Patterico's Pontifications

1/1/2013

Surrender is Complete

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:41 pm

House caves as well:

The House gave final approval Tuesday night to a bill to rescind tax increases for the vast majority of Americans, but only after a day of closed-door debate among Republicans, who were forced to allow a vote on a compromise many in their party disdained.

The final tally, 257 to 167, included most of the chamber’s Democrats and fewer than half of the Republican majority.

The deal, largely negotiated by Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), had passed the Senate early Tuesday morning. It blocked income tax hikes for roughly 99% of households, but allowed rates to rise for those with incomes above $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples.

Buried in the L.A. Times story is the depressing news that ought to be the lede: this crap will increase the debt $4 trillion from the “fiscal cliff” option.

The official cost estimate by the Congressional Budget Office also added to the misery Republicans felt. The tax increases and spending cuts in the fiscal cliff would have sharply reduced the deficit — too sharply in the eyes of most economists. By comparison with those measures, the Senate-passed legislation would make the deficit worse by nearly $330 billion for the 2013 fiscal year, and just shy of $4 trillion over the course of the next decade.

My favorite movie of all time said it best (language warning):

UPDATE: The roll call. My hero Tom McClintock refused to take a bite.

194 Responses to “Surrender is Complete”

  1. To hell with our children. Right?!

    Well done, lawmakers.

    Well. Done.

    Patterico (038ee9)

  2. Whoorez. And if you watched Obama’s gloating pressed, they are just getting started.

    JD (5ed6bd)

  3. Now that he got his tax rates, now he wants to go after deductions, corporations, and increase investment in green energy, roads and bridges, and preserve the safety net. He is just getting started, folks.

    JD (5ed6bd)

  4. Yeah, Romney was exactly the same. No different.

    Jeez, people.

    Simon Jester (2b1747)

  5. Some wafflers like Issa ran for cover. Think I can trust Michele? Find out Thursday. Pool on the Rep. who moots the secret ballot?

    How’s about King, IA? Huelskamp?

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  6. I don’t think we are making that argument today,

    narciso (3fec35)

  7. The bettermhalf od Team R is indistinguishable, on this topic, Simon.

    JD (5ed6bd)

  8. Overheard during AF1 takeoff for Honolulu: ‘Allahu Akbar!’

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  9. Bounce, bounce, boing!

    htom (412a17)

  10. Gary, the full roll call is here:

    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll659.xml

    aphrael (727793)

  11. Bachmann, voted no, just in case you were wondering, gary,

    narciso (3fec35)

  12. He gave 2 partisan speeches in 2 days. He better hurry back to Hawaii.

    JD (5ed6bd)

  13. UPDATE: The roll call. My hero Tom McClintock refused to take a bite.

    Patterico (038ee9)

  14. Hey ‘Justified’ is back next week, that’s something right?

    narciso (3fec35)

  15. New Year’s resolution: I’m tired of being a moochee and am going to try like hell to join the 47%. How can there be so much new money flowing into the economy and I’m not getting any of it?

    Diffus (4a5ca6)

  16. Trying to find the silver lining: There is still going to have to be a budget passed in 2013, and the ratings agencies are going to take a very keen interest in the debt ceiling negotiations. If this is a “win” for Obama, as his media fans are trying to insist, then it should theoretically make it a lot harder for them to explain away the culpability of the administration when we get our credit rating downgraded yet again. Not that they won’t try though.

    I mean, at some point even media liberals are going to have to acknowledge that our current spending trajectory is divorced from fiscal reality, won’t they?

    JVW (4826a9)

  17. How can there be so much new money flowing into the economy and I’m not getting any of it?

    Everyone should quit their day job (assuming they’re a part of the private sector) and go work for government.

    In France, a high percentage of younger adults (based on polls) say their big goal in life is to be hired by the public sector, to become a part of the cushy bureaucracy. Meanwhile, here in the US, the IRS had its budget increased by half a billion bucks early last year, so maybe getting a job as a tax auditor can be everyone’s wet dream?

    It blocked income tax hikes for roughly 99% of households, but allowed rates to rise for those with incomes above $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples.

    For purely tactical, strategic reasons, I don’t know if the Republicans/conservatives could have come up with any alternative. The possible outcomes or scenarios all tended to be lose-lose for the GOP, thanks mainly to much of the public being as idiotically liberal as the guy now in the White House.

    Don’t cry for us, Argentina.

    Mark (b5c530)

  18. Well, the Democrats have finally achieved the in-your-face smack-down they have been waiting to administer since Reagan was President. The lousy Rethuglicans have finally been put in their place.

    All will be well and good forever and ever, Amen.
    Thank God, the Holy Spirit and Jesus, as well as His assigned angel on Earth.

    So, shut up and pay attention to what matters. The NRA is bad. Hillary has a clot. Some hoochie is knocked up by some guy that seems to be famous and for goodness sake; Notre Dame is in the national championship game.

    Ignore the man behind the curtain.

    Some troll will be along pretty soon to tell you to listen to your betters. All is well and good and will be forever because Yeah Barack!

    Ag80 (b2c81f)

  19. I was reminded tonight that there was once a very wise man named Thomas Jefferson. I believe he may have been an arborist, for he wrote memorably about his view of the correct way to refresh trees.

    Kevin Stafford (1d1b9e)

  20. A county that gives a shit would be burning d.c. now.
    We re a nation of cowards.

    mg (31009b)

  21. country

    mg (31009b)

  22. The Wire had something to say in defense of people like Boehner along those same lines.

    It’s a couple minutes long, but it’s worth it: old mayor explains job to new mayor.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  23. I think if anyone replaces Boehner, it’ll be Cantor.

    This was a bowl of sh1t for a lot of people. They basically only had the choice of eating it with a spoon or a fork, so I don’t read too much into individual votes — but Boehner shouldn’t have let it get to this point. Management failure.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  24. There is still going to have to be a budget passed in 2013

    Why? They didn’t pass one in 2010, 2011 or 2012. Who’s going to make them? The press?

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  25. 10, 11. Thanks. Seems Boehner killed the Senate’s Sandy bill over the Cantor swipe.

    Ugly when trains take dirt roads, have another heater Speaker.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  26. Read somewhere Cantor and McCarthy voted ‘nay’ after the ‘ayes’ carried the point.

    Guess if the newbie can actually speak it’ll be an improvement.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  27. Cantor is a progressive dolt.
    The republican party has just been eliminated from the political scene.
    Thank God.
    No more voting for the likes of juan mcclod, mittens, bobby dole, or either bush.
    F-off all you voting republicans, you are less than average, when it comes to common sense.

    mg (31009b)

  28. Fact – When it gets to survival of the fittest the republicans are bait.

    mg (31009b)

  29. Paul Ryan can kiss my now below middle class ass.

    mg (31009b)

  30. To think Mrs. Palin is the one with the nut sack is truly embarrass ing.

    mg (31009b)

  31. The silver lining in this is that Obama will keep adding more debt and his economy will continue to be lackluster.Eventually the people will wake up.

    Dennis D (b481af)

  32. Spending cuts-;ater for that with Choom in chatge.

    We are doomed.When anyone who voted for this invokes “it’s for the children” they need to have it pointed out borrowing 40 cents of every dollar is creating a bigger debt than ever for those very children.

    And from someone who’s family was completely messed up by Sandy-thanks for nothing.

    Bugg (b32862)

  33. senates going to flip in 2014.

    One good thing is that 98% of the bush tax cuts were made permanent.

    Also Boehmer cut 65.4 billion last night by refusing a vote on Sandy largess – 1st most of those homeowners had trillions in insurnce, and most of the bill didnt have anything to do with Sandy aid

    EPWJ (e83e82)

  34. How did that conservative economic guru Ryan vote?

    EPWJ (e83e82)

  35. Ryan, yes, Cantor, no. Details-

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/h659

    Bugg (ba4ca9)

  36. those who voted yes will more than likely have a 3rd party Tea Party challenger if they don’t get primaried and then run 3rd party…thus opening door for it to flip.

    GOP base in full on revolt

    White House now entrenched in thinking they’re a venture capital firm that can create jobs through taxes and “investment”

    Obama smiles…

    Hawkins (1fc204)

  37. New Year’s resolution: I’m tired of being a moochee and am going to try like hell to join the 47%. How can there be so much new money flowing into the economy and I’m not getting any of it?
    Comment by Diffus (4a5ca6) — 1/1/2013 @ 10:02 pm

    – The money is for the moochers. Don’t go to work; you got hurt and now you don’t have enough money to feed your family or pay the rent. Government assistance, baby! It’s all about the G.A.!

    Icy (b8a59c)

  38. Not really, name a forceful Tory leader in opposition or without, since Thatcher,

    narciso (3fec35)

  39. One good thing is that 98% of the bush tax cuts were made permanent.
    Comment by EPWJ (e83e82) — 1/2/2013 @ 4:52 am

    – You should volunteer to help the president with his math homework.

