's "New Era of Fiscal Responsibility" we were slated to spend 3938 in 2009, 3552 in 10', 3625 in 11', 3662 in 12', and 3856 in 13'. A total of 18,633.

So we've got about 3 trillion there in just a few years. Then we can toss Obamacare on here. Since you like taxes so much, we'll go ahead and add in the money he pissed away by extending the Bush tax cuts for all. Then we'll go ahead and add in the money that he pissed away extending it for most, permanently.

10 trillion is probably generous...what's even scarier is knowing that he did this with the Republicans obstructing him the entire time. We can only imagine how much he really wanted to add to the debt.

That should have been $1.7 trillion, not $10 trillion - my bad.No. You said "additional outlays" meaning new spending (because you rejected tax expenditures or taxes in general). In fact you rejected how I turned the increases in spending from that first spending authorization bill (the one with earmarks) and the one the second year into roughly a trillion dollars over ten years. Also the tax cuts were not in place "permanently" during this discussion. I agree that these tax cuts should have expired across the board and that they will do damage, but they don't count. So want to show the $1.7 trillion in new spending from August 2010?

But ultimately the problem is that you see the year over year increases in spending as meaning new or additional spending. That is not the case. It is just more bills coming due - especially among the aging demographics. (i.e. those that changed from liberal to conservative because they turned 30 (or whatever age you want) a long time ago.)

Cool, I didn't know what you were referring to with this number. Coming up with the 1.7 trillion here is pretty easy.

2010 "New Era Of Responsibility" Budget - http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2010-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-2010-BUD-28.pdf

42.29 trillion from 2010 through 2019.

2011 budget that would have been out at the time I made that statement: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2011-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-2011-BUD-28.pdf

43.81 trillion from 2010 through 2019.

So I guess it was only 1.52 trillion. Not quite 1.7 trillion. Darn, I was off by 10%.

As a blow by blow breakdown:

2010: 3552 vs 3721 (169B higher)

2011: 3625 vs 3834 (209B higher)

2012: 3662 vs 3755 (93B higher)

2013: 3856 vs 3915 (59B higher)

2014: 4069 vs 4161 (92B higher)

2015: 4258 vs 4356 (98B higher)

2016: 4493 vs 4665 (172B higher)

2017: 4678 vs 4872 (194B higher)

2018: 4868 vs 5084 (216B higher)

2019: 5158 vs 5415 (257B higher)

These differences are trending particularly poorly at the end here...

Numbers look accurate to me. Not sure where you're taking exception to this still, 3 years later.

The point is that you threw numbers around three years ago to make points with little to no knowledge of what those numbers represented, you still don't know even though it was explained in detail. Now it is just $80 billion a month in cuts this time around. Easy! No difference! The same kind of understanding that drives these budget starting to be constant showdowns.

Bad talking points never die.

 

[jon_mx]

If The house doesnt bring this to a vote, they just really don't care about anything but elections and a twisted agenda.

All these a-holes on both sides only care about elections and their own personal agendas.

There were no winners in this. This process has made the most people just more disgusted with Washington. All that come out of this were losers and bigger losers.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing though. I'd suggest it's necessary if the goal is to get a viable third party. The more light they shine on themselves, the better IMO. Might be painful right now, but it's necessary. However, it relies on the general public being sensible at the voting booths.

The thing more insane than what the Tea-Party is doing, is the belief that there will ever be a viable third-party.

Actually, there is a huge opening for a third-party. Just need someone like a Ross Perot again. He could have easily won the Presidency if he did not kook out as he did and he could have opened the door for many independant candidates. A mildly fiscally conservative candidate with neutral views on social issues could easily unit much of the frustrated population.

 

[The Commish]

This isn't necessarily a bad thing though. I'd suggest it's necessary if the goal is to get a viable third party. The more light they shine on themselves, the better IMO. Might be painful right now, but it's necessary. However, it relies on the general public being sensible at the voting booths.

The thing more insane than what the Tea-Party is doing, is the belief that there will ever be a viable third-party.

