Krugman: The President Surrenders

[ElNono]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/opinion/the-president-surrenders-on-debt-ceiling.html?src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB

[Winehole23]

Previous generalizations referencing patio furniture and Obama's record in staring contests, seem to have held.

[boutons_deux]

yeah, a disaster. gutless, "compromise" for Dems means get nothing, give everything.

the super committee The Gang of 6 & 6 will be a bloodbath, with the Dems again yielding everything, getting nothing.

[boutons_deux]

"What Republicans have just gotten away with calls our whole system of government into question."

Well, who is surprised??

"Government IS The Problem" -- St Ronnie The Useful Idiot

Barry and the Dems have committed political suicide. Their base simply won't show up in Nov 2012.

[Winehole23]

All by itself, Obama's ineptitude as a negotiator justifies Republican intransigence. What was the downside for the GOP here? Triggered defense cuts?

[boutons_deux]

As Krugman and others have said, Repug extremism, sociopathy, sadism, anti-Americanism has no penalty, only reward.

"Triggered defense cuts"

Some Repugs are saying they won't vote for anything unless defense is left 100% untouched.

[Winehole23]

Why should Republicans in Congress hand Obama any political accomplishments when their declared mission is to beat him next year?

[Winehole23]

Also, the supercommittee this deal creates is creepy as hell and a probable POS. It gives twelve members power and expediency and covers the backsides of the rest. The very existence of such a super-committee highlights the dysfunction of the US Congress.

[MannyIsGod]

The problem for Obama isn't that he folded this time. Its hard to be willing to force a government default in order to win a negotiatinon and I understand that. The problem is that in every meaningful debate prior to this Obama has folded. Who the hell thought he might be serious about going all the way when he never would before on last catastrophic scenarios?

If Obama lets the government shut down then he gets a better deal and he's more able to deal with congress. Instead he proved to be gutless back inn previous fights so there was no way tea party congressmen were going to blink at this point. You can't embolden your opposition and then try to win at the end. Doesn't work that way.

[MannyIsGod]

The problem for Obama isn't that he folded this time. Its hard to be willing to force a government default in order to win a negotiatinon and I understand that. The problem is that in every meaningful debate prior to this Obama has folded. Who the hell thought he might be serious about going all the way when he never would before on last catastrophic scenarios?

If Obama lets the government shut down then he gets a better deal and he's more able to deal with congress. Instead he proved to be gutless back inn previous fights so there was no way tea party congressmen were going to blink at this point. You can't embolden your opposition and then try to win at the end. Doesn't work that way.

[Winehole23]

Obama is the best Republican president since GWB. His base is becoming aware of it and the economy seems to be getting worse (GDP downgrades). Ordinarily that would bode well for the GOP, but these are not ordinary times.

[boutons_deux]

If Barry wins in 2012, Barry won't win, the it's the Repugs election to lose.

If the Repugs win, it won't because of strong candidate and lots of popular support.

It will because Barry's ex-supporters will abstain. They aren't stupid enough to vote the (Repug) Devil We Don't Know (but we do know a Repug Pres and Congress would fuck up country with bad-faith misgovernment and willful incompetence).

[Winehole23]

Why should Republicans in Congress hand Obama any political accomplishments when their declared mission is to beat him next year?When national priorities and electoral expediency clash, national priorities lose. It's a very tough political neighborhood.

[nkdlunch]

Michelle Bachman does not agree

"The 'deal' ... spends too much and doesn't cut enough," Bachmann said in a statement released Sunday after President Barack Obama announced the agreement with congressional leaders.
Not all satisfied with debt deal Sperling: Debt deal 'shared sacrifice' Who will vote for debt deal?
RELATED TOPICS
Michele Bachmann
Tea Party Movement
National Debt
"Is this the deal I would have preferred? No," Obama told reporters. "I believe that we could have made the tough choices required -- on entitlement reform and tax reform -- right now, rather than through a special congressional committee process. But this compromise does make a serious down payment on the deficit reduction we need, and gives each party a strong incentive to get a balanced plan done before the end of the year."
"This isn't the deal the American people 'preferred' either, Mr. President," Bachmann said in her response. "Someone has to say 'no.' I will."
"Mr. President, I'm not sure what voice you're listening to, but I can assure you that the voice of the American people wasn't the voice that compelled Washington to act," she said in a statement after the president announced a deal with congressional leaders Sunday night. "It was you that got us into this mess, and it was you who wanted a $2.4 trillion blank check to get you through the election."

[boutons_deux]

The only thing Barry is expediting is the VRWC/Repug steamroller, which has NO national priorities.

[cheguevara]

oops...

Real Clear Politics Poll
Job Approval Approve Disapprove Spread
Obama 44.8% 50.1% -5.3%
Congress 19.2% 73.4% -54.2%
Direction of Country Right Direction Wrong Track Spread
RCP Average 25.3% 67.0% -41.7%

[DarrinS]

If Krugman is bent, you know something positive just happened for the country.

[DarrinS]

It's probably a harder job than community organizing.

[baseline bum]

Wow, dog bites man article there.

[Winehole23]

If Krugman is bent, you know something positive just happened for the country.It ain't necessarily so. There's more to life than thwarting the adversary.

[coyotes_geek]

It's probably a harder job than community organizing.

Easily. Obama has basically reduced the role of the presidency to that of a cheerleader. Sure, he can have town hall meetings and fire up "the fans", but he clearly doesn't have any pull with congress whatsoever. Obama gives a speech, congress shrugs it off and tells him how it's going to be.

[DarrinS]

In the long run, however, Democrats won’t be the only losers. What Republicans have just gotten away with calls our whole system of government into question. After all, how can American democracy work if whichever party is most prepared to be ruthless, to threaten the nation’s economic security, gets to dictate policy? And the answer is, maybe it can’t.



:dramaquee much?

[cheguevara]

Easily. Obama has basically reduced the role of the presidency to that of a cheerleader. Sure, he can have town hall meetings and fire up "the fans", but he clearly doesn't have any pull with congress whatsoever. Obama gives a speech, congress shrugs it off and tells him how it's going to be.

you mean he upgraded the role from when dubya was pres. From mascot to cheerleader.

[Winehole23]

:dramaquee much?You sure do.

[boutons_deux]

not dramatic at all.

With 25M un/malemployed or dropped out of the labor force and record US inequality and almos every measure of Human-Americans' and environmental quality of life in decline, VRWC actions have had extremely negative consequence for Human-Americans. The Repugs are simply fucking up America with no relief in sight.

[Winehole23]

you mean he upgraded the role from when dubya was pres. From mascot to cheerleader.http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2010/08/20/news/photos_stories/Cropped/toro_bullfight2--300x300.jpg


Toro, toro!

[coyotes_geek]

you mean he upgraded the role from when dubya was pres. From mascot to cheerleader.

No. Bush knew how to get what he wanted out of congress (for worse). Obama is incapable of motivating congress to do anything. We'd be in a much better place today had Bush been as incapable and ineffective as Obama is.

[boutons_deux]

"Bush knew how to get what he wanted out of congress"

he controlled both houses for 6 years, then he hit a brick wall, just like Barry who hasn't controlled both houses from day 1.

[coyotes_geek]

Bush never hit a brick wall. In Bush's last two years he had more fights with republicans over TARP and all the bailouts than he did with the democrats.

[cheguevara]

No. Bush knew how to get what he wanted out of congress (for worse). Obama is incapable of motivating congress to do anything. We'd be in a much better place today had Bush been as incapable and ineffective as Obama is.

:lol Bush couldn't even order a pizza by himself.

shit, he couldn't even finish a bag of pretzels without getting 911 emergency involved :lmao

[boutons_deux]

Bush never hit a brick wall. In Bush's last two years he had more fights with republicans over TARP and all the bailouts than he did with the democrats.