    Icy (b8a59c)

  40. My hero, Senator-elect Jeff Flake, also voted ‘No’.

    Icy (b8a59c)

  41. Ron Paul did not vote? I guess he really IS a libertarian, then. He stuck by his principles and told the House, “Do whatever you want, just so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else.”
    Oh, wait . . .

    Icy (b8a59c)

  42. I don’t necessarily disagree that the GOP rolled over.

    But the other POV is that Obama has again shown himself to be very weak. He caved in on the income level for tax hikes because he was going to lose east coast Democrats like Schumer, for whose constituents the $250K level was unacceptable.

    And of course, now that 95% of the “Bush tax cuts” have been made permanent, the Democrats claim that those cuts were what caused the financial crisis and budget problems are admitted by Democrats to be brazen lies.

    SPQR (768505)

  43. My Congressman voted ‘no’ as well. Good.

    SPQR (768505)

  44. what value does boehner add to this process?

    I think it’s vastly more important to watch if your congresswhore votes to retain boehner’s useless ass in leadership than to worry how they voted on the silly cliff thingy

    happyfeet (955364)

  45. Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 1/2/2013 @ 12:46 am

    — but Boehner shouldn’t have let it get to this point. Management failure.

    It was either split the Democratic Party, or split the Republican Party, or split both. Barack Obama and Harry Reid succeeded in keeping over 90% of the Democrats together while dividing the Republicans.

    I think the cause that maintains the partisanship is centralized campaign financing, and committee assignments, with a dose of sweeteners, not gerrymandered districts, and the strings on the Democrats are stronger than on the Republicans.

    Because Boehner could not get anything passed, even his Plan B (which Harry Reid would have treated as nonexistent) he agreed to a House vote on anything that passed the Senate with Republican consent, and there was a very free vote for Republicans, albeit with some importuning by Boehner.

    It got 36% of the Republicans and 91% of the Democrats in the House. Overall, the bill got 61% of the member voting. There was a 90-vote margin.

    If something more in the Republican trending direction would have lost as many as 4 Democratic votes for every Republican vote it gained, you could have gotten up to a 100 for and 136 against Republican split, or 42%, and the Democratic percentage (in this imaginary or thoretical vote) would have been just under 60%

    In this whole Congress, Boehner was not willing to try to pass bills that gained a majority of Democratic votes, and 40% to 50% of Republicans.

    Sammy Finkelman (d1a369)

  46. The Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan Washington research group, estimates that 77 percent of American households will face higher federal taxes in 2013 under the agreement negotiated between President Barack Obama and Senate Republicans. High-income families will feel the biggest tax increases, but many middle- and low-income families will pay higher taxes too.

    – Oh, but I thought that “95%” or “98%” of the Bush tax cuts have been made “permanent”. What gives?

    Households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will face an average tax increase of $579 in 2013, according to the Tax Policy Center’s analysis. Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will face an average tax increase of $822.
    “For most people, it’s just the payroll tax,” said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.

    – Oh. Well, that wasn’t a Bush thing. So … still … 98% preserved; right?

    The new tax package would increase the income tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent on income above $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for married couples. Investment taxes would increase for people who fall in the new top tax bracket.
    High-income families will also pay higher taxes this year as part of Obama’s 2010 health care law. As part of that law, a new 3.8 percent tax is being imposed on investment income for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and couples making more than $250,000.
    Together, the new tax package and Obama’s health care law will produce significant tax increases for many high-income families.
    For 2013, households making between $500,000 and $1 million would get an average tax increase of $14,812, according to the Tax Policy Center analysis. Households making more than $1 million would get an average tax increase of $170,341.

    – Now, keeping in mind that the top 2% of earners pay 50% of all income taxes, and 50% of earners pay no income taxes at all, tell me again WHAT percentage of the Bush tax cuts have been made ‘permanent’?

    Icy (f1nk31m@n) (b8a59c)

  47. Bills that passed with only Republicans, or almost only Republicans, in the House got nowhere in the Senate, which had Democratic leadership, and a Democratic majority and a filibuster rule, and were often just for show.

    What could have worked were bills that got close to a majority of Republicans, while getting a small majority of Democrats.

    Sammy Finkelman (d1a369)

  48. Both Mitch McConnell and John Boehner deserve to be tarred-n-feathered and run out of town on a rail.

    The GOP establishment would rather capitulate to Democrats than fight for issues vital to Conservatives. Republican leaders always talk the talk, but when the chips are down they stab Conservatives in the back every time.

    ropelight (3c811e)

  49. Comment by Icy (f1nk31m@n) (b8a59c) — 1/2/2013 @ 7:27 am

    Oh, but I thought that “95%” or “98%” of the Bush tax cuts have been made “permanent”. What gives? </i

    As the article indicates belatedly:

    The Bush tax cuts, which were income tax cuts, but not the Obama-era payroll tax cuts, which were always supposed to be temporary. (they weren't the same every year, but in 2012, it was 2% on the employee's portion)

    So literally every person on a payroll gets a 2% cut in pay – on the gross, not the net. But the 10% tax bracket remains.

    Households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will face an average tax increase of $579 in 2013, according to the Tax Policy Center’s analysis.

    2% of $45,000 is $900. It’s less, because not all of this is earned income from wages, salaries and tips. There are retired or semi-retired people with income in this range, although there has to be some other factor that explains this reduction of $900 or so to $579.

    There’s also the annual adjustment of income tax brackets and the standard deduction and personal exemption for inflation – maybe they are figuring that in too.

    “For most people, it’s just the payroll tax,” said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.

    – Oh. Well, that wasn’t a Bush thing. So … still … 98% preserved; right?

    Not 98% of the taxes, 98% of the people will not see the Bush era cuts in their income taxes reversed because their incomes simply aren’t high enough to be affected.

    There will be some new Obamacare payroll (0.9% on high income I think) and investment (new 3.9% Medicare tax I think) taxes, though, on high income earners, and also a phaseout of deductions and exemptions starting at $200,000 for singles and $250,000 for couples.

    – Now, keeping in mind that the top 2% of earners pay 50% of all income taxes, and 50% of earners pay no income taxes at all, tell me again WHAT percentage of the Bush tax cuts have been made ‘permanent’?

    Information is insufficient to answer that question, but it’s lot less than 98% of the taxes. It’s less than 98% of taxpayers.

    It’s 98% of households unaffected by the income tax bracket changes. That’s households, not people, by the way. There are fewer people in low income households.

    Sammy Finkelman (d1a369)

  50. Comment by JVW (4826a9) — 1/1/2013 @ 10:11pm

    There is still going to have to be a budget passed in 2013, and the ratings agencies are going to take a very keen interest in the debt ceiling negotiations.

    Only over the question of brinksmanship. The United States is not Greece or Spain.

    Sammy Finkelman (d1a369)

  51. Th Ruling Class breathes a sigh of relief. Meanwhile, reality prepares to annihilate them.

    Patricia (be0117)

  52. The democrats could run a dead man against the republicans and win.

    mg (31009b)

  53. I would have preferred that the House GOP vote “present”, like Choom did most of his career, and let the Democrats pass this. The whole thing is dispiriting and I look for lower GOP turnout in 2014.

    Mike K (5552a4)

  54. Sammy, why are you still misrepresenting the positions of the rating agencies?

    SPQR (fd75e7)

  55. Some minor provisions of the “fiscal cliff” bill:

    The long term care insurance provision of Obamacare that Senator Ted Kennedy was for is officially repealed. (It was found financially unworkable and suspended Oct. 2011) A 15-member commission is appointed to study the issue and recommend legislation in about six months.

    $430 million in tax breaks for Hollywood studios allegedly to encourage them to make movies in the United States is extended (for another year?)

    Tax breaks for motor sports complexes are extended.

    Altogether the business tax extenders amount to $100 billion.

    Medicare payments to hospitals are reduced by 10.5 billion over 10 years.(in exchange for 1-year extension of the “doc fix”? Payments for physicians were scheduled to go down by 26.5% This amount get higher every year. It’s supposed to trail inflation or something. Nobody intends to suddenly reduce payments to the level they would have reached had payments actually risen by no more than X% but it stays in the 10-year budget projection and has to be avoided every year.

    Medicaid payment reductions to states for hospitals that have large numbers of low income patients are extended to the year 2022.

    Payments for physical therapy and other therapy are limited to one time per day per patient.

    Payments for ambulance travel of kidney dialysis patients for scheduled sessions is reduced.

    Payment for stereotactic radiosurgery in hospital outpatient department for cranial lesions if done in one session is reduced. This is expected to save $400 million over 10 years.

    (Payments for other services done in hospital clinics that can also be done in doctor’s offices are expected to be reduced in the future, but only when and as needed to meet budget targets)

    The government gets more time to recover Medicare overpayments.