Thanks for the point illustration, but it wasn't necessary.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Republicans counter offer includes congress having to use Obamacare? Will be interesting to see if the Democrats are willing to sign up for this turd they are forcing the rest of the country to use.

 

[spreagle]

Everyone is so sure deal will be done that everyone and their grandma is now all-in the stock market with lots of big players using borrowed money, Dow will tank 1000+ if deal is delayed a few days. Maybe that would be a good thing, maybe a few big noses need to get bloodied to start taking the debt seriously.

 

[timschochet]

Third parties are a horrible idea. They are almost always extremist. There is nothing positive to be gained by the emergence of a third party, IMO.

What is needed instead is for moderates and thoughtful centrists in the Republican party to regain control,. David Frum made this very clear this morning in a striking opinion piece:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/14/opinion/frum-tea-party-third-party/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

Right now, tea party extremism contaminates the whole Republican brand. It's a very interesting question whether a tea party bolt from the GOP might not just liberate the party to slide back to the political center -- and liberate Republicans from identification with the Sarah Palins and the Ted Cruzes who have done so much harm to their hopes over the past three election cycles.

It's worth repeating over and over again. Add Todd Akin in Missouri and Richard Mourdock in Indiana, Sharron Angle in Nevada and Ken Buck in Colorado, Christine O'Donnell in Delaware and Joe Miller in Alaska -- and you have half a dozen Senate races lost to the GOP by extremist nominations.

Maybe the right answer to the threat, "Shut down the government or we quit" is: "So sad you feel that way. Don't let the door hit you on the way out."

 

[jonessed]

In response to Dr. J vs. Bottomfeeder Sports, I believe that the claim that Obama is a big spender really isn't rooted in reality. As BFS points out, much of the spending, having to do with entitlements, is beyond his control. Of the major items during his Presidency: the stimulus package was, according to most economists, a necessary tool for revitalizing the economy. In many cases, such as GM, it has actually produced revenue for the government. Obamacare may end up costing us a lot of money but it hasn't done so yet, and the CBO estimates are that it will actually save money (this remains to be seen.) Personally, I believe that since we already spend an astounding 17% of our GDP on health care, Obamacare will probably end up being somewhat of a wash.

Other than those two items, what else is there? He's prolonged the Afghanistan War which he did not start, but now it's winding down. Iraq is over. He agreed to the sequester cuts, which may have reduced spending (though I doubt it.) And he raised taxes this last January, which has led to a significant shrinkage in the deficit for the first time in 10 years.

Compare this record to Bush's record of two wars, tax cuts, Medicare Plan B, and TARP. That is not to say that I necessarily approve of everything Obama spent money on, or that I necessarily disapprove of everything Bush spent money on. But to believe, as most conservatives seemingly do, that Obama is the one responsible for our debt problems is to deny reality.

TARP saved GM, not the stimulus.

 

[timschochet]

Everyone is so sure deal will be done that everyone and their grandma is now all-in the stock market with lots of big players using borrowed money, Dow will tank 1000+ if deal is delayed a few days. Maybe that would be a good thing, maybe a few big noses need to get bloodied to start taking the debt seriously.

Classless stupidity here.

 

[3C's]

Republicans counter offer includes congress having to use Obamacare? Will be interesting to see if the Democrats are willing to sign up for this turd they are forcing the rest of the country to use.

Hopefully the D's take them up on it. If it's as bad as they and you claim it will be it will serve them right for this whole dog and pony show they have going on here.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

House Republicans are introducing their own bill that will apparently include language that eliminates subsidies in Obamacare. In other words, that guts Obamacare. In other words, that continues to insist that Obama give away a signature piece of legislation to get Congress to open the government and pay our debts.

If true, it's like Boehner looked out his window at the Capitol a couple weeks ago, saw that guy on the Mall douse himself with gasoline and light himself on fire and thought, 'that is a great idea!'