There was no fighting about TARP until the last month of dubya's reign of error. Then the real fighting started when the Repugs who wanted to bailout Wall St, knowing it was unpopular, fought against it knowing they would lose and be able to claim innocence and blame TARP on the Dems.

[boutons_deux]

Press indicates NOBODY is happy with the debt fiasco. eg, AP says "ranges from anger to angrier".

It sure looks like failing pass today is quite a possibility.

That would give Barry a chance to find his balls and bitch-slap the Repugs with the 14th Amendment. (I have no hope that he has any desire or clue how to out-crazy the Repug crazies)

[Winehole23]

failing pass today?

[boutons_deux]

yes, they vote today

[Winehole23]

the vote may fail, then?

[Winehole23]

failing (to) pass is quite a possibility?

[Winehole23]

nm

[LnGrrrR]

Obama is the best Republican president since GWB. His base is becoming aware of it and the economy seems to be getting worse (GDP downgrades). Ordinarily that would bode well for the GOP, but these are not ordinary times.

Agreed. How many left-based things as he promised and followed through on? Then compare with how many left-based things he hasn't, or even swung more towards the right side on. Not pretty.

[boutons_deux]

yes, I think the Dem progressives and Repug scrotum suckers are willing to shut it down.

There are Repugs who want not a dime cut from defense, triggers or no triggers.

[ElNono]

tbh, Krugman goes the wrong way when he suggests the president should've played some legal shenanigans and attributed himself the ability of raise the debt ceiling at least temporarily until Congress passed something. Those kind of legal interpretations and unchecked extension of executive powers is exactly what you would expect from Bush JR, and thus, I've come to expect from Obama. So on that point, I'm glad Barry did what he did.

[boutons_deux]

the 14th amendment isn't extra legal, but it is open to interpretation whether it should be limited to Civil War era or expanded to current times. I figure if it went to the extremist Repug SCOTUS, they'd love to screw Barry.

[EVAY]

Here's a contrarian position:

Obama did the right thing by agreeing to cuts in the trillions. It would have been nice to get some tax reform along the way, but he took what he could get in order not to default.

That, I believe, does show some leadership in the respect that he: was aware of his limitations in controlling votes; put the needs of the country before his party's position in that he showed a willingness to do what is necessary to avoid default rather than hold out for something he knew he couldn't get; and told his democratic congressional leaders that the reality was that this is what they could get it...take it and live to fight another day.

I think that Obama will be a one-term president, and that he probably doesn't deserve more than that...but I think that the tea party action in this matter shows that extortion forces rational people to give in rather than allow horrible results for the country. They should be the losers in the next election, but who knows if they will be?

We have gotten the government that we as a people voted for. This is it.

[boutons_deux]

No leadership here.

Barry, the country was taken hostage by crazies, and they folded. Even half of Repug voters thought the rigidity of the Congressional Repugs was insane.

There will be MUCH more hostage taking to come. The greedy, predatory, destructive VRWC sharks and their Repug proxies won't ever satisfied. The blood is in the water. It's a feeding frenzy now. EPA, IRS, HHS, health care reform, will all be defunded or annulled. USDA and FDA will be intimidated into approving/permitting any old shit as food, drugs, environmental destruction.

[vy65]

the 14th amendment isn't extra legal, but it is open to interpretation whether it should be limited to Civil War era or expanded to current times.

What? How?

[Spurminator]

If Krugman is bent, you know something positive just happened for the country.

Did Krauthammer tell you that?

[boutons_deux]

What? How?

“While this provision was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the government issued during the Civil War,” Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote for the court in 1935, “its language indicates a broader connotation.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/us/politics/25legal.html?hp=&page=&pagewanted=print

[FuzzyLumpkins]

We have gotten the government that we as a people voted for. This is it.

There was a different government I could have voted for?

[boutons_deux]

Ransom Paid

Anyone who characterizes the deal between the President, Democratic, and Republican leaders as a victory for the American people over partisanship understands neither economics nor politics.

The deal does not raise taxes on America’s wealthy and most fortunate — who are now taking home a larger share of total income and wealth, and whose tax rates are already lower than they have been, in eighty years. Yet it puts the nation’s most important safety nets and public investments on the chopping block.

It also hobbles the capacity of the government to respond to the jobs and growth crisis. Added to the cuts already underway by state and local governments, the deal’s spending cuts increase the odds of a double-dip recession. And the deal strengthens the political hand of the radical right.

Yes, the deal is preferable to the unfolding economic catastrophe of a default on the debt of the U.S. government. The outrage and the shame is it has come to this choice.

http://www.truth-out.org/ransom-paid/1312207122

=========

Debt Ceiling Agreement: Don't Call It A Compromise

Perhaps this is just semantics, but I’ve seen several reports on the debt-ceiling framework describe it as a “compromise” between Republicans and Democrats. That’s far too generous a term. Is this a deal? Sure. Is it an agreement? Absolutely. Can it fairly be characterized as a “compromise”? Not at all.

Republicans threatened to crash the economy, on purpose, unless a series of radical demands were met. Democrats made an effort to lessen those demands and make them less painful than intended. The result, not surprisingly, is rather ugly, which is to be expected.

The debt-reduction framework isn’t a compromise; it’s a ransom. If one were to draw up two lists — one with all the concessions Democrats made, the other with the concessions the GOP made — the one-sided image would be striking. Of course, that’s what happens when one party has a gun to the head of its hostage — in this case, the nation and its economy — and the other party wants to prevent their rivals from pulling the trigger.

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/642206/debt_ceiling_agreement%3A_don%27t_call_it_a_compro mise/

[Winehole23]

Counterpoint
Now, what do Obama, and you, gain from this:



First and foremost, you gain a long-term debt ceiling extension. For fiscal stability, our credit rating, and economic growth in the future, this had to happen, and it had to be in a bi-partisan way. I know many of you cowboys on Daily Kos wanted POTUS to go the constitutional route; I did too. But it's a bad idea because it would merely be trading a constitutional crisis from an economic crisis and, most critically, would not restore investors confidence in U.S. credit. This is a far better outcome.


Second, Obama was able to define the terms of the debate going forward. While he may not have been able to convince a majority of Republicans in congress that taxes have to be raised, he won in the court of public opinion. Americans get that we need to raise taxes, particularly on the wealthy and big business, in a way they never have before, and a majority favor it (including even a few Republicans). Imagine you are Obama's eventual opponent in the Presidential. You have to take a position on the commission's findings and the nation's choices going forward. You probably have to continue advocating for tax cuts and budget cuts. Meanwhile, Obama and the Democrats still have their social program talking points, because Obama did not meaningfully concede on those programs. The majority of Americans have made clear that they prefer the latter approach. It's a good position for a Democratic candidate to be in.


Third, the GOP has been shown up for what it is, an extremist party out of step with the majority of Americans. We all benefit from the comparison.


Fourth, this plan does contain revenue enhancements, just by another name. Here's why:


(a) the commission will realistically have to consider them, if it is going to have any credibility and reach a result that can pass both houses of Congress;


(b) the sequestration is itself a revenue enhancement. As a former military member, I can tell you from personal experience that the military industrial complex, from the bombers made by Boeing and Lockheed Martin to the Burger Kings on and around the bases is huge. It is as much an "entitlement" program for those associated with the military as Social Security and Medicare are to everyone else. If these cuts occur, a major GOP constituency will be in a world of hurt, but the funds will be freed up for other programs. Same with the Medicare cuts. Notice that they are cuts to providers, not beneficiaries. I know many people think this is not a meaningful difference, but it is, because Medicare is the providers' bread and butter, and there is a limit to the degree to which they can pass those savings along. Again, it's revenue that is mostly fattening up an industry, and cutting it means it can be used elsewhere more efficiently and;


(c) the expiration of the Bush tax cuts are themselves revenue enhancements, Obama gets the final vote on whether this occurs. It's not in the deal.