    Payments to HMOs serving Medicare beneficiaries is reduced.

    Sammy Finkelman (d1a369)

  56. It’s looking like the only chance for the country is if they come for the guns and a war breaks out.Politicians of all stripes have failed us to the extreme.

    Drider (b003e1)

  57. What Obama wants and needs is for conservatives to completely give up on the GOP. My take is that Obama was willing to make concessions so long as he could position the GOP to increase taxes in some shape or form. This is what ruined Bush 41′s chances and fractured the GOP in 1992.

    It’s hard to see how the GOP was going to win this round. We lost the recent election… Americans do not want spending cuts and there isn’t enough money to pay for this kind of government. There’s not a lot that can be done to change that.

    What we need to see is some courage when the debt ceiling is reached. We need to see some investigations about the lack of a budget, which is unlawful. We need someone to be the adult who enforces the nation’s credit limit. This will lead to brinksmanship of a ruthless nature. No doubt Obama would defund absolutely anything the GOP is sympathetic to. But we have to refuse to increase the debt ceiling. We have to insist on budgets. I think this would eventually yield to more success on election day, as it would give the GOP credibility as a conservative spending party. We probably also need to rebrand ourselves as focused almost entirely on this, Mitch Daniels style.

    We need candidates for party leadership to explain how they intend to lead on the debt ceiling, and then we need them to make a point that this isn’t a game. We aren’t going to need shows of negotiations and media bickering. The debt ceiling won’t be increased, and the democrats are required by law to pass a budget. Everyone needs to find a way to live within a budget, period, end of story.

    If the GOP can be so courageous, I think some voters will come back. No doubt, the democrats will also get good turnout from the takers. Let’s have a few elections of that nature. Let people continue to realize they are either in one of these categories or the other, and appeal to their decency.

    Dustin (73fead)

  58. Comment by SPQR (fd75e7) — 1/2/2013 @ 8:49 am

    Sammy, why are you still misrepresenting the positions of the rating agencies?

    I’m not. I;m telling you what it is – what they said in August 2011 what it is (semi-quietly)

    It is Republicans in Congress and the Tea Party who are misrepresenting what the downgrade was about. It’s not about fiscal virtue – at least more “virtuous” budgeting.

    They are not beginning to worry about the ability of the United States government to meet its legal obligations – they are beginning to worry about its willingness.

    Sammy Finkelman (d1a369)

  59. Dustin, conservatives did give up on the GOP this past election for POTUS.They didn’t show up along with the libertarians and Obama was elected.

    And I must say, if you have an inkling in your mind that the GOP is going to hold fast on the debt ceiling then you are seriously dreaming sir.
    All you need to know about the GOP is that they will say all the right words, feign die hard principles and then promptly vote the opposite.They will also follow the Democrats play on reducing spending over 10-20 years meaning they don’t have the courage to do the right thing but maybe some kids who are in high school now will muster the courage to do what they would not when the time rolls around.
    It’s total BS.

    Oh and at the end of Obama’s second term there still will not be a budget in place, laws just don’t work among the elite lawmakers when there is nobody to push them on it, hence, the GOP.The game is rigged and they all are in on it.

    Drider (b003e1)

  60. Sammy, thank you for explaining why I said that EPWJ misstated the percentage of Bush tax cuts that have become ‘permanent’.

    What would he do without you?

    Icy (f1nk31m@n) (b8a59c)

  61. . The tax increases and spending cuts in the fiscal cliff would have sharply reduced the deficit — too sharply in the eyes of most economists.

    What would have been wrong with that?

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  62. They are not beginning to worry about the ability of the United States government to meet its legal obligations – they are beginning to worry about its willingness.

    Don’t be so sure, Sammy. It’s like claiming that the credit card company doesn’t care about how much debt you pile up, just as long as you continue to make your minimum monthly payment. If that were the case then there would be no such thing as a credit limit.

    What’s up with the auto-italics?

    JVW (4826a9)

  63. 50. “The United States is not Greece or Spain.”

    Or Argentina, or Japan, or the UK,..

    No, its not, but all of the above are the Walking Dead.

    And their decline in a virtual moment is redundantly guaranteed. We’ve noted already bond issues, yet have not recounted CDS or hypothecated collateral, or Student Loan default, or unfunded obligations of the Federal government, …

    There still remains 3 million homes in limbo, the ‘owner’ gone, the bank foregoing foreclosure, to say nothing of all the vacant commercial properties banks have yet to purge from their bad debts.

    Contagion in an avalanche of default is a certainty.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  64. Just for a counter-point to all the negative nellies out there (including me), Yuval Levin over at NRO argues that (1) it was probably the best deal that the GOP could get and (2) the long-term consequences of this deal do not bode well for Democrats. I don’t agree with everything he writes, but he does make some salient points.

    JVW (4826a9)

  65. 58. “It is Republicans in Congress and the Tea Party who are misrepresenting what the downgrade was about.”

    Present company excepted, naturally.

    Sam read Chinese history. The Dynasties devolved via the debasement of the currency, just as the Romans and our current America.

    The total obligations of our Federal, State, and Muncipal governments is roughly $200 Trillion. Throw in our financial system, shadow banks, hedge funds, etc., its roughly $1 Quadrillion, notional.

    Its not just a house of cards, its an inverted one.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  66. “The more bread you have, the less crap you have to eat.”

    mojo (8096f2)

  67. Sammy, you are in fact misrepresenting what the rating agencies said about the downgrade. And you are doing it despite Steve57 quoting the S&P statement to you.

    You’ve become a parody of a parody of yourself.

    SPQR (768505)

  68. ==Democrats have made the Bush tax rates permanent for 98 percent of the public, which Republicans couldn’t even do when they controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency. . . .

    The answer to why the Democrats did so badly is three-fold. For starters, the president has never been able to rally the public on a major policy initiative and he failed to do so again here, merely annoying his opponents, who dug in their heels. Second, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) knew exactly what he was doing — seeing that Democrats were so focused on one big item (raising the rate for the very wealthy) he recognized that he could scoop up a lot of goodies (estate tax relief, a two-month buydown on the sequestration). And finally, once House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) let on that there would be flexibility on taxes, he found the Democrats’ weakness: a total lack of credibility on spending cuts. Well, if they are not really going to cut much, then the tax hikes have to be moderated, and indeed they were.

    The professional class of aggrieved conservatives showed that their obstinacy clears the way for a coalition of practical Democratic and Republican lawmakers to horse trade. That is the best development in national politics in a long time. Let’s see if it is sustainable.== (Why the left got taken to the cleaners–Jennifer Rubin WAPO)

    elissa (243135)

  69. elissa, had we had a positive result from the first budget showdown or the second, when Obama held the families of servicemen hostage, which I recall led to the sequester, and how did that work out, then I would believe that is the right path.

    narciso (3fec35)

  70. And she makes a good point, elissa, as Obama got only a fraction of what he demanded, and in fact got less than Boehner’s offer on tax increases.

    Those evil Bush tax cuts that caused budget deficits, financial crisis, and the heartbreak of psoriasis? Democrats just voted for all but a tiny faction of them to be permanent.

    Obama’s lack of leadership demonstrated again.

    SPQR (768505)

  71. . The tax increases and spending cuts in the fiscal cliff would have sharply reduced the deficit — too sharply in the eyes of most economists.

    The idea that there would be a sharp decrease in the deficit is laughable.

    JD (78d90b)

  72. Will Rogers, if he were alive today, would be a Republican, since he always said that he’s not a member of an organized political party.

    “Give me Liberty, or give me Death!”

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  73. Moody’s still won’t say what Sammy thinks they say:

    Moody’s Investors Service said that the fiscal package passed by both houses of Congress yesterday is a further step in clarifying the medium-term deficit and debt trajectory of the federal government. It does not, however, provide a basis for a meaningful improvement in the government’s debt ratios over the medium term. The rating agency expects that further fiscal measures are likely to be taken in coming months that would result in lower future budget deficits, which are necessary if the negative outlook on the government’s bond rating is to be returned to stable.

    SPQR (768505)

  74. And I must say, if you have an inkling in your mind that the GOP is going to hold fast on the debt ceiling then you are seriously dreaming sir

    I know. It was very frustrating the last time this came up, as we finally had some way to thwart the expansion of government, but the GOP leadership didn’t see it that way. Or they were cowed by the media that will demonize them no matter what they do. Or they were reminded of their own hypocrisies on spending (Which aren’t really relevant to what the right thing to do is now).

    conservatives did give up on the GOP this past election for POTUS.

    I have not looked into that and don’t know how I could. I wouldn’t be surprised if the right didn’t turn out. I was frustrated with our nominee to put it mildly. But the choice was clear enough that anyone who didn’t show up to vote against Obama (and for Romney) doesn’t take this country’s future seriously.

    I think the election was actually the takers exercising their political might. This country is mostly takers, and with that in mind, everything else makes sense.