 

[jon_mx]

Both Obama Reagan Obama and Bush were big spenders. HTH.

ftfy

Lots of stuff in there which hides the enormous spending under Obama. First there was a huge one-time spike in spending due to TARP which distorted the budget increasing the budget baseline hiding much of the increase under Obama. Also you need to look at the deficit and just not the spending side. Many things like the massive tax credits which were handed out like candy to the poor from the stimulus, were not counted as spending but as a tax cut, eventhough they were just free money give aways. There is a reason both Democrats and Republicans view Obama as a big spender, because he is. Cherry-picking statistics does not change that.

 

[Sammy3469]

House Republicans are introducing their own bill that will apparently include language that eliminates subsidies in Obamacare. In other words, that guts Obamacare. In other words, that continues to insist that Obama give away a signature piece of legislation to get Congress to open the government and pay our debts.

If true, it's like Boehner looked out his window at the Capitol a couple weeks ago, saw that guy on the Mall douse himself with gasoline and light himself on fire and thought, 'that is a great idea!'

 

[timschochet]

House Republicans are introducing their own bill that will apparently include language that eliminates subsidies in Obamacare. In other words, that guts Obamacare. In other words, that continues to insist that Obama give away a signature piece of legislation to get Congress to open the government and pay our debts.

If true, it's like Boehner looked out his window at the Capitol a couple weeks ago, saw that guy on the Mall douse himself with gasoline and light himself on fire and thought, 'that is a great idea!'

Isn't this ultimately meaningless though? (The House introducing a bill I mean.) The main question is what will the House do with the Senate bill when it arrives tomorrow, as expected. (Assuming that guys like Cruz don't start their shenanigans to delay it.) That will be the telling moment.

If the House of Representatives refuses to accept the Senate compromise and we pass the deadline and the market reacts, that will be the deathblow to the GOP for the next decade or so. Unfortunately, they may take the rest of us along with them.

 

[shader]

Everyone is so sure deal will be done that everyone and their grandma is now all-in the stock market with lots of big players using borrowed money, Dow will tank 1000+ if deal is delayed a few days. Maybe that would be a good thing, maybe a few big noses need to get bloodied to start taking the debt seriously.

Classless stupidity here.

The Dow dropping 1000 points would not be the end of the world, Tim. It would be pretty meaningless overall.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

The thing about these concessions is that none of them is actually a concession -- for either party. Democrats have been begging for a budget conference for six months, and in recent weeks, Republicans began begging for one too. The reinsurance fee doesn't matter much to Obamacare and organized labor has been begging Democrats to get rid of it. The income verification is already in Obamacare, but the Obama administration was lagging on it."Democrats won’t say it too loudly just yet, but the emerging budget agreement leaves Republicans with remarkably little to show for forcing the first government shutdown in 17 years," writes Politico's Carrie Budoff Brown. "They barely nicked Obamacare and their poll numbers are in tank."

There's a reason for that, though: Republicans never had the leverage necessary to get a better deal. In 2011, they did have leverage. They had won the last election. Both sides agreed they had a mandate for spending cuts. The mistake Republicans made was thinking that what worked from them in 2011 was simply the hostage taking. What worked for them in 2011 was winning in 2010. What made 2013 impossible was that they'd lost in 2012.

 

[timschochet]

Everyone is so sure deal will be done that everyone and their grandma is now all-in the stock market with lots of big players using borrowed money, Dow will tank 1000+ if deal is delayed a few days. Maybe that would be a good thing, maybe a few big noses need to get bloodied to start taking the debt seriously.

Classless stupidity here.

The Dow dropping 1000 points would not be the end of the world, Tim. It would be pretty meaningless overall.

Try telling this to people who are depending on their 401ks.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Everyone is so sure deal will be done that everyone and their grandma is now all-in the stock market with lots of big players using borrowed money, Dow will tank 1000+ if deal is delayed a few days. Maybe that would be a good thing, maybe a few big noses need to get bloodied to start taking the debt seriously.

Classless stupidity here.

The Dow dropping 1000 points would not be the end of the world, Tim. It would be pretty meaningless overall.