If you go to Redstate, you will see that they do not like this deal any more than you do, and for all of the reasons outlined above. They feel as though they have lost, and they are right. They wanted to instigate a default, and they did not do that. They wanted to cut Social Security, and they did not do that, they wanted another opportunity to fight this battle, and they did not get that. What they did get is that major GOP constituencies (defense and corporate health providers) have been put in jeopardy of major cuts, and from our perspective this is a good thing. What they also got is a damocles hanging over their head in the form of the soon to expire Bush tax cuts, which Obama can blackmail them with just as they did all of us with the debt ceiling.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/31/1001258/-POTUS-Has-Our-Back

[boutons_deux]

"the GOP has been shown up for what it is, an extremist party out of step with the majority of Americans. We all benefit from the comparison."

We only benefit if there is some electoral penalty for the Repugs being anarchic extremists.

Human-Americans, not only bubbas, are suckers for Repug lies and corporate media centrism (both Dems and Repugs are treated equally as if both were legit, although a Tea Bagger demonstration gets covered, while progressive demonstrations get smothered). The VRWC/Repug hate-media machine will rev up their lying and hate even more now.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao

Krugman :cry

[Cant_Be_Faded]

once again the democrats reveal to be gutless, feckless, and allow republicans to do whatever they want. I'm noticing a trend here

[JoeChalupa]

While I am disappointed, Obama could have held his ground for revenues but he would have had to let the US go into default and while the tea party followers were willing to let that happen, Obama was not. Call it weakness or caving, he wasn't willing to allow the default to happen and make a bad situation even worse. The fact is that the republicans are going to do everything they can to make Obama a failure and they are doing a good job about it. Obama also missed some earlier chances to avoid this fiasco and failed to do so.

[CosmicCowboy]

The absolutely hilarious part of this apparent deal is that there will supposedly be a vote on the balanced budget amendment in the House and Senate before the 2012 elections. Who exactly, besides the most raving liberals, wants to vote against a balanced budget?

[ElNono]

:lmao

Krugman :cry

He's definitely Maaaaad

[ElNono]

The absolutely hilarious part of this apparent deal is that there will supposedly be a vote on the balanced budget amendment in the House and Senate before the 2012 elections. Who exactly, besides the most raving liberals, wants to vote against a balanced budget?

Voting on a balanced budget amendment amounts to just wishful thinking. The problem is making it happen when neither side wants the cuts to affect entitlements, military, etc or compensate with a tax hike.

[coyotes_geek]

The absolutely hilarious part of this apparent deal is that there will supposedly be a vote on the balanced budget amendment in the House and Senate before the 2012 elections. Who exactly, besides the most raving liberals, wants to vote against a balanced budget?

I wouldn't be so quick to assume there's unanimous support for a BBA from congressional republicans. Republicans like to spend money too.

[ElNono]

If the economy does take a nose dive in the next 6-12 months though, Krugman will have his 'I told you so' moment, much to Darrin chagrin...

[CosmicCowboy]

Voting on a balanced budget amendment amounts to just wishful thinking. The problem is making it happen when neither side wants the cuts to affect entitlements, military, etc or compensate with a tax hike.

That's part of the reason I find it hilarious. A lot of these guys are going to vote for it while still hoping it either fails or their constituents forget about it.

[coyotes_geek]

Voting on a balanced budget amendment amounts to just wishful thinking. The problem is making it happen when neither side wants the cuts to affect entitlements, military, etc or compensate with a tax hike.

Yep. The combination of benefit cuts & tax increases to just the entitlements alone make any BBA dead on arrival.

[Ignignokt]

We didn't get enough cuts. The ratings agencies don't think so either and will likely downgrade our credit rating.

obama caved in?? hahahahahah okay!!

Obama caving in was as drastic as Tpark eating a carrot on his low carb diet. He didn't cave into much. Spending will still remain high, govt will shed one small terd, and you drama queens are already putting up a fainting act.

Sorry, but this country is becoming more idiotic and destructive. Social Justice in place of Justice bled into our tax code and is a cancerous tumor in the american body politic.

You drama queens and Paul krugman are full of shit.

So, in essence both leftist and rightwingers didn't give a shit about the deadline and wanted to have their agenda met first.

This whole debt ceiling thing is a charade.

It's not the fucking debt ceiling, it's spending that needs to be addressed.

[Ignignokt]

There is no such thing as budget hawks in mainstream politics and in the mainstream ion general.

You have all fell for this bullshit central planning garbage.

[ElNono]

I don't think anybody here 'fell for it'. I think everyone in here has been singing the same tune when it comes to ovdr-the-top bipartisan spending. The only question is if it's wise to cut now in the current economic climate or not. Krugman says it will be a disaster. I'm sure other people (hello gtown) will say otherwise. We'll see in a few months what happens after this thing passes.

[Ignignokt]

I don't think anybody here 'fell for it'. I think everyone in here has been singing the same tune when it comes to ovdr-the-top bipartisan spending. The only question is if it's wise to cut now in the current economic climate or not. Krugman says it will be a disaster. I'm sure other people (hello gtown) will say otherwise. We'll see in a few months what happens after this thing passes.

Krugman is full of shit, and is for more govt intervention and social programs. His assesment of doom concerning cuts is idealogical. We may never get out of this recession for a while, so in the meantime this jackass is gonna recommend we inflate the money supply, debase the currency and run up more debt.

Here's what that krugman is not telling all of you. You could raise taxes on the rich, but the debasing of the dollar will destroy the poor's ability to have buying power.

The reason the poor have been losing purchasing power is because of the losing strenght of the dollar.

Not only that, but obama wants to encourage high fuel prices so that we may live a green lifestlye. Pass regulations to make products greener in effect passing on the taxes to the consumer. All this will hurt the poor more than if Kobe bryant buys a helicopter.

You are all missing the big picture.

[boutons_deux]

balanced budget amendment won't get past the Dem Senate, will not be sent to the states. It's another GOP mis-governing time-waster, like the fake debt ceiling crisis. They smash-mouth deny all legitimacy of Barry to be in office, and for the Dems to have Senate majority or for either chamber to advance any govt business.

[ElNono]

Krugman is full of shit, and is for more govt intervention and social programs. His assesment of doom concerning cuts is idealogical. We may never get out of this recession for a while, so in the meantime this jackass is gonna recommend we inflate the money supply, debase the currency and run up more debt.

Here's what that krugman is not telling all of you. You could raise taxes on the rich, but the debasing of the dollar will destroy the poor's ability to have buying power.

I don't think taxing the rich is the solution either. Probably spending cuts across the board and jacking up taxes across the board also is going to have to be the way to reach a balanced budget. From there you can work on stop borrowing money. I don't think there was ever a will to do that since the Clinton days though.

[Drachen]

Krugman is full of shit, and is for more govt intervention and social programs. His assesment of doom concerning cuts is idealogical. We may never get out of this recession for a while, so in the meantime this jackass is gonna recommend we inflate the money supply, debase the currency and run up more debt.

Here's what that krugman is not telling all of you. You could raise taxes on the rich, but the debasing of the dollar will destroy the poor's ability to have buying power.

The reason the poor have been losing purchasing power is because of the losing strenght of the dollar.

Not only that, but obama wants to encourage high fuel prices so that we may live a green lifestlye. Pass regulations to make products greener in effect passing on the taxes to the consumer. All this will hurt the poor more than if Kobe bryant buys a helicopter.

You are all missing the big picture.

You are absolutely right, we all believe that there should be cuts. Most reasonable liberals even believe there should be entitlement reform. We just also believe that there should be increases in taxes as well... you know, attack the deficit from both sides.

[DarrinS]

Krugman is full of shit, and is for more govt intervention and social programs. His assesment of doom concerning cuts is idealogical. We may never get out of this recession for a while, so in the meantime this jackass is gonna recommend we inflate the money supply, debase the currency and run up more debt.