    Dustin (73fead)

  75. Icy,

    Aoproximately 2% make over 450,000 minus the deductions.

    again, sadly, you just share complete misinformation.

    A family making 70 to 80K a year has their tax rates lowered from 15% to 10% permanently.

    EPWJ (5804d3)

  76. Not permanently. Just until congress decides to change it. And that same family got a 2% increase in taxes from the payroll tax reset. Plus all the taxes from ObamaCare that just went into effect. So, you are wrong.

    JD (78d90b)

  77. Icy,

    Families that make 70 to 80K a year were in danger of having their tax rates go from 10% to 15% as every year these rates have to be extended – now they are permanently in th tax code.

    Very few people make over 450,000 dollars a year, I was expecting a 10% increase in my taxes and unfortunately just got it.

    I’m not happy about it and it accomplished nothing but a nasty up yours from Obama – and he also just raised everyone’s taxes 2% from dollar one and thats not going to go over very well.

    EPWJ (5804d3)

  78. JD

    eh, I sent the post before I was finished but you are correct – Obama just raised a bunch of taxes and did the Edwin EDwards, Bill Clinton, Sarah Palin thingy- raising taxes and spending for temporary popularity has serious effects upon popularity.

    EPWJ (5804d3)

  79. Oh good Allah.

    JD (78d90b)

  80. has their tax rates lowered from 15% to 10%

    Isn’t ‘lowered from 10% to 10%’ a little more accurate to their real world experience? I know congress likes to talk about ‘cuts’ that are really just changes in projections, but if someone is paying more taxes now (due to payroll tax), they did not get a tax cut.

    Dustin (73fead)

  81. Dustin, as you well know, that FICA thing isn’t a tax tax, it’s an investment in your future.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  82. Dustin

    The rates under the law were 15%,the 10% was a temporary reduction and had to be reapproved every year.

    Now its 10% and its permanent – under the rules its going take 60% of the senate to remove it

    EPWJ (5804d3)

  83. Via zerohedge, re: credit agencies expectations:

    “There is one final loose end, and that is the ratings agency response. Ratings agencies were fairly consistent in saying that a ‘grand bargain’ deficit reduction plan that would take 2.5trn or more off the ten-year deficit would be required to avert a US sovereign downgrade. With the US having failed on a one-stage grand bargain, it is unclear whether a downgrade would come in the next few days. Ratings agencies may choose to wait to see what happens in March with sequesters, the debt ceiling, etc.”

    As the sequester was worth $1.2 Trillion and is now devalued, erased, vaporized, whatever, we are on double secret probation until that inevitable moment when we are, post-fact, esteemed profligate reprobates bereft of redemptive avenue.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  84. The rates under the law were 15%,the 10% was a temporary reduction and had to be reapproved every year.

    That is true, yet everyone has been paying their actual 10% rates (or whatever they are) for many many years, and I don’t think anyone’s actual experience is that Obama just gave us a nice tax cut.

    It’s a cut in the increase that could have been and isn’t. And an increase too. So I call that an increase.

    Dustin (73fead)

  85. Now its 10% and its permanent – under the rules its going take 60% of the senate to remove it

    That does not make it permanent.

    JD (78d90b)

  86. Dustin, as you well know, that FICA thing isn’t a tax tax, it’s an investment in your future.

    Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 1/2/2013

    True, lol. I just love how much Washington DC cares about my future. I’m sure when I’m old and retiring and see the opportunities my grandkids have, I will be thanking these fine politicians for investing so much in our future.

    Dustin (73fead)

  87. what you need for your future old age, is a good scope on your rifle.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  88. “Moody’s still won’t say what Sammy thinks they say”

    SPQR – Sammy is a credit rating agency whisperer.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  89. 30. Most strange. Indeed.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  90. 90. She never received respect or a thank you from the lame republicans. Yet she managed to galvanize a substantial sector of the electorate.

    mg (31009b)

  91. Obama just raised a bunch of taxes and did the Edwin EDwards, Bill Clinton, Sarah Palin thingy- raising taxes and spending for temporary popularity has serious effects upon popularity.
    Comment by EPWJ (5804d3) — 1/2/2013 @ 3:26 pm

    – Haven’t I warned you like a zillion times to drop this ‘Palin raised taxes’ crap?

    Icy (f1nk31m@n) (b8a59c)

  92. Icy

    She’s in good company

    EPWJ (5804d3)

  93. No, the first two are smarmy, corrupt hacks, without an honest bone in their bodies, not unlike
    the Letten fellow who persecuted O’Keefe in favor of the party machine,

    narciso (3fec35)

  94. if everything is italicky nothing is italicky

    that my friends is what you call a truism

    happyfeet (2cf801)

  95. EPWJ, if the top 1% of earners pay 35% of the taxes, and their rates went up from 36% to 39.5%, then WHAT % of Bush’s tax cuts are still in place?

    Icy (f1nk31m@n) (b8a59c)

  96. happyfeet speaks trvth.

    Icy (f1nk31m@n) (b8a59c)

  97. Icy.

    98% had their taxes lowered

    2%, had their taxes raised

    on the income tax

    100% had their payroll taxes raised – like when reagan had to to lower the rate to 28% and the bottom rate to 15%

    Democrats are going to get it once everyone gets their paychecks

    EPWJ (5804d3)

  98. 58. Comment by SPQR (fd75e7) — 1/2/2013 @ 8:49 am

    Sammy, why are you still misrepresenting the positions of the rating agencies?

    I’m not. I;m telling you what it is – what they said in August 2011 what it is (semi-quietly)

    It is Republicans in Congress and the Tea Party who are misrepresenting what the downgrade was about. It’s not about fiscal virtue – at least more “virtuous” budgeting.

    They are not beginning to worry about the ability of the United States government to meet its legal obligations – they are beginning to worry about its willingness.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d1a369) — 1/2/2013 @ 8:56 am

    Sammy, sometimes it’s kind of charming when you get lost in the corridors of your mind and then post a comment to describe the view.

    This isn’t one of those times.

    Egan-Jones was the first NRSRO to downgrade the US’ credit rating.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-18/egan-jones-cuts-u-s-rating-to-aa-on-spending-cut-concern-1-.html

    “The major factor driving credit quality is the relatively high level of debt and the difficulty in significantly cutting spending,” the firm said July 16 in a report. Egan-Jones placed the U.S. on negative watch on March 1.

    We are not being downgraded because the rating agencies are worried the GOP won’t raise the debt ceiling and authorize increased borrowing. They are worried that they will.

    It’s the borrowing that’s causing the downgrades. It’s QEnfinity that’s causing the downgrade. It’s the growing debt that results that’s causing the downgrade.

    It’s the fact that people like you, but in Congress and in the WH, think the solution is to demonstrate to the market that we’re eager to raise the debt ceiling that’s causing the downgrade.

    Because your solution is to demonstrate you’re not at all serious about reigning in the debt. Your solution is to grow the problem; that’s what’s causing the downgrade.

    http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563&ffFix=yes

    Our revised upside scenario–which, other things being equal, we view as
    consistent with the outlook on the ‘AA+’ long-term rating being revised to
    stable–retains these same macroeconomic assumptions. In addition, it
    incorporates $950 billion of new revenues on the assumption that the 2001 and
    2003 tax cuts for high earners lapse from 2013 onwards, as the Administration
    is advocating. In this scenario, we project that the net general government
    debt would rise from an estimated 74% of GDP by the end of 2011 to 77% in 2015
    and to 78% by 2021.
    Our revised downside scenario–which, other things being equal, we view
    as being consistent with a possible further downgrade to a ‘AA’ long-term
    rating–features less-favorable macroeconomic assumptions, as outlined below
    and also assumes that the second round of spending cuts (at least $1.2
    trillion) that the act calls for does not occur. This scenario also assumes
    somewhat higher nominal interest rates for U.S. Treasuries. We still believe
    that the role of the U.S. dollar as the key reserve currency confers a
    government funding advantage, one that could change only slowly over time, and
    that Fed policy might lean toward continued loose monetary policy at a time of
    fiscal tightening. Nonetheless, it is possible that interest rates could rise
    if investors re-price relative risks. As a result, our alternate scenario
    factors in a 50 basis point (bp)-75 bp rise in 10-year bond yields relative to
    the base and upside cases from 2013 onwards. In this scenario, we project the
    net public debt burden would rise from 74% of GDP in 2011 to 90% in 2015 and
    to 101% by 2021.
    Our revised scenarios also take into account the significant negative
    revisions to historical GDP data that the Bureau of Economic Analysis
    announced on July 29. From our perspective, the effect of these revisions
    underscores two related points when evaluating the likely debt trajectory of
    the U.S. government. First, the revisions show that the recent recession was
    deeper than previously assumed, so the GDP this year is lower than previously
    thought in both nominal and real terms. Consequently, the debt burden is
    slightly higher. Second, the revised data highlight the sub-par path of the
    current economic recovery when compared with rebounds following previous
    post-war recessions. We believe the sluggish pace of the current economic
    recovery could be consistent with the experiences of countries that have had
    financial crises in which the slow process of debt deleveraging in the private
    sector leads to a persistent drag on demand. As a result, our downside case
    scenario assumes relatively modest real trend GDP growth of 2.5% and inflation
    of near 1.5% annually going forward.
    When comparing the U.S. to sovereigns with ‘AAA’ long-term ratings that
    we view as relevant peers–Canada, France, Germany, and the U.K.–we also
    observe, based on our base case scenarios for each, that the trajectory of the
    U.S.’s net public debt is diverging from the others.
    Including the U.S., we
    estimate that these five sovereigns will have net general government debt to
    GDP ratios this year ranging from 34% (Canada) to 80% (the U.K.), with the
    U.S. debt burden at 74%. By 2015, we project that their net public debt to GDP
    ratios will range between 30% (lowest, Canada) and 83% (highest, France), with
    the U.S. debt burden at 79%. However, in contrast with the U.S., we project
    that the net public debt burdens of these other sovereigns will begin to
    decline, either before or by 2015.