Pretty sure they'd step in and close the exchange if that happened anyway. Don't they do that to make sure there are no huge swings in trading?

 

[timschochet]

Joe the Plumber chimes in:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/government-shutdown-racism-roger-simon-98272.html?hp=l3

Remember Samuel Wurzelbacher? Known as “Joe the Plumber,” he was selected by John McCain as his presidential campaign mascot in 2008 with the same care McCain used to select Sarah Palin.

Over the weekend, Wurzelbacher posted an article on his blog titled: “America Needs a White Republican President.”

“Admit it,” the article said. “You want a white Republican president again. Wanting a white Republican president doesn’t make you racist, it just makes you American.”

 

[Sammy3469]

Everyone is so sure deal will be done that everyone and their grandma is now all-in the stock market with lots of big players using borrowed money, Dow will tank 1000+ if deal is delayed a few days. Maybe that would be a good thing, maybe a few big noses need to get bloodied to start taking the debt seriously.

Classless stupidity here.

The Dow dropping 1000 points would not be the end of the world, Tim. It would be pretty meaningless overall.

The Dow dropped 2500 points in 2011 in the 2 weeks around the Aug 2 vote (actually did most of the dropping after a deal was reached).

 

[spreagle]

Everyone is so sure deal will be done that everyone and their grandma is now all-in the stock market with lots of big players using borrowed money, Dow will tank 1000+ if deal is delayed a few days. Maybe that would be a good thing, maybe a few big noses need to get bloodied to start taking the debt seriously.

Classless stupidity here.

The Dow dropping 1000 points would not be the end of the world, Tim. It would be pretty meaningless overall.

Try telling this to people who are depending on their 401ks.

The people who buy stocks are important too, some of them also have 401ks, maybe they don't want to pay top dollar from big money speculating on a debt deal.

 

[shader]

Everyone is so sure deal will be done that everyone and their grandma is now all-in the stock market with lots of big players using borrowed money, Dow will tank 1000+ if deal is delayed a few days. Maybe that would be a good thing, maybe a few big noses need to get bloodied to start taking the debt seriously.

Classless stupidity here.

The Dow dropping 1000 points would not be the end of the world, Tim. It would be pretty meaningless overall.

Try telling this to people who are depending on their 401ks.

The fact that their 401ks have tripled in value in the past five years isn't good enough? The stock market isn't supposed to go straight up. If it pulls back 1000 points, it pulls back 1000 points. Bernanke will probably just step in, add more QE and stocks will head to 20K!

 

[shader]

Everyone is so sure deal will be done that everyone and their grandma is now all-in the stock market with lots of big players using borrowed money, Dow will tank 1000+ if deal is delayed a few days. Maybe that would be a good thing, maybe a few big noses need to get bloodied to start taking the debt seriously.

Classless stupidity here.

The Dow dropping 1000 points would not be the end of the world, Tim. It would be pretty meaningless overall.

The Dow dropped 2500 points in 2011 in the 2 weeks around the Aug 2 vote (actually did most of the dropping after a deal was reached).

Yeah the stock market dropping is not a cause for panic. Just like the stock market going up doesn't mean the economy is necessarily doing well.

 

[Redwes25]

Everyone is so sure deal will be done that everyone and their grandma is now all-in the stock market with lots of big players using borrowed money, Dow will tank 1000+ if deal is delayed a few days. Maybe that would be a good thing, maybe a few big noses need to get bloodied to start taking the debt seriously.

Classless stupidity here.

The Dow dropping 1000 points would not be the end of the world, Tim. It would be pretty meaningless overall.

Pretty sure they'd step in and close the exchange if that happened anyway. Don't they do that to make sure there are no huge swings in trading?

Stock market dropped 700 points when the TARP vote failed. I would not be surprised to see something worse than that if they can't raise the debt ceiling. Also, dropping that much is a big ####### deal.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news/economy/bailout/

 

[shader]

Everyone is so sure deal will be done that everyone and their grandma is now all-in the stock market with lots of big players using borrowed money, Dow will tank 1000+ if deal is delayed a few days. Maybe that would be a good thing, maybe a few big noses need to get bloodied to start taking the debt seriously.