Here's what that krugman is not telling all of you. You could raise taxes on the rich, but the debasing of the dollar will destroy the poor's ability to have buying power.

The reason the poor have been losing purchasing power is because of the losing strenght of the dollar.

Not only that, but obama wants to encourage high fuel prices so that we may live a green lifestlye. Pass regulations to make products greener in effect passing on the taxes to the consumer. All this will hurt the poor more than if Kobe bryant buys a helicopter.


You are all missing the big picture.


:clap:

[SA210]

I'm no Republican, faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar from it. But I never once was fooled by the big Obama wave a few years ago that millions of people fell for. I never believed he was genuine, never believed the "next JFK" bs talk that; to me was an insult for anyone to compare him to JFK. I saw him for a copycat, a liar and a fake from the beginning. I did not vote for him. Sadly he is what I said he was, fake, and very weak. We needed a fighter, and that fighter just had to think with wrong damn head. :pctoss

[MannyIsGod]

Yeah you just fell for Edwards. I'm not sure you really should be pulling out the "I told you so card".

[MannyIsGod]

You can't really blame Obama for compromising here. That much is true. Which is why I think the problem was not fighting back earlier. He just gives in every fucking time so of course the GOP never gave serious consideration to tax increases.

[ElNono]

But I never once was fooled by the big Obama wave a few years ago that millions of people fell for.

He's still the better option than Mcain-Palin...

[boutons_deux]

MCCONNELL: It set the template for the future. In the future, Neil, no president — in the near future, maybe in the distant future — is going to be able to get the debt ceiling increased without a re-ignition of the same discussion of how do we cut spending and get America headed in the right direction. I expect the next president, whoever that is, is going to be asking us to raise the debt ceiling again in 2013, so we’ll be doing it all over.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/08/01/285025/mcconnell-vows-to-hold-debt-ceiling-hostage-again/

[DarrinS]

You can't really blame Obama for compromising here. That much is true. Which is why I think the problem was not fighting back earlier. He just gives in every fucking time so of course the GOP never gave serious consideration to tax increases.

He could've rammed this through in 2010 during the lame duck session. Truth be told, the GOP didn't get all that much in terms of cuts (regardless of Krugman's apocalyptic visions).

[DarrinS]

He's still the better option than Mcain-Palin...

McCain was a shitty candidate -- our version of John Kerry.

[SA210]

Yeah you just fell for Edwards. I'm not sure you really should be pulling out the "I told you so card".

You were also an Edward's supporter for a while. Obama was taking Edward's issues, so I backed the guy who originally said it. And i didnt fall for Edwards, I still believe he was passionate about helping the poor, which is what was important to me. He drove the dialogue in that election, that is a fact. I'm not pulling an "I told you so". Im just saying I knew it. Edwards messed up big time, but infidelity I don't think would determine that he would have folded as Obama did. Many leaders have cheated and stupidly lied about it. If he hadnt cheated, he could be VP right now and would have had a major impact. That sucks. Oh well.

[ElNono]

McCain was a shitty candidate -- our version of John Kerry.

No doubt.

[ElNono]

He could've rammed this through in 2010 during the lame duck session. Truth be told, the GOP didn't get all that much in terms of cuts (regardless of Krugman's apocalyptic visions).

You don't think that's by design?

[baseline bum]

McCain was a shitty candidate -- our version of John Kerry.

Ironic that he got beat by the Democrat version of Bush.

[Wild Cobra]

Where's the change? We don't even have change after paying our bills any more.

[Drachen]

Where's the change? We don't even have change after paying our bills any more.

2007-2008 called and wants its joke back.

[boutons_deux]

Democrats Accept Major Cuts to Their Balls

http://www.borowitzreport.com/wp-content/uploads/Harry-Reid1.jpg

WASHINGTON ( The Borowitz Report ) – After weeks of wrenching negotiations that went right up to the wire, Democrats in the House and Senate today accepted major cuts to their balls.

The cuts, which are expected to pass both houses of Congress on Tuesday, will give Republicans’ total custody of the Democrats’ cojones through the next election cycle.

The final hitch in the negotiations centered on how long the Republicans would keep the Democrats’ family jewels, with Democrats wanting them returned by 2012 and Republicans insisting on keeping them longer.

After much wrangling, a compromise was worked out in which the Republicans would keep the Democrats’ balls “indefinitely.�

After the deal was hammered out, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was philosophical about an outcome that surprised no one.

“You win some and you lose some,� he told reporters. “Except that, as Democrats, only the second part is true.�

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) said that the historic deal set the stage for more compromises between the two political parties: “Tomorrow we begin negotiating for their lunch money

http chez Borowitz

[SA210]

I never knew they had any balls to begin with.

[Wild Cobra]

I never knew they had any balls to begin with.
They don't. They're on steroids. that's why they are so physiologically imbalanced.

[Winehole23]

The deal that was struck is dramatically — shockingly — better from the Democrats' point of view.

The deal eliminates the leverage created by another imminent default until after the next election, where it will be exercised by new and possibly differently constituted players.

And today's Republicans have not gotten much for giving up their leverage; certainly nothing close to what they asked for in Cut, Cap and Balance. The current deal cuts social programs rather than raising revenue, to be sure. But while the cuts are significant and will hurt, they leave the basic core of the American social safety net intact. And the bipartisan committee charged with negotiating a grander bargain in the fall is free to revisit the possibility of new taxes. In addition, it will take up the orthodox anti-tax position (represented by the balanced budget amendment) in a manner guaranteed to be purely symbolic.

Perhaps most important, this week's debt deal does nothing to change the fact that the George W. Bush (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/presidents-of-the-united-states/george-bush-PEPLT000857.topic) tax cuts will expire at the end of 2012. Obama and congressional Democrats will be able to bargain for increased taxes on the wealthy, in a situation in which they have much less to lose.

The radicals in the Republican Party dragged the country to the edge of a cliff, but they failed to push us off; and they were even forced, at the last moment, to pull back.

Progressives have reason to lament the incremental cuts in the deal. But that which does not kill a social contract may make it stronger. And neither progressives nor the country should lose sight of the fact that the core institutions of ours — Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — have all been reaffirmed.http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-markovits-demswon-20110803,0,2334100.story

[coyotes_geek]

And neither progressives nor the country should lose sight of the fact that the core institutions of ours — Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — have all been reaffirmed.

"Momentarily spared" would be a more accurate depiction. Bigger cuts, a higher retirement age, and increased payroll taxes are inevitable.

[Winehole23]

Bigger cuts, a higher retirement age, and increased payroll taxes ....will be postponed as long as possible, particularly in light of the possibility of renewed economic contraction.

[coyotes_geek]

No doubt. But they're still coming. We're hardly in a position to be boasting about entitlement's "reaffirmation".

[DarkReign]

SS needs to end as does mandatory Medicare. Watching my father-in-law be forced to enroll and participate in Medicare when he does not want or need it strikes me as a ploy by the insurance companies guaranteeing their rolls wont be littered with broke-ass retirees, only retirees who can afford them.

SS is just a debacle. End it already. Grandfather people now over the age of (arbitrary age...) 40 and end it for everyone else younger than that. Still collect the SS taxes, as I understand it, SS come from the general fund anyway, and call it a wash.

SS's model does not work and it never will. The average lifespan is only going to increase the more sedentary we as a society become, not to mention the advances in medical science.

You cannot protect people from themselves when it comes to finances. You either know how and when to save for the future or you do not. You people who do not had better hope you win the lottery or one of your kids is successful when you reach an age where getting out of bed is a laborious task.

[vy65]

You cannot protect people from themselves when it comes to finances. You either know how and when to save for the future or you do not. You people who do not had better hope you win the lottery or one of your kids is successful when you reach an age where getting out of bed is a laborious task.