    They are not saying what Krugman is telling you to think they are saying, sammy.

    Steve57 (2073db)

  99. Poor Sammy, all he knows is what he reads in the paper.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  100. EPWJ’s obsession with Palin shows up again … despite it having no f’ing thing to do with the thread.

    SPQR (768505)

  101. Even Dan Fagan, who is the Alaskan variety of EPJW, finally got a clue, after he spent three years tearing her down,

    narciso (3fec35)

  102. Tuck your kids in tight. Somewhere… there is a Sarah Palin happening.

    Dustin (73fead)

  103. “And of course, now that 95% of the “Bush tax cuts” have been made permanent, the Democrats claim that those cuts were what caused the financial crisis and budget problems are admitted by Democrats to be brazen lies.”

    That makes no sense.

    NelsonK (06e6ef)

  104. ” The tax increases and spending cuts in the fiscal cliff would have sharply reduced the deficit — too sharply in the eyes of most economists.

    What would have been wrong with that?”

    Austerity is contractionary.

    NelsonK (06e6ef)

  105. Hush, troll. There was nothing in the sequester or fiscal cliff that would have caused a sharp decrease in spending. It is a myth. A lie.

    How many names are you up to now?

    JD (78d90b)

  106. The CBO projected that the fiscal cliff would reduce the deficit dramatically, by 5 percent of GDP between 2012 and 2013. It would also lead to GDP only growing by .5 percent (contra 4.4 percent without the cliff). That’s a big contraction.

    NelsonK (06e6ef)

  107. Mary McCarthy knew Lillian Hellman, but described NelsonK.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  108. 49. We really are facing the maimed and crippled now. Guess all the regular operatives are sipping Mai Tais in floaties w/o WiFi.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  109. The CBO projected based on the assumptions given them. You are a fool. You are talking about projected GDP, not spending. I said sharp spending decrease. None exist.

    Care to bet on 4.4% growth in GDP?

    How about you drop the new name and use one you were banned under, or admit your perfidy?

    JD (78d90b)

  110. The sequester cut perhaps $2 trillion out of the $40-50 the feds would spend over the next 10 years. It just did it in places they knew no one would put up with. It was phony from the outset.

    But “harsh” cuts? No, those will wait until 2016 when we are $10 trillion deeper in debt with a $3 trillion deficit, 15% unemployment and a 11% interest rate on the debt. You know, like Greece.

    Then you’ll get your harsh cuts, you betcha, and you trolls will probably be talking about how the Republicans let it happen.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  111. In this case, the assumptions are then-current law: the cliff happens. Read the report yourself. It’s from may 2012 and it concludes that the cliff would cut the deficit by about half for 2013 vs. 2012.

    I wouldn’t bet on 4.4% because the CBO projected a ‘broad range’ around that number. Also we didn’t do what the CBO said it would take to reach that — a complete elimination of the cliff.

    NelsonK (06e6ef)

  112. 53. Hey kid, listen to JD, there’s no reason for this. Unintelligible rambling is not practice debating, formulating arguments, in short, not ‘iron sharpening iron’.

    Its just pitable. Get some sleep.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  113. Imdw, folks. Take a bow.

    JD (78d90b)

  114. I said sharp spending decrease. None exist.

    JD (78d90b)

  115. I suspected that ‘passive aggressive’ tone, but I wasn’t sure,

    narciso (3fec35)

  116. R.I.P. Patti Page

    Icy (f1nk31m@n) (b8a59c)

  117. “I said sharp spending decrease. None exist.”

    But austerity does, and that’s what I said. If you want to now say that your point about spending decreases doesnt have anything to do with austerity, go ahead.

    NelsonK (06e6ef)

  118. SPQR

    Ryan also voted to raise my taxes yesterday

    EPWJ (5804d3)

  119. I have cured the massive screwing up of the thread caused by Sammy Finkelman’s incompetence with HTML tags.

    Sammy.

    My main suggestion is that you learn to LINK rather than QUOTE.

    But if you simply must QUOTE, I insist — INSIST! — that you do so 1) within fair use and 2) competently.

    Follow my rules or be banned. Last warning.

    Patterico (038ee9)

  120. JD

    Its permanent, there is no way revenue raising bills to permsnently raise tsxes are almost impossible to achieve, Clinton how it worked out for them.

    Obama’s toast in 2 months people will be screaming, good bye democrats……

    EPWJ (5804d3)

  121. ask Clinton how it worked out for him,,,

    sorry

    EPWJ (5804d3)

  122. Its permanent, there is no way revenue raising bills to permsnently raise tsxes are almost impossible to achieve, Clinton how it worked out for them.

    Engrish, Por Favor

    JD (78d90b)

  123. NelsonK/imdw is not even close. From May 8 CBO report:

    “Assuming enactment around October 1, 2012, CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that enacting the legislation in committee print 112-21 would yield net deficit reduction of $237.8 billion over the 2012-2022 period. That figure reflects changes in direct spending and revenues from reconciliation provisions that would yield gross estimated budgetary savings of $310.0 billion through 2022, partially offset by a cost of $72.2 billion through 2022 for the sequester replacement provisions in title VII of the legislation. The gross savings for reconciliation are lower than CBO estimated on May 8 for the Budget Committee reconciliation package largely because that legislation included the Energy and Commerce version of medical liability reform, which would yield about $18 billion in greater savings than the Judiciary version (as noted above).

    Assuming enactment by July 1, 2012, CBO and JCT estimate that the legislation would yield net deficit reduction of $242.8 billion over the 2012-2022 period. That figure reflects gross reconciliation savings ($315.0 billion through 2022), partially offset by the cost of sequester replacement ($72.2 billion through 2022).”

    http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43234

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  124. Imdw is just being imdw. It argued projected GDP about a point I made about spending cuts. Now it is yammering about austerity. Typical mendacity from the Kimberlin lovin picture of Patterico’s house posting troll. Bye.

    JD (78d90b)

  125. That has to be at least it’s 30th different name, IP, and email addy. Perverse.

    JD (5ed6bd)

  126. I see that Al Gore sold Current TV to al Jazeera for $500 million, of which he gets 20%. I also note that he tried very hard to get the deal done last year, but it wasn’t signed off until the 2nd.

    So sorry, Al. BUt at least you get to be patriotic in paying taxes, if not in who you do business with.

    I wonder if Keith Olbermann can get his job back.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  127. They wouldn’t hire that nucking fut job.

    Icy (f1nk31m@n) (83283c)

  128. 130. OK, Sen. Imhofe is a fine so-con, he’s just not to be looked to for fiscal leadership.

    Sen. Coburn is just a fraud.

    You are what’s wrong with the GOP in a nutshell OK, Ok?

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  129. 55. SPQR: Sammy, why are you still misrepresenting the positions of the rating agencies?

    100. Steve57: We are not being downgraded because the rating agencies are worried the GOP won’t raise the debt ceiling and authorize increased borrowing. They are worried that they will.

    I’m not misrepresenting, and even with the quotes I still don’t think so. That’s only egan jones, which I never heard of.

    I was thinking of Standard and Poor’s and Fitch and Moody’s and what I read.

    It’s the borrowing that’s causing the downgrades.

    Not the borrowing. The ratio of net public debt to GDP, and what they are worried about is the denominator (GDP) not the numerator (debt) (That could be because if GDP goes up, newly acquired debt stops rising as fast pretty automatically, so they might have some worry about the debt.)

    Standard and Poor’s perhaps may be talking out of both sides of its mouth, when it comes to what Congress does or does not do, but it seems more worried anyway about political infighting, which it thinks could damage economic growth, and they’re really watching the rate of economic growth, not changes in the budget.