Classless stupidity here.

The Dow dropping 1000 points would not be the end of the world, Tim. It would be pretty meaningless overall.

It's not the Dow dropping; it's the precipitating event. If there's no deal before the debt ceiling deadline, we could be looking at another 2009, if not worse.

A financial lockup of the system? Yes, that is a different story. Bonds going crazy? Banks going out of business? This would be bad news financially.

But the stock market "crashing" 1000 points is no big deal.

 

[shader]

Everyone is so sure deal will be done that everyone and their grandma is now all-in the stock market with lots of big players using borrowed money, Dow will tank 1000+ if deal is delayed a few days. Maybe that would be a good thing, maybe a few big noses need to get bloodied to start taking the debt seriously.

Classless stupidity here.

The Dow dropping 1000 points would not be the end of the world, Tim. It would be pretty meaningless overall.

Pretty sure they'd step in and close the exchange if that happened anyway. Don't they do that to make sure there are no huge swings in trading?

Stock market dropped 700 points when the TARP vote failed. I would not be surprised to see something worse than that if they can't raise the debt ceiling. Also, dropping that much is a big ####### deal.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news/economy/bailout/

Well yeah it's a big deal to day traders. But given the way this economy is working, it's no big deal to the average person. They can just wait a few weeks and the market will be back and soar past it's current levels. As long as the Fed is pumping money into the economy, the markets will go up.

 

[shader]

Basically, the entire financial world rests on the assumption that US government debt is the baseline safe investment. If anything happens to shift that assumption, it all gets upended.

Oh I agree. If other countries finally say "enough is enough" and move on from the US, and stop buying US debt, it would be very, very bad for the economy.

 

[Sand]

Everyone is so sure deal will be done that everyone and their grandma is now all-in the stock market with lots of big players using borrowed money, Dow will tank 1000+ if deal is delayed a few days. Maybe that would be a good thing, maybe a few big noses need to get bloodied to start taking the debt seriously.

Classless stupidity here.

The Dow dropping 1000 points would not be the end of the world, Tim. It would be pretty meaningless overall.

Try telling this to people who are depending on their 401ks.

Please stop talking about investments. It's embarrassing.

Anyone depending (as in in the distribution phase) on their 401k would be an idiot to be so stock heavy that they pass out at the thought of a 1000 pt drop.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

did the sky fall yet?

 

[Redwes25]

Everyone is so sure deal will be done that everyone and their grandma is now all-in the stock market with lots of big players using borrowed money, Dow will tank 1000+ if deal is delayed a few days. Maybe that would be a good thing, maybe a few big noses need to get bloodied to start taking the debt seriously.

Classless stupidity here.

The Dow dropping 1000 points would not be the end of the world, Tim. It would be pretty meaningless overall.

Pretty sure they'd step in and close the exchange if that happened anyway. Don't they do that to make sure there are no huge swings in trading?

Stock market dropped 700 points when the TARP vote failed. I would not be surprised to see something worse than that if they can't raise the debt ceiling. Also, dropping that much is a big ####### deal.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news/economy/bailout/

Well yeah it's a big deal to day traders. But given the way this economy is working, it's no big deal to the average person. They can just wait a few weeks and the market will be back and soar past it's current levels. As long as the Fed is pumping money into the economy, the markets will go up.

The entire financial system is based on a risk free U.S. debt. Undoing that will impact everyone.

 

[timschochet]

Everyone is so sure deal will be done that everyone and their grandma is now all-in the stock market with lots of big players using borrowed money, Dow will tank 1000+ if deal is delayed a few days. Maybe that would be a good thing, maybe a few big noses need to get bloodied to start taking the debt seriously.

Classless stupidity here.

The Dow dropping 1000 points would not be the end of the world, Tim. It would be pretty meaningless overall.

Try telling this to people who are depending on their 401ks.