The goods.

[Winehole23]

No doubt. But they're still coming. We're hardly in a position to be boasting about entitlement's "reaffirmation".That was pretty pompous. I thought Markovits ideas about negotiation deserved a place in the conversation, since the rest of us are mostly just waving our hands at it, and his takeaway is contrary to the prevailing feeling.

[boutons_deux]

What do you replace SS with? give retirement funds to the Banksters who "manage" the funds to maximize their profits, not yours?

SS is required by law to lend money to the govt by buying T bonds. They aren't IOUs, they're backed by the "full faith and credit" of the US govt, just like those bought by (wealthy) Americans who hold 40%+ of US debt. Calling them IOUs is shilling for the VRWC as it tries to get its criminal hands $Ts of Human-Americans retirement savings.

I agree that Medicare and SS beneficiaries should be means tested, but they should not be excepted from life-long contributions because no one knows when their "means" may go poof and they have not enough to pay their medical bills.

[Winehole23]

What Markovitz said about balanced budgets, that the current deal obliges no more than symbolic action, is surely correct and deserves the emphasis. It may disclose the heart of the US Congress: not do do something, but to strike an effective pose.

[Winehole23]

I agree that Medicare and SS beneficiaries should be means testedGotten to?

[coyotes_geek]

That was pretty pompous. I thought Markovits ideas about negotiation deserved a place in the conversation, since the rest of us are mostly just waving our hands at it, and his takeaway is contrary to the prevailing feeling.

I don't have a problem with his thoughts being added to the conversation. I'm merely providing my thoughts on his thoughts.

[Winehole23]

I welcome your thoughts on his thoughts. Sorry if I somehow created the opposite impression.

[DarkReign]

What do you replace SS with? give retirement funds to the Banksters who "manage" the funds to maximize their profits, not yours?

No, the SS portion of the General Fund (iirc) should be seized by the government as normal revenue to be used to service debt and states.

Make the 4.2% employee and 6.2% employer contributions a tax, period.

Not invested, not given to "banksters", just an additional revenue stream. Of course people will complain, but they cant say this is a new tax seeing as that money was coming out their checks and balance sheets anyway.

Its just going somewhere different.


SS is required by law to lend money to the govt by buying T bonds. They aren't IOUs, they're backed by the "full faith and credit" of the US govt, just like those bought by (wealthy) Americans who hold 40%+ of US debt. Calling them IOUs is shilling for the VRWC as it tries to get its criminal hands $Ts of Human-Americans retirement savings.

I agree that Medicare and SS beneficiaries should be means tested, but they should not be excepted from life-long contributions because no one knows when their "means" may go poof and they have not enough to pay their medical bills.

Then the law needs to be changed.

I am not going to argue the semantics of SS/Medicare. Ive no interest in either subject because I think both programs are shit and should be scrapped and one of them re-branded.

SS needs to go the way of the dinosaur. Like I said, grandfather in those who are 40 years old and older seeing as they are far too late in life to change the gameplan. Honor those social contracts in full. Hell, setup a sliding scale of expected SS benefits for everyone 50 and younger. 50+, you get the full Monty. Between 40-50, youre going to get 75% of expected benefits (or whatever). Between 30-40, you get 50%. Between 20-30, you get 25%. Younger than that? Tough fucking shit...0%.

In 30 years, SS would be dead and gone, the payouts for once would decrease, yet revenue would stay flat.

Medicare needs to be re-branded. Only because the word Medicare carries stigma.

Make it non-mandatory first and foremost, that is the biggest crock of shit associated with it. Make the tax mandatory, yes. But make participation elective. I honestly dont know what effect that would have, if it would have an effect at all, but I do know a majority of the people I know who are old enough hate Medicare for one reason...they never wanted to be in to begin with. They, unlike others, can afford health insurance on their own and would much rather do so than have to participate in this scheme.

The funny part is not one of them said "But I also dont want to have to pay Medicare taxes." They dont give a shit, take the tax revenue, just dont force me to play the fucking game.

[coyotes_geek]

What do you replace SS with? give retirement funds to the Banksters who "manage" the funds to maximize their profits, not yours?

We're not going to replace SS with anything. We're just going to keep marching towards the cliff. When we get too close for comfort, we'll enact some token tax increases, benefit cuts and raise the retirement age to take a few steps back. Then we'll start marching towards the cliff again. The cycle repeats with each generation putting more in and getting less out than the one before it.

[DarkReign]

"would be close to dead and gone"

[boutons_deux]

SS isn't at risk, since the US govt will make good on the bonds SS holds.

It's being attacked by VRWC/Repugs who want to get their hands on $Ts of Human-Americans retirement savings.

SS cash flow is easy to fix, just uncap SS contributions, to be applied to 100% of all earned income.

[DarkReign]

SS isn't at risk, since the US govt will make good on the bonds SS holds.

It's being attacked by VRWC/Repugs who want to get their hands on $Ts of Human-Americans retirement savings.

SS cash flow is easy to fix, just uncap SS contributions, to be applied to 100% of all earned income.

So, in order to stop the escalating nature of SS payments vs the decreasing revenue to pay for it, you want to increase the $7500 (or $14k, cant remember) cap on workers and employers?

Basically, increase taxes on everyone in the country to pay for a government sponsored retirement program.

Hmmm....

Seems to me that the easiest solution if you do not like the scrapping idea, would be to only pay each individual what they paid in. Because that is the major problem with SS payments.

[MannyIsGod]

You cannot protect people from themselves when it comes to finances. You either know how and when to save for the future or you do not. You people who do not had better hope you win the lottery or one of your kids is successful when you reach an age where getting out of bed is a laborious task.

Nothing irks me more when it comes to social programs than statements such as this. Its always framed as a benefit to the participant and not society as a whole.

What would be the consequences of letting the elderly suffer the actual consequences of not being able to provide for themselves due to bad circumstances or bad planning? Do you think that would be beneficial to society as a whole or would it be a detriment?

[ElNono]

You cannot protect people from themselves when it comes to finances. You either know how and when to save for the future or you do not. You people who do not had better hope you win the lottery or one of your kids is successful when you reach an age where getting out of bed is a laborious task.

Sorry DR, but this is baloney. I don't dispute that SS needs reform or simply be replaced with a better system, but at the current raising costs of medicine, housing, etc, you can wipe your savings in no time at all unless you're talking millions. And we know millionaires only make a blip in the radar compared to the general population, which will turn to the state in one way or another and the taxpayers will be in the hook for it anyways.

[boutons_deux]

McConnell Admits To Taking Debt Ceiling ‘Hostage’: It’s ‘Worth Ransoming’

“I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting,” he said. “Most of us didn’t think that. What we did learn is this — it’s a hostage that’s worth ransoming. And it focuses the Congress on something that must be done.”

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/08/03/286995/mcconnell-admits-to-taking-debt-ceiling-hostage-its-worth-ransoming/

[Winehole23]

The linkage now presumed to exist b/w the debt ceiling and fiscal cuts, is the real victory of the GOP. It did not exist before.

[Winehole23]

(dept of life imitates art)

[vy65]

Nothing irks me more when it comes to social programs than statements such as this. Its always framed as a benefit to the participant and not society as a whole.

What would be the consequences of letting the elderly suffer the actual consequences of not being able to provide for themselves due to bad circumstances or bad planning? Do you think that would be beneficial to society as a whole or would it be a detriment?

I think that, as a society, we're experiencing the negative consequences of trying to provide a safety net for people's bad circumstances and planning. It's not a one way street where providing a social safety net is good and not having one is bad--there are consequences (good and bad) to a world with and a world without these types of government programs.

But we can put the debate in your terms. I'd argue that society as a whole suffers when we institute programs that diminish one's personal responsibility in planning their financial future. Sure, some people have it tough or might get unlucky in their lives. But you save your money for those rainy days.