    Or do you think the New York Times is taking things out of context? I have some quotes here.

    The only way I can read this differently is that they think maybe the economy can be damaged if this brinksmanship goes on, not so much the brinksmanship itself directly)

    Lawmakers Gird For Next lash, on Debt Ceiling – NYTimes front page January 3, 2013

    Moody’s, the rating agency, warned on Wednesday that the looming political battles over the nation’s debt could lower the group’s rating of American debt.

    “We’re in for another round of brinkmanship and uncertainty,” said Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, who predicted weeks of “angst, discussion and hand-wringing” in Washington. “I don’t think the economy can really find its footing and jump to a higher level of growth until we get to the other side of this.

    Or:

    Debt Ceiling Rises Again as Threat for the U.S. NY Times Dec. 22, 2012

    Fitch Ratings said in a report Wednesday that it was watching both processes and that the time frame was not open-ended.

    If the negotiations on the fiscal cliff and raising the debt ceiling extend into 2013, and appear likely to be prolonged with adverse implications for the economy and fiscal stability, the U.S. sovereign rating could be subject to review, potentially leading to a negative rating,” the agency wrote in its latest six-month report on sovereign debt.

    It was a similar chain of events in 2011 that led Standard & Poor’s to downgrade the Treasury’s debt by one notch, an unprecedented move that set off wild swings in the stock market and led to downgrades at other highly rated institutions, like insurance companies, that had significant exposure to Treasury securities.

    Fitch and Moody’s have both maintained their AAA rating for Treasury debt, which has long been considered risk-free.

    A credit downgrade normally makes it more expensive for an institution to borrow, but that did not happen after Standard & Poor’s action.

    This was repeated again yesterday:

    Page down to Debt Ceiling Doubts and its costs, and the click on Read More

    Last-minute agreements to raise the debt ceiling undermine confidence in the sovereign’s willingness to pay,” Fitch Ratings, which evaluates risks for bond investors, said in a report last month. It added that it still saw little chance of defaulting, describing the very idea as “incredible.”

    Even if the New York Times is taking things out of context, it doesn’t seem consistent with the idea that they want the Republicans to be tougher. They don;’t want these crisis, because they think that in itself damages economic growth, and they are not looking for spending cuts or tax increases to make things better, but economic growth.

    Sammy Finkelman (60fff5)

  130. 132. “Standard and Poor’s perhaps may be talking out of both sides of its mouth” /irony

    No offense Sam, but you’ve lost me on this intrigue: Longtime commenter, firsttime reader.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  131. Standard and Poors: This goes back to 2011 where they wanted to say they are not telling Congress what to do except that they were.

    Sammy Finkelman (60fff5)

  132. “I’m not misrepresenting, and even with the quotes I still don’t think so. That’s only egan jones, which I never heard of.”

    Sammy – I think this stuff is just over your head.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  133. It’s pretty clear actually. Even Egan Jones only talked about the “difficulty” in significantly cutting spending, which is a permanent condition, not the failure of Congress to do so then.

    It’s only zerohedge quoted in 84. by gary gulrud that said:

    Ratings agencies were fairly consistent in saying that a ‘grand bargain’ deficit reduction plan that would take 2.5trn or more off the ten-year deficit would be required to avert a US sovereign downgrade.

    As between Zerohedge and the New York Times, and I don’t think it’s only the New York Times, I’ll take the New York Times and what it says credit rating agencies say about what could cause a credit downgrade.

    The New York Times omits a lot of things, but it tends not to be flat out wrong like that. The New York Post and the New York Daily News indicated Hillay Clinton’s condition was dangerous, while the New York Times and CBS and the other networks seemed to think there’s no trouble, and I’ll take the New York Post and Daily News over the New York Times (someplace reported – might be TV – that all of Hillary Clinton;’s top aides had come, and there was picture of Chelsea Clinton looking really worried, and here was an article in one of the papers indicating this was a rare and dangerous condition

    Sammy Finkelman (60fff5)

  134. Yield on 10-year T-Bill now at 1.90% whereas at 1.94 a year ago and 1.58 about a month back.

    It will not take long to determine whether you know anything at all.

    BTW, appeals to authority are fallacious. Appeal to fact and reasoning if your hope is to persuade.

    Credit rating agencies walk a bit of a tightrope. Be bullied by governments or lose market share.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  135. 137. Really, one wonders what these dolts do with their free time.

    Posner gave Chicago/Cook Cty. 180 days to rewrite their gun laws about 150 days ago.

    Hoping Succubus and Pederast have queered the Debt Ceiling/Sequester negotiations.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  136. Didn’t know that, so they threw something together, and hoped it would pass.

    narciso (3fec35)

  137. But here we only have Zerohedge.

    I never read anything like this claim in the Wall Street Journal, and I think it’s untrue.

    Discussion of Zero Hedge:

    http://www.thereformedbroker.com/2011/11/06/in-defense-of-zero-hedge-not-that-they-care/

    They all agree: it’s not always accurate.

    Zerohedge basically collects quotes that Tyler Durden likes from various sources to “prove” a point.

    The claim in comment 84:

    Ratings agencies were fairly consistent in saying that a ‘grand bargain’ deficit reduction plan that would take 2.5trn or more off the ten-year deficit would be required to avert a US sovereign downgrade.

    comes from here: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-02/fiscal-cliff-loose-ends

    That’s actually Citibank’s Steven Englander. (or CitiGroup) His specialty is Foreign Exchange (currencies) He is head of Group of 10 currency strategy at Citigroup.

    I don’t know where Steve Englander gets this from about the credit rating agencies but it doesn’t seem to fit anything else I read.

    Here’s something else about Steven Englander:

    Citi’s Steven Englander Remembers The Last Time The US Did Something As Stupid As Going Over the Fiscal Cliff

    He compared what would follow simply doing nothing on December 31, to what happened following the collapse of Lehman in 2008. So, according to him, the worst possible thing was not failing to slow the rise of the debt, but letting taxes rise and the budget be cut too fast.
    I think he’s making it up about what the credit agencies may do, and he even sounds confused – something he expected to happen, didn’t happen, and now he guesses, maybe later:

    With the US having failed on a one-stage grand bargain, it is unclear whether a downgrade would come in the next few days. Ratings agencies may choose to wait to see what happens in March with sequesters, the debt ceiling, etc.”

    It’s unclear only to Steven Englander. There isn’t going to be a downgrade in the next few days. He has it all wrong.

    nglander also thinks:

    It is likely that President Obama will announce new cabinet appointments in one big announcement at some point over the next two weeks.

    Probably wrong to. Obama has announced them one at a time. This sounds like maybe it was written even before John Kerry was nominated as Secretary of State – before Friday, December 21, 2012, that is, except that it does seem to be January 2, as it states that Jan. 3 is tomorrow. He thinks Boehner will face a challenge maybe from Cantor. Also wrong. It was possible, but taken care of.

    So Englander thinks the rest of the Cabinet nominees will be announced all at once. No idea where he’s getting that from. And I think he’s just as wrong about the credit rating agencies, especially about them being “consistent” that you needed a grand bargain’ deficit reduction plan of at least $25 trillion over 10 years to avert a sovereign downgrade. Where did anyone say that?

    Now here: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-02/next-comes-us-downgrade Zerohedge quotes again:

    However, credit rating agencies may decide to wait and see what emerges from the subsequent talks.

    This is quoting from something called SocGen which seems to be some report put out by Société Générale S.A., the second largest bank in France and I think they don’t know what they are talking about or are misleading customers.

    This is just an idee fixe by Zero Hedge (which maybe some other people have too) and it’s not right.

    Sammy Finkelman (60fff5)

  138. 141

    * deficit reduction plan of at least $2.5 trillion over 10 years to avert a sovereign downgrade. Where did anyone say that?

    Not 25 trillion.

    Sammy Finkelman (60fff5)

  139. 141. “Zerohedge basically collects quotes that Tyler Durden likes from various sources to “prove” a point.”

    Sort of like Sammy F., but a little heavier on the practical experience.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  140. Why did Lehman Bros, go broke, anyone, anyone, it was full of worthless paper assets with little or no value,

    narciso (3fec35)

  141. Gary, Illinois was given 180 days to pass a shall issue CCW bill but instead they are debating a gun ban bill that will ban 90% of firearms with no grandfather provision – by a lameduck legislature. Arrogance personified.

    SPQR (444eb8)

  142. Perhaps that Federal District Judge will cite all of them for Contempt of Court, and issue a Bench Warrant.
    They well deserve it.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  143. askeptic, the Seventh Circuit opinion basically creates Arizona style no permit concealed carry if Illinois does not pass shall issue by then.

    SPQR (768505)

  144. OMG, blood will run in the streets
    (though it will be difficult to differentiate the new blood from the existing carnage).

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  145. 141. SF: I never read anything like this claim in the Wall Street Journal, and I think it’s untrue.

