Reply With Quote
It hasn't. See previous speedbump analogy.
And how has the debt limit stopped it to this point?
It hasn't. See previous speedbump analogy.
It hasn't even been a speedbump.
How about Congress just not spend so much money or raise enough money to cover what it spends?
All for it.
At the least, the debt limit (and accompanying grandstanding/rhetoric) forces politicians to take a stand, perhaps leading to electoral consequences. I don't mind the debate it creates.
Reid plans quick vote and defeat of Boehner debt plan
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...02-503544.html
head Boner doesn't have the anarchic Repug tea baggers on board, anyway.
"leading to electoral consequences"
nah, ignorant bubbas always vote against their own best interests and for enrichment/protection of the wealthy. This is the true "populist" brilliance of Repug politics.
Not anymore apparently.
Because of pure politics, not any actual fiscal concern. Must be the way you like it.
twelve pager by Matt Bai on last year's debt negotiations. heavily reliant on unnamed sources, but presents a much more fine grained picture than we had before.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/ma...deal.html?_r=1
Twelve pages...
Care to summarize? Not feeling up to that much reading today.
I'm not even going to bother reading the wingnut article. The Dems wouldn't even vote on a budget for two ing years. I guess that's one way to avoid an impasse. But I guess that's not political? Kicking the can down the road until they no longer held a majority in both houses?
And didn't I see today that the Barry's budget got defeated unanimously?
not surprised you prefer not to read
I read that article, WH, and it IS a long one, but really really really interesting. The thing about the unnamed sources is that no one on either side would talk if they were named.
I don't hold put much hope for anything changing any time soon.
me too neither
He's right though. What's the point when the democrats didn't do either.
Again, care to summarize?
Very hard to summarize.
The article is a behind the scenes, blow-by-blow account of very complex negotiations. Boehner and Obama both receive praise and criticism, and the article does not answer the question posed by the headline.
The closest thing to a conclusion I can see is that Obama had enough support for the "grand bargain" in his party, but Boehner did not.
So IOW, the blame for the blame for the deficit negotiation impasse can be lain directly at the feet of the republicans.
I don't read it that way and neither does Matt Bai. Very complex negotiations failed, and both negotiators made mistakes. The thing that's striking to me is how close they were to a deal.
Anyway, I don't come away from it blaming Republicans. I posted it here because it's very detailed reporting on negotiations b/w Boehner and the WH, not to grind some ideological axe. I think Boehner negotiated in good faith, he just couldn't get his caucus to go along.
In the end, a deal was made and debt default was avoided (or at least postponed), so blame for the previous impasse is procedurally a moot question , though admittedly, as a political issue it is still very much alive.
Last edited by Winehole23; 03-29-2012 at 03:18 PM.
The striking thing to me was not that it failed but that Obama then went on national television and claimed the deal fell through because the republicans wouldn't agree to any tax increases.
Ya. I was kidding b/c the le of the op. I'm not funny. I am planning on reading the full article this evening when I ave more time. Thanks for posting.
both sides spun it hard and are still spinning. this was one of Obama's big mistakes. pitching in with the Gang of Six was another.
Last edited by Winehole23; 03-31-2012 at 01:45 PM.
True, but when does spin stop and just outright lies start?
the lying stopped at some point? that's news to me...
slightly related:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...ing+61+of+debtThe conventional wisdom that nearly infinite demand exists for U.S. Treasury debt is flawed and especially dangerous at a time of record U.S. sovereign debt issuance.
The recently released Federal Reserve Flow of Funds report for all of 2011 reveals that Federal Reserve purchases of Treasury debt mask reduced demand for U.S. sovereign obligations. Last year the Fed purchased a stunning 61% of the total net Treasury issuance, up from negligible amounts prior to the 2008 financial crisis. This not only creates the false appearance of limitless demand for U.S. debt but also blunts any sense of urgency to reduce supersized budget deficits.
Still, the outdated notion of never-ending buyers for U.S. debt is perpetuated by many. For instance, in recent testimony before the Senate Budget Committee, former Federal Reserve Board Vice Chairman Alan Blinder said, "If you look at the markets, they're practically falling over themselves to lend money to the federal government." Sadly, that's no longer accurate.
It is true that the U.S. government has never been more dependent on financial markets to pay its bills. The net issuance of Treasury securities is now a whopping 8.6% of gross domestic product (GDP) on average per annum—more than double its pre-crisis historical peak. The net issuance of Treasury securities to cover budget deficits has typically been a mere 0.6% to 3.9% of GDP on average for each decade dating back to the 1950s.
The Fed is in effect subsidizing U.S. government spending and borrowing via expansion of its balance sheet and massive purchases of Treasury bonds. This keeps Treasury interest rates abnormally low, camouflaging the true size of the budget deficit. Similarly, the Fed is providing preferential credit to the U.S. government and covering a rapidly widening gap between Treasury's need to borrow and a more limited willingness among market participants to supply Treasury with credit.
But in recent years foreigners and the U.S. private sector have grown less willing to fund the U.S. government. As the nearby chart shows, foreign purchases of U.S. Treasury debt plunged to 1.9% of GDP in 2011 from nearly 6% of GDP in 2009. Similarly, the U.S. private sector—namely banks, mutual funds, corporations and individuals—have reduced their purchases of U.S. government debt to a scant 0.9% of GDP in 2011 from a peak of more than 6% in 2009.
The failure by officials to normalize conditions in the U.S. Treasury market and curtail ballooning deficits puts the U.S. economy and markets at risk for a sharp correction. Lessons from the recent European sovereign-debt crisis and past emerging-market financial crises illustrate how it is often the asynchronous adjustment between budget borrowing requirements and the market's appe e to fund deficits that triggers a shock or crisis. In other words, budget deficits often take years to build or reduce, while financial markets react rapidly and often unexpectedly to deficit spending and debt.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