Ultimately, society is better off when there is a stronger emphasis on personal financial responsibility and not on government safety nets. Add to that the fact that the safety net itself is falling apart. I just don't see how the advantages to programs like SS outweigh the problems.

[DarkReign]

Nothing irks me more when it comes to social programs than statements such as this. Its always framed as a benefit to the participant and not society as a whole.

What would be the consequences of letting the elderly suffer the actual consequences of not being able to provide for themselves due to bad circumstances or bad planning? Do you think that would be beneficial to society as a whole or would it be a detriment?

If you remove humanistic compassion from the thought process, nothing is lost.

Since that isnt me or our society, much is lost.

Since you and ElNono are basically pulling on the same thread...


Sorry DR, but this is baloney. I don't dispute that SS needs reform or simply be replaced with a better system, but at the current raising costs of medicine, housing, etc, you can wipe your savings in no time at all unless you're talking millions. And we know millionaires only make a blip in the radar compared to the general population, which will turn to the state in one way or another and the taxpayers will be in the hook for it anyways.

...which where being able to afford your own insurance at an elderly age comes into play.

But regardless, it would seem youre both speaking about Medicare, not SS. Also, if youre at retirement age and do not own the home you live in then you literally suck at life.

Medicare I do not feel too strongly about one way or the other, except that it should not be mandatory, it should be elective. This alone would save costs to the system as those of means would flock out of the program entirely and since it is illegal for the Medicare program to negotiate costs as a whole with private healthcare as it is, the net benefit would at least give incentive to change that. As for how much Medicare does and does not cover, I cannot speak to that as the only people I know supplement their coverage anyway with private insurance.

Social Security is a scam for one reason. It is routine for beneficiaries to receive more money than they ever put into the system, especially when you account for inflation.

No one should receive more than they put in or the entire system should be scrapped. I think thats rather simple.

[DarkReign]

The crux of my argument, if there is one, is that SS beneficiaries routinely receive more funds than they ever put in.

Which automatically, IMO, makes its existence indefensible. If SS funds are guaranteed by US Treasury bonds that earn interest, then it would be your contribution + accrued interest. I have no problem with that.

But that just isnt the case. The system, as it exists, is not sustainable unless you either a) only get what you put in or b) as boutons suggested, raise the cap on employees and employers.

Good luck with plan B.

[ElNono]

...which where being able to afford your own insurance at an elderly age comes into play.
But regardless, it would seem youre both speaking about Medicare, not SS.

Well, they're somewhat interwinded. Medicare Part B, for example, is taken straight out of your SS check. You might also be on the hook for Medicare Part A premium (depends on your job).

Add raising housing costs (either as property taxes or rent), etc, and if your only income when you get old is your SS check, you're going to need a heck of a fund to draw from.


Medicare I do not feel too strongly about one way or the other, except that it should not be mandatory, it should be elective.

I would argue that would make it more expensive. Removing people from the pool only removes leverage.


Social Security is a scam for one reason. It is routine for beneficiaries to receive more money than they ever put into the system, especially when you account for inflation.
No one should receive more than they put in or the entire system should be scrapped. I think thats rather simple.

Well, there's plenty of similar systems that operate that way. Take a CD on a bank. You put X money and are guaranteed a return of X+Y after a period of time. The idea behind SS is that the trust fund is converted into T bonds that would be payed back with an interest in the future (thus offsetting the inflation rate). The theory isn't unsound. The problem is that you're lending to a potential delinquent. That's what's wrong about it, and why it needs some sort of reform.

[ElNono]

If SS funds are guaranteed by US Treasury bonds that earn interest, then it would be your contribution + accrued interest. I have no problem with that.

AFAIK, that's the way it's supposed to work. BTW, a lot of private pension funds worldwide operate in a similar way (i.e.: Japan).

[DarkReign]

I would argue that would make it more expensive. Removing people from the pool only removes leverage.

But what leverage?

As I understand it, the government (specifically Medicare) cannot legally negotiate with drug companies or insurance companies as a single entity.

What leverage are you removing if there wasnt any to begin with?

[DarkReign]

AFAIK, that's the way it's supposed to work. BTW, a lot of private pension funds worldwide operate in a similar way (i.e.: Japan).

Well, it isnt working that way. If it were, the system wouldnt be broke, would it?

It would be zero sum.

[ElNono]

But what leverage?
As I understand it, the government (specifically Medicare) cannot legally negotiate with drug companies or insurance companies as a single entity.
What leverage are you removing if there wasnt any to begin with?

Why do you think some doctors don't take Medicare patients?

Price controls on doctors for Medicare reimbursement dates back to the Reagan administration. It's what got rid of the "balance bill". Doctors must charge what Medicare pays, not one more penny. It's a method of price control. The only reason it makes sense for a doctor to see Medicare patients is because of the volume. You remove that and Medicare is left with no more leverage.

[ElNono]

Well, it isnt working that way. If it were, the system wouldnt be broke, would it? It would be zero sum.

It would actually be a positive sum if the T-Bonds would outpace inflation, which IIRC they should. It's obviously broken though. You'll get no argument from me there, and it does need some sort of reform.

[coyotes_geek]

I would like to see SS transformed into some system where everybody gets a personalized account, funded by their SS contributions that only they get to touch once they hit retirement age.

[coyotes_geek]

Medicare is trickier. I think it ends up becoming some kind of voucher program.

[ElNono]

I would like to see SS transformed into some system where everybody gets a personalized account, funded by their SS contributions that only they get to touch once they hit retirement age.

Said account need to somehow accrue some interest to fight off inflation though, otherwise it's pretty worthless.


Medicare is trickier. I think it ends up becoming some kind of voucher program.

Rationing! Death Panels!

[coyotes_geek]

Said account need to somehow accrue some interest to fight off inflation though, otherwise it's pretty worthless.

Forgot to mention putting the money into treasuries was part of the plan.


Rationing! Death Panels!

:madrun

[DarkReign]

Why do you think some doctors don't take Medicare patients?

Price controls on doctors for Medicare reimbursement dates back to the Reagan administration. It's what got rid of the "balance bill". Doctors must charge what Medicare pays, not one more penny. It's a method of price control. The only reason it makes sense for a doctor to see Medicare patients is because of the volume. You remove that and Medicare is left with no more leverage.

Ah, I understand now. Thanks.

[SnakeBoy]

It's obviously broken though. You'll get no argument from me there, and it does need some sort of reform.

Is there any type of reform Dems would actually support?

Bush tried to put forth a plan and was promptly attacked for hating grandma and grandpa. Paul Ryan put something on paper and promptly faced the same attacks. Have dems ever put an actual plan for reform on paper?

[ElNono]

Is there any type of reform Dems would actually support?

Bush tried to put forth a plan and was promptly attacked for hating grandma and grandpa. Paul Ryan put something on paper and promptly faced the same attacks. Have dems ever put an actual plan for reform on paper?

The problem with the GOP proposals is that privatizing it is a non-solution, IMO. You can't put life savings on the market roulette, they're just too important. You see what happened with 401K's. If you willingly want to do it, then get a 401Ks and gamble away. That's my opinion anyways.

I don't see why what coyotes_geek suggested wouldn't gain traction with Dems, outside of some special interest. But in order for that to works the government can't default on it's debt obligations.

[Wild Cobra]

You see what happened with 401K's.
No problem with mine, or most others. Follow a few simple rules, and there is no problem.

When will you stop listening to the scaremongers?

[DarrinS]

Life expectancy was something like 62 years when SS was enacted. People are living 16-17 years longer than that now.

Duh, raise the retirement age.

[ElNono]

No problem with mine, or most others. Follow a few simple rules, and there is no problem.

Nah... I'm sure the 27% loss on average on 2008 alone was no big deal.
By 2010, they were basically where they were in 2006... without adjusting for inflation.