    I now looked at today’s Wall Street Journal and it looks like Zero Hedge os right about what would cause a credit downgrade, at least as far as Moody’s is concerned.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323689604578217972804225126.html

    Moody’s Investors Service, one of the firms that rate government debt, said Wednesday that the agreement didn’t do enough to reduce the deficit.

    If Congress doesn’t do more in the coming months, Moody’s warned, the company could follow Standard & Poor’s in downgrading U.S. debt. “Further measures that bring about a downward debt trajectory over the medium term are likely to be needed to support the AAA rating,” Moody’s said Wednesday.

    Now, note they are not saying budget fights are good. Intentions of some members of Congress don’t count, only results matter.

    This is also confirmed by CNBC: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100349791

    Moody’s thinks the tax increase was good, but it doesn’t get the deficits on a downward trajectory.

    On August 3, 2011, Moody’s placed the U.S. credit rating on a negative outlook, but that was because of the infighting. Political infighting which risks a missed payment is the worst thing for Moodys’s.

    On december 26, 20912 Moody’s said, according to its main page:

    Congress may not act to raise the statutory debt ceiling until a budget agreement is reached and temporary measures for keeping the government running as usual are close to exhausted. Our baseline assumption is that Congress will raise the limit prior to severe expenditure cuts being necessary. Although we may consider a review for downgrade, that may be unnecessary given that the risk of default will likely remain extremely low even if action is delayed..

    The full report costs an unspecified amount of money

    Now suddenly they are looking at the debt itself?

    Here’s more from the Wall Street journal:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20121226-706027.html

    Moody’s anticipates the government will reach a long-term debt deal sometime in 2013, regardless of whether the fiscal cliff is triggered in the short term, said Steven Hess, a senior credit officer in Moody’s sovereign-risk group in an interview. But there would be ramifications if that expectation isn’t met.

    “If there is no solution in 2013 that produces a clear picture of the medium-term fiscal outlook and the medium-term debt trajectory, we would downgrade the rating,” said Steven Hess, a senior credit officer in Moody’s sovereign-risk group.

    In an earlier report, the ratings firm said it views the debt ceiling as a permanent part of the U.S. government’s risk profile of triple-A–the highest credit quality. The outlook remains negative.

    Also in the report, Moody’s said it expects that the government will raise the debt ceiling as it has done in the past, but not before it nearly exhausts all other temporary measures.

    Moody’s said that the probability of a missed interest payment on Treasury bonds is extremely low, but it will monitor political developments in the coming months for evidence the probability has shifted.

    Moody’s needs a clear picture. It needs an agreement.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  146. TIME Warner disconnected Cuirrent TV

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  147. So you finally see that you’ve been wrong all along, Sammy? Or are we going to be treated to a full monograph on how you were right but wrong … or wrong but right?

    SPQR (768505)

  148. Icy, my somewhat strong suspicion is that Ron Paul had already gone home. This was his last term in Congress; he didn’t run for re-election to the House, and someone new was sworn in today.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  149. Comment by SPQR (768505) — 1/3/2013 @ 4:46 pm

    So you finally see that you’ve been wrong all along, Sammy? Or are we going to be treated to a full monograph on how you were right but wrong … or wrong but right?

    No, I haven’t been wrong all along, I think.

    I suspect this is a new position by Moody’s. Or maybe they have been saying things both ways – political conflict and the debt.

    In fact I don’t know if the reason they mention the debt is only because it is the subject of political conflict. It’s not clear at all that’s not what’s going on. The latest thing was that they wanted a clear picture, but it wasn’t too clear they cared that much what that picture was!

    Sammy Finkelman (60fff5)

  150. Mody’sWarns That U.S. May Face Debt Downgrade – Sept 12, 2012 NYTimes.

    Like S&P, Moody’s emphasized political dysfunction more than soaring government debt. The agency said Washington must come to agreement to head off billions of dollars in simultaneous tax increases and spending cuts scheduled to begin in January — and to put the government on a sustainable fiscal trajectory. Only then would the United States keep its AAA rating.

    So that’s the way the New York Times has it. (Jonathan Weisman in this case)

    House Speaker John A. Boehner was saying, according to the article, that Moody’s supported the idea that only by cutting government spending would help, which is definitely not true. In no place did Moody’s say it favored cutting spending over increasing taxes. Moody’s spoke of a downward trend in the ratio of federal debt to G.D.P. over the medium term.

    In fact it’s actually not clear to me that they favored anything at all except limiting political infighting because maybe the only reason they even want a downward trend in the ratio of federal debt to G.D.P. is because then there won’t be debt ceiling brinksmanship!

    I need more data.

    Sammy Finkelman (60fff5)

  151. Sammy, a new position … even though people have shown you quotes from more than a year ago. And you prefer New York Times’ interpretation to the actual statements.

    Really, Sammy, you continue to parody yourself.

    SPQR (768505)

  152. The Washington Post yesterday: (Associated Press article)

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/moodys-sandp-say-congress-needs-to-do-more-to-lower-us-budget-deficit/2013/01/02/d99508a6-5530-11e2-89de-76c1c54b1418_story.html

    They seem to talk about the long term deficit, but then…

    On Wednesday, S&P offered a harsh reminder of why it stripped the U.S. of its top rating, along with a warning about the current negotiations.

    “Washington’s governance and policymaking had become less stable, less effective and less predictable,” it said. “We believe that this characterization still holds.”

    So, is it Washington’s governance, or the results of Washington’s governance that matters?

    Is it the possibility they’ll fight so much that someone – which someone could be President Obama by the way – will let a payment be missed or delayed? Or is just the possibility of the debt getting too high relative to GDP?

    Is it willingness to pay, or ability to pay that’s at issue?

    I don’t think this can become clear without getting the full text of whatever Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s said.

    Sammy Finkelman (60fff5)

  153. Thus is from the link to Standard and Poor’s more than a year ago that Steve57 gave in comment number 100: (a part he didn’t quote)

    More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.

    Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government’s debt dynamics any time soon.

    So political infighting is the problem. Or is it a problem only because it signifies an inability to come up with a plan to “stabilize the government’s debt dynamics” and “stabilizing the government’s debt dynamics” is what needs to be done? Why do they want it stabilized? Are they worried about interest rate risk?

    Note, in any case, it’s not settled until both parties agree, or at least there are no more cliffs or deadlines.

    Sammy Finkelman (60fff5)

  154. The scheduled revenue increases from the Cliff bill are 50% allocated to new spending.

    Thus even setting aside accounting gimicks, HR8 plus the sequester only amount to a putative $1.5 Trillion over 10 years, well short of Moody’s benchmark of $2.5 Trillion.

    Dog is perfectly happy with the Defense cuts but may want to walk back the remainder of the sequester.

    If the Debt Ceiling raise were to extend into April, the Feds will just cut Welfare, SS, Medicaid and Medicare, et al., to get their minions in full lather.

    There is no worry over the next couple of default on the debt repayments.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  155. The Economist (Nov 2011) explains what “debt dynamics” is: (the thing Standard and Poor’s wanted stabilized)

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/11/debt-dynamics-0

    Sammy Finkelman (60fff5)

  156. So the Feds are defaulting, just not on bonds until inflation really takes off, and another measure of their ongoing effort, beside debasement, is messing with the CPI which all sides design to employ further.

    Real inflation is ran 10% per year until the last quarter or two. Meanwhile Bennie’s ‘core’ inflation prints at 2%. Everyone on a fixed income is hosed.

    The idea rating agencies are not noting the obvious is moonbattery.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  157. The problem was/is that that in 2011 and 2012 the debt seemed to be headed up too fast with no end in sight.

    There are two things that affect the debt to GDP ratio:

    1) The ratio between real interest rates and (real) GDP growth (it seems to me you could use nominal figures for both of them.)

    AND

    2) The primary budget (budget excluding interest payments) surplus or deficit.

    Sammy Finkelman (60fff5)

  158. Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 1/3/2013 @ 6:52 pm

    Real inflation is ran 10% per year until the last quarter or two. Meanwhile Bennie’s ‘core’ inflation prints at 2%. Everyone on a fixed income is hosed.

    If the rate of inflation is really 10% then the debt problem is not so serious, because real interest rates are negative. Also tax collections should be going up to – even more than 10% – because most taxes are not flat fees, and the indexing should be too small – also the increases for inflation for Social Security should be too small.

    What we really have is a subset of costs – mostly paid for either by borrowing or by savings or by third parties – where inflation is higher, e.g. tuition, medical costs, legal fees.

    The idea rating agencies are not noting the obvious is moonbattery.

    Sammy Finkelman (60fff5)

  159. What the rating agencies may be noticing is that there doesn’t seem to be an end in sight to the superhigh deficits, and you can wonder how many years this can go on.

    Now if economic growth gets restarted, all these projections of superhigh deficits that worry the rating agencies and others go away. The problem is getting economic growth restarted.