Please stop talking about investments. It's embarrassing.

Anyone depending (as in in the distribution phase) on their 401k would be an idiot to be so stock heavy that they pass out at the thought of a 1000 pt drop.

I never said they would "pass out." But to suggest it would be meaningless is simply not true. People WILL be hurt if the Dow falls sharply. Just as people are being hurt by the shutdown.

What's truly embarrassing is not my supposed ignorance about investments, but this conservative indifference to real peoples' pain which has been evident both in this thread and the one about the sequester.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

If The house doesnt bring this to a vote, they just really don't care about anything but elections and a twisted agenda.

All these a-holes on both sides only care about elections and their own personal agendas.

There were no winners in this. This process has made the most people just more disgusted with Washington. All that come out of this were losers and bigger losers.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing though. I'd suggest it's necessary if the goal is to get a viable third party. The more light they shine on themselves, the better IMO. Might be painful right now, but it's necessary. However, it relies on the general public being sensible at the voting booths.

I agree with this, and there is a major rift in the Rs right now. This country needs a legitimate R party that isn't being held hostage by certifiable wackos. I don't want the Ds just being given a blank check in every general election, but the Rs cannot be trusted at this point to not put forth a backwards thinking agenda (socially) no matter the cost.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

When Dems say "we won" and Republicans say "everybody lost" then you can bet that Dems won.

And third party fantasies aside, it's a zero sum game. There are only two parties and everything is relative to each other.

 

[Redwes25]

The entire financial system is based on a risk free U.S. debt. Undoing that will impact everyone.

This.

It would be painful for the US as its cost of borrowing would go up. But the real monkeywrench in the works is that innumerable financial contracts and swaps are built on a sub-structure of risk-free US debt. That blowing up would be total financial chaos. Yahoos who cheer that on, passively or actively, should be shipped off to Siberia.

Not a bad article on what the government needs to deal with if we go past the 17th. I have also just posted it in the form of a link so people can either ignore it or click on it rather than needing to scroll through it (lesson for Tim).

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/04/us-usa-fiscal-ceiling-idUSBRE99304Q20131004

 

[jamny]

At this point, it's a headline driven market. Any reaction, good or bad, is fairly meaningless as an indicator of anything. Eventually, this bubble will burst when it relys on real valuation.

 

[Don Quixote]

House Republicans are introducing their own bill that will apparently include language that eliminates subsidies in Obamacare. In other words, that guts Obamacare. In other words, that continues to insist that Obama give away a signature piece of legislation to get Congress to open the government and pay our debts.

If true, it's like Boehner looked out his window at the Capitol a couple weeks ago, saw that guy on the Mall douse himself with gasoline and light himself on fire and thought, 'that is a great idea!'

I think the House GOP proposal on the DL/CR discussed today was just to eliminate subsidies to Congressmen and the President, not more broadly. Unless you are talking about something else.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

House Republicans are introducing their own bill that will apparently include language that eliminates subsidies in Obamacare. In other words, that guts Obamacare. In other words, that continues to insist that Obama give away a signature piece of legislation to get Congress to open the government and pay our debts.

If true, it's like Boehner looked out his window at the Capitol a couple weeks ago, saw that guy on the Mall douse himself with gasoline and light himself on fire and thought, 'that is a great idea!'

I think the House GOP proposal on the DL/CR discussed today was just to eliminate subsidies to Congressmen and the President, not more broadly. Unless you are talking about something else.

Aha... that makes a lot more sense. Not sure if it was reported as subsidies generally, or I misread it.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Washington (CNN) -- [breaking news update 11:15 a.m.]

The White House is rejecting the latest proposal from House Republicans over the fiscal impasse. "The President has said repeatedly that Members of Congress don't get to demand ransom for fulfilling their basic responsibilities to pass a budget and pay the nation's bills," a White House spokeswoman said. Separately, President Barack Obama will meet with House Democrats at the White House on Tuesday afternoon.

 

[VA703]

ugh.... getting tired of this.. just reopen the govt I need to get paid