When will you stop listening to the scaremongers?

Like S&P posting a meager 4% for the entire last decade?
I'm talking reality here. If you want to talk about a fantasy world, head to the Geek Zone.

[ElNono]

And BTW, your 401k manager makes money whether your 401k tanks or not. They don't have a fiduciary duty to you, only their shareholders.

[Th'Pusher]

I think that, as a society, we're experiencing the negative consequences of trying to provide a safety net for people's bad circumstances and planning. It's not a one way street where providing a social safety net is good and not having one is bad--there are consequences (good and bad) to a world with and a world without these types of government programs.

But we can put the debate in your terms. I'd argue that society as a whole suffers when we institute programs that diminish one's personal responsibility in planning their financial future. Sure, some people have it tough or might get unlucky in their lives. But you save your money for those rainy days.

Ultimately, society is better off when there is a stronger emphasis on personal financial responsibility and not on government safety nets. Add to that the fact that the safety net itself is falling apart. I just don't see how the advantages to programs like SS outweigh the problems.

So where do you suggest we build the poorhouses? Should we make the poor where P's on their chest, branding them for all the world to see what losers they are in an effort to make an example of these derelict's lack of self discipline and inability to save?

[Wild Cobra]

Nah... I'm sure the 27% loss on average on 2008 alone was no big deal.
By 2010, they were basically where they were in 2006... without adjusting for inflation.
That was a blessed gift. I was buying stocks at a lower price until they gained value again. It increased my stock shares substantially!

Like S&P posting a meager 4% for the entire last decade?
I'm talking reality here. If you want to talk about a fantasy world, head to the Geek Zone.
So? Historical long term has stocks as the best investment around.

I guess you like the government teat, making tax payers pay more than the market bears.

[Wild Cobra]

And BTW, your 401k manager makes money whether your 401k tanks or not. They don't have a fiduciary duty to you, only their shareholders.
I've been putting money in these for a pretty long time. I have no complaints.

My God...

When the market drops, that's when to buy more in them. If the market drops 33%, then when it recovers, your purchases are worth 50% more!

You see, people do things backward. They panic and sell on the slide. Then they buy on the recovery, and end up losing big. The rich people scaring you into this are laughing all the way to the bank, then paying capital gains. Not on the income tax charts.

[ElNono]

That was a blessed gift. I was buying stocks at a lower price until they gained value again. It increased my stock shares substantially!

The first thing you need to understand is that your personal anecdotes are irrelevant when you can actually take a look at overall market performance.
I'm sure some people have done good in the market, even in the downturn. Doesn't mean that the market itself has done well or that the vast majority of people are still trying to catch up.


So? Historical long term has stocks as the best investment around. I guess you like the government teat, making tax payers pay more than the market bears.

And historically you also have major market crashes that take a long time to recover. Historically investing in stocks had nothing to do with the way stocks are traded now either.

There was no online personal trading. There was no high speed trading. Algorithmic trading was a blimp in the radar, whereas now is almost 75% of all transactions.

The sheer amount of interactions of futures, events worldwide, economies crashing or rising overnight all have an impact that's very difficult to tract. Which IMO has a lot to do with the volatility in the market. The current performance dates back to 10+ years. It's a trend, not a hiccup.

There will be times where the Market will outperform other investments, no doubt about it. But it's a rollercoaster, and I frankly can't think it's a good idea to put your retirement money in that basket. It's just way too important. As I said, if you want to gamble with your money, open an account in ScottTrade and gamble away. I don't think that's the responsible thing to do for everybody though.

[Capt Bringdown]

It seems to me Obama is the man from Neoliberal and therefore got exactly what he was after in the recent budget deal, but if you do subscribe to the "poor bargainer" construct, this one is pretty good:

"Barack Obama walks into a car dealership and says to the salesman, “I want to buy a car. Not having a car is not an option. I will definitely buy a car today. And I will definitely buy it from you; I will not buy one from the dealership down the street. I will be buying from you no matter what. But I will not pay a penny more than 50% the manufacturer’s suggested retail price.”

The salesman scratches his head. “So let me get this straight: You will be be buying a car from me no matter what I do or say?”

“Yes,” says Obama.

“Okay, then my offer is 100% of the MSRP.”

“I’ll tell you what,” Obama says, “I can see you understand the importance of a balanced approach. So I will meet you more than halfway. What do you say to 80%?”

The salesman shakes his head. “100%. And you’re a Kenyan Nazi Muslim Socialist baby killer.”

Obama nods thoughtfully. “Mm-hmm, mm-hmm. I see your point. How about 95%?”

“100%.”

“Deal!”

“Now it’s 120%,” says the salesman.

“Really?”

“Yes. I’ve been in this business a long time, and I know about cars. Trust me.”

“Well, I don’t know,” says Obama, “But I guess you’ve got me over a barrel. You have a deal. But NEXT time I’m really going to drive a hard bargain!”

I can’t wait, the salesman thinks."

[ElNono]

I've been putting money in these for a pretty long time. I have no complaints.

How much your 401k dropped since 2006? Don't lie.


When the market drops, that's when to buy more in them. If the market drops 33%, then when it recovers, your purchases are worth 50% more!

The average Joe doesn't want to micromanage. Period. They want to get the money they put in with a modicum adjustment for inflation.

People that like to gamble go to Vegas, play lotto, or own stock. Good for them.


You see, people do things backward. They panic and sell on the slide. Then they buy on the recovery, and end up losing big. The rich people scaring you into this are laughing all the way to the bank, then paying capital gains. Not on the income tax charts.

I'm not scared at all, I have full understanding of the risk involved.
The rich people are actually laughing at fools like you that think they're smarter than the rest and have a system to 'win' in the market.
The rich people make their money by charging you for every trade you make, regardless if the trade ends up being good or not. Laughing all the way to the bank.

[Wild Cobra]

How much your 401k dropped since 2006? Don't lie.

It's only gone up. before that time, I had a rather balanced mix. In my new job, I left it all in the government securities. I missed the bottom by a couple days, I think March of 2009. When that happened, I moved most my holdings into stocks, and all my new investments into stocks. I did quite well. I have left it alone since then, though I'm thinking of moving more of the small cap stock fund into the overseas fund. I don't even remember exactly how I set it up. These things are often best managed by not trying to manage them. They aren't single stocks, but each fund is a basket of stocks.


The average Joe doesn't want to micromanage. Period. They want to get the money they put in with a modicum adjustment for inflation.

There are funds for that.


People that like to gamble go to Vegas, play lotto, or own stock. Good for them.

401 K's are not that risky, unless you work for a sorry ass company that leaves you limited choices to include their own company stock.


I'm not scared at all, I have full understanding of the risk involved.
The rich people are actually laughing at fools like you that think they're smarter than the rest and have a system to 'win' in the market.
The rich people make their money by charging you for every trade you make, regardless if the trade ends up being good or not. Laughing all the way to the bank.

Believe as you wish. I will retain most my money in stock funds and as I get closer to retirement, filter more and more into bond funds.

At least I plan for my retirement instead of being someone expecting the nanny State to care care of me.

[Wild Cobra]

Let me clarify. In the end, it's only gone up. I did a little digging around:

3/11/09 17:23 (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3186363&postcount=134)



so should i stop contributing to my 401k or not?
No.

We are close to the bottom, but the bottom is still illusive. Some day, the markets will return. If I recall, it's about 6800, rebounded a bit. Consider if you invested $1,000 into the market. If they follow the market and go back to say Dow of 14000, these stocks are now worth over $2,000. Buy low. If you wait for the recovery, you wont make the profit. Now of course, this is for long term investing. Not short term.

Since I changed jobs, my old 401k funds have lost about 40% or more and my new investments have been in Security Investments, which have made just under 1%. I'm simply letting the stocks I already have ride it out because I know they will recover. At some point soon, I will roll all those security investments into stocks, and make all my biweekly contributions go to stocks as well. I just haven't decided when is the right time yet. I'm expecting to see below a 6000 on the Dow, but I could be wrong. I actually expect it to drop as low as 5000, but I will place it in at 6000 if it goes that low, so I don't miss a good buying point. If it breaks 7000 however, maybe I'm wrong, and I'll consider putting it in then. It's just hard to say. The market responds fast to democrat policies in the negative, and slow to positive signs. I really think it will still go lower with this congress and president.



3/11/09 17:29 (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3186383&postcount=136)




So they get the credit for any increases too. We'll remember your theory.
Should I give them credit for this one day uptick before I see how far it drops again?

The markets have been falling since after the democrats took over congress in 2007 and started instituting their policies. I don't expect to see a recovery until either they see how bad they fucked up, or until the people are fed up with democrats and elect republicans again in 2010. I see a good two years or more of buying stocks at low prices. I just have to figure out when to start buying in.

If by some miracle, the democrats do turn this market around. Yes, I will be dumbfounded and give them credit. I just don't expect it to happen unless they change the approach they have. Their approach is disastrous.


3/11/09 17:47 (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3186478&postcount=140)




:lol

That's a shitload of ignorance stuffed in three paragraphs.

Tell us all what specific policies in 2007 started the decline in stocks.
It's not any particular policy, but the attitude the democrats bring about. Talk of increasing taxes and regulations especially. It has to do with market confidence, and how investors think the laws will change.


10/21/09 10:08 (http://91.185.193.217/forums/showpost.php?p=3759383&postcount=36)




There's certainly alot of contention on this issue. What do you think of Japan's lost decade? They didn't take any action, and it seemingly doomed them. Why is their situation different?
I wasn't against the government taking some action, I was only against bailing out those who had bad business practices.

Reward bad behavior, and you get more.

If you go back to the earliest of my posts on the subject, I said the government should guarantee loans by smaller banks who did it right, to cover borrowing as needed.

As well, I seem to recall you predicting the DOW would drop to about 6,000 due to the Democrat's policies, and the opposite has happened.
No, it just didn't drop as far as 6,000. It bottomed at 6547.04, I wasn't too far off percentage wise. I made a miscalculation, and if I was correct, I would have bought back into stocks even sooner, before they started going up again. March 9, the Dow hit 6547.04. While I was waiting for lower, I missed the bottom, by about a week. I got in at about 7,600 if I remember right. I don't remember my password for my on-line account and I'm not going to find it to accurately find my gains. I know they are there. I only get an annual report in the mail.

[ElNono]

It's only gone up. before that time, I had a rather balanced mix. In my new job, I left it all in the government securities. I missed the bottom by a couple days, I think March of 2009. When that happened, I moved most my holdings into stocks, and all my new investments into stocks. I did quite well. I have left it alone since then, though I'm thinking of moving more of the small cap stock fund into the overseas fund. I don't even remember exactly how I set it up. These things are often best managed by not trying to manage them. They aren't single stocks, but each fund is a basket of stocks.

I'm glad you luckied out (even though government securities didn't outpace inflation, IIRC, so you might only have gotten even). Most people didn't and it's rather well documented. Baby boomers, now heading for retirement, have on average 40% of their 401K in stocks. People that realize that they're not going to have enough to retire will gamble, and, as seen, for the most part, will lose on that gamble.

A lot of people are still nostalgic with the big dotcom stock bubble of the 90's. That people need to realize that was an exception, and it's far from the rule.


There are funds for that.

What kind? Hedge funds are way too aggressive. They will gamble way harder than Mutual funds, and if they go under, tough luck. Mutual funds are less aggressive, but still risky. There's really nothing as secure as government backed, even if it isn't that profitable.


401 K's are not that risky, unless you work for a sorry ass company that leaves you limited choices to include their own company stock.

401k's are an instrument that will do as well as the investments you have on it, and the market conditions surrounding any given time. There's also nothing preventing you from having a 401k (nor I'm advocating doing away with them). The market itself has turned into a way too volatile medium though. And if you're just going to invest in government instruments only, then paying your 401k manager just becomes overhead.


Believe as you wish. I will retain most my money in stock funds and as I get closer to retirement, filter more and more into bond funds.

It's not a matter of 'believe'. In it's current state, the market is a matter of having both significant volume and a nearly unmeasurable amount of luck or inside info. I spend $2 a week on two tickets for Mega Millions and Power Ball, and I'm willing to bet I have as many odds of becoming a millionaire through that medium that you do into becoming a millionaire playing with your stocks.


At least I plan for my retirement instead of being someone expecting the nanny State to care care of me.

Nothing wrong with planning for retirement. Plenty of people do all the time and some of them still don't have enough. A fairly familiar situation on the current crop of retirees.

I personally don't expect anybody to take care of me. There are other investments that are not tied to the market or bonds that might not perform as well as stocks in a bubble, but are good enough to relatively offset inflation. We were just talking about that with SnakeBoy the other day.

[ElNono]

Let me clarify. In the end, it's only gone up. I did a little digging around:

3/11/09 17:23 (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3186363&postcount=134)

3/11/09 17:29 (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3186383&postcount=136)

3/11/09 17:47 (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3186478&postcount=140)

10/21/09 10:08 (http://91.185.193.217/forums/showpost.php?p=3759383&postcount=36)

This is BS though. The markets have been performing poorly since 2000, basically after the bubble. Inflation since then has been around 31%. No market index has been able to offset that.

Sure, if you micromanaged, juggled your stocks at the right time, picked up some hot steaming stock like Apple or Google and luckied out, you could probably outperform the index. But that's the exception, not the rule.

[Wild Cobra]

It's not a matter of 'believe'. In it's current state, the market is a matter of having both significant volume and a nearly unmeasurable amount of luck or inside info. I spend $2 a week on two tickets for Mega Millions and Power Ball, and I'm willing to bet I have as many odds of becoming a millionaire through that medium that you do into becoming a millionaire playing with your stocks.
LOL...

I'm not looking to be a millionaire, but I have done worse case to best case serious in the past that tells me my usable annual income from my 401K will range, in 2002 dollars, anywhere from $26k to almost $800k. Now since we took this hit, the best case of $800k is no longer real, but it's still at least $500k I bet if I recalculate. the bottom will also now be higher that $26k, probably about $28k to 30k. I figure I will have realistically have about $100k annual in 2002 dollars to retire on.

Compound interest is a wonderful thing.

[Wild Cobra]

This is BS though. The markets have been performing poorly since 2000, basically after the bubble. Inflation since then has been around 31%. No market index has been able to offset that.

Sure, if you micromanaged, juggled your stocks at the right time, picked up some hot steaming stock like Apple or Google and luckied out, you could probably outperform the index. But that's the exception, not the rule.
Believe as you wish.

[ElNono]

Good luck with that. Just FYI, the inflation rate between 2002 to 2011 is 25.5%. You can chomp off a quarter of whatever number you have there. It's only getting worse too, with the QE4, QE5, QE6, etc. Not to mention that it's much more likely you'll see another market crash than a bubble. You're gambling your money away. But hey, it's your money.

[ElNono]

Believe as you wish.

I'll take that as a "yes, the market isn't for everyone". After all, your argument is that you've done what you think is good, not that the markets have.

[Winehole23]

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2011/3830cong_hitler_coup.html

[boutons_deux]

LaRouche! Paranoia BUSINESS! Paranoia CELEBRITY! BE VERY AFRAID!

I haven't seen LaRouche mentioned in a long time.

All of his paranoia, for decades(he's 89), has always turned out to be TRUE! :lol

[Winehole23]

I hoped to get a chuckle out of that.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh god. Now its WC, financial market genius. Is there anything he cannot do?