    Historically, long term budget projections have never been accurate.

    The best projection is one that’s not being made.

    What isb eing made?

    http://www.conference-board.org/data/globaloutlook.cfm

    * Across the advanced economies, the Outlook predicts 1.3 percent growth in 2013, compared to 1.2 percent in 2012…U.S. growth is expected to fall from 2.1 percent in 2012 to 1.8 percent in 2013…This development should allow the U.S. to average 2.3 percent annual growth during 2013-2018 before falling to 2.0 percent in 2019-2025.

    This is no good.

    But there’s also no good reason to believe it. Or believe it has to be that way, anyway.

    Sammy Finkelman (60fff5)

  160. 162. “If the rate of inflation is really 10% then the debt problem is not so serious, because real interest rates are negative.”

    True in the ideal but individual circumstances vary widely.

    For the most part the public is seeing little or no wage inflation while fuel and food rose rapidly. For that reason America did not deleverage 2008-10 and consumer credit collapsed as risks at ZIRP prohibit banks from lending when customers, if any, emerge.

    But Federal spending is outstripping the ability to bend the curve. Later in the Economist article, they point out that tweaking assumptions can change outcomes radically.

    Should we assume but 1.5% GDP growth over the decade the US public debt will rise to 157% of GDP, 30% higher than the unrealistic government projections.

    GDP is itself a figure given to exaggeration, and there are at least three methods of computation.

    70% of GDP is driven by consumer spending, the modest expansion in credit has not gone to luxuries but necessities. This cannot go on long.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  161. These projections of low economic growth in the next dozen years are just like the projections years ago that we were going to run out of food, we were going to run out of oil and other natural resources, or that the climate is becoming disastrous, and all the rest of the them.

    Sammy Finkelman (60fff5)

  162. Cloward-Piven postulated that capitalism could be used as the means of its destruction.

    The Alien is a fan and is pursuing, monomaniacly, that end for Amerikkka.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  163. One recalls the last decade of post land bust Japan,
    which we seem to be emulating.

    narciso (3fec35)

  164. Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 1/3/2013 @ 7:14 pm

    70% of GDP is driven by consumer spending, the modest expansion in credit has not gone to luxuries but necessities.

    What that is saying is that a lot of consumption is not based on income. People need to get some kind of sustainable income. They are getting money from the wrong kinds of sources. (enough people are)

    But you know, both Poland (in the 1990s) and Latvia (recently) went through this kind of rationalization (but Latvia has lost 5% of its population to emigration)

    This cannot go on long.

    But personal debt has actually stopped rising.

    (maybe because of defaults – in which case the lost money owed needs to be replaced by Ben Bernanke)

    More loans are needed to create real income (not the loans, but the sound businesses that the loans are needed to create)

    Sammy Finkelman (60fff5)

  165. 165. “These projections..”

    Ah, but some projections are better grounded than others.

    Setting aside the Solar/AGW argument for terrestrial warming/cooling, setting aside the timing of Dansgaard-Oeschger effects, look to McCabe(2004) at NOAA.

    The PDO and AMO are multidecadal oscillations in current flow in the Pacific and Atlantic respectively.

    During the ‘Dust Bowl’ they were together in a negative phase for about 6 years. The resulting climatic patterns gave western States hot dry summers and cold dry winters.

    For the first time since the 30′s they again are in negative phase together, this time entering with only a two year lag. The AMO is comparatively unstable, a cycle averages something like a quarter century.

    We could easily see a decade of drought and loss of Degree Days such that N. American corn and wheat yields are off 10% or more.

    Moreover, America is in a demographic growth trough. Young people in their twenties will likely never get a career rolling. Growth will be retarded simply because the workforce is inadequate by dint of numbers and experience, let alone opportunity.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  166. This is a mind on crack.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  167. 168. No argument there.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  168. 167. With government pursuing similar policies, ZIRP, currency debasement, repeated fiscal stimulus, .. Result asset deflation.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  169. BY the way, Obama signed the bill yesterday, Wednesday, by Autopen. I knew he had done that before,so I shouldn’t have commented that he flew off to Hawaii without waiting to sign the bill

    Sammy Finkelman (60fff5)

  170. 128. Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 1/3/2013 @ 12:54 am

    I see that Al Gore sold Current TV to al Jazeera for $500 million, of which he gets 20%. I also note that he tried very hard to get the deal done last year, but it wasn’t signed off until the 2nd.

    So sorry, Al. BUt at least you get to be patriotic in paying taxes, if not in who you do business with.

    Al Jazeera wanted to shut down Current TV, and replace it with its own programming. But before they could do anything, TIME Warner pulled the plug on Current TV.

    Sammy Finkelman (60fff5)

  171. Great bunch of references for Hagel, no;

    http://freebeacon.com/hagel-nabs-coveted-911-truther-endorsement/

    narciso (3fec35)

  172. The New York Daily News ran an editorial on one of the provisions of the fiscal cliff bill, praising Senator Charles Schumer for it.

    Some background is needed to explain this.

    First, for a long time, commuting costs have not been held to be deductible.

    Some years ago, Congress enacted a provision by which an employer could reimburse an employee for parking, up to a certain amount per month, with before tax dollars (not subject to income tax or payroll tax)

    This was extended at some point to commuting by bus or train. In New York City there were special TransitCheck metrocards bought this way. I think this has now been replaced by special credit/debit cards only usable to buy Metrocards.

    (by the way, I don’t know if Congress knows this, but if 30-day unlimited metrocards were bought, their usage wasn’t limited to commuting ,or to the person to whom they were issued, although I don’t know if that would create legal questions)

    But the maximum dollar amount was lower for commuting than for parking. It was still high enough to buy a New York City unlimited ride card, but not high enough to cover the monthly cost of express buses or the Long Island Rail Road.

    In 2010 and 2011, the amount for commutng had been raised to the level for parking – over $200.
    (The exact amount was raised every year or so)

    But then in 2012, it went back to the old system: A maximum of $240 for parking, but only $125 for commuting.

    Now, says the Daily News, Schumer got it restored to $240 for commuting, and not just for 2013, but also retroactively, for 2012.

    The Daily News really likes Schumer. It ran that cartoon of Newt Gingrich being a crybaby on the front page in 1995, and Schumer used it on the floorof the House, treating it like some impartial news report.

    Today they have a Photoshopped Statue of Liberty stabbed in the back with the subheadline: NY pols blast Sandy betrayer Boehner.

    The Daily News is sometimes quite partisan – although it did endorse Romney.

    Sammy Finkelman (60fff5)

  173. Yes, that’s worth 4 trillion in new debt, what is the Daily News complaining about, I thought Bloomberg and Cuomo had solved everything,

    narciso (3fec35)

  174. Paul Wolfowitz starts off a December 31, 2012 Op-ed article in the Wall Street Journal by saying that Michelle Flourney (undersecretary of Defense for policy in 2009-2011 – maybe still?) is being mentiond as a serious candidate to succeed Leon Panetta.

    He can’t give a overall evaluation of her record, but there is one thing he wants to praise her for: supporting Lt. Gen William Caldwell when he told her he needed more troops if he was going to succeed in his mission of training Afghan troops. A battalion was actually reassigned from combat to training.

    Sammy Finkelman (60fff5)

  175. Sammy – ISTM that a system which granted a higher tax subsidy for parking costs than for commute transit costs was broken, and i’m much happier with the change back to parity between the two.

    aphrael (31aab8)

  176. narciso #167 – are we really doing things so very differently from the US after the market crash of 1929 ? Progressives did their level best back then – and gave the planet a decade of the Great Depression …

    Progressives nowadays have had the past 4 years and have gotten us into where we are with the policies of the early 1930s – and seem to be stuck on continuing them … (sigh)

    Alasdair (a3e8d4)

  177. We’re doing different stupid things, Alasdair, in the first time tragedy, second time comedy routine,

    narciso (3fec35)

  178. Al Jazeera wanted to shut down Current TV, and replace it with its own programming. But before they could do anything, TIME Warner pulled the plug on Current TV.

    Yes, TWC did do that, but other Current carriage agreements either have no content/owner change escapes or al Jazeera got riders guaranteeing carriage from other providers.

    I am told that “in the information released to the press they said Current’s existing distribution agreements with Comcast, DirecTV, Dish Network, FiOS and U-Verse are included.”

    This was what the $500 million was for, and probably why the deal was delayed past the end of the year.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  179. In contradistinction to the norm–read it all.

    http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-united-states-of-delusion.html

    A year ago 10-year T-Bill 1.94% with Operation Twist winding down to an end in June and no unequivocal announcement of a succeeding dole.

    Today 10-year 1.93% a month following Fed’s committment to backstop the entire loss to the economy of Federal deficit.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  180. Via zerohedge, please note the first comment:

    other-mint-campaign-starts-bang-us-mint-sells-50000-ounces-gold-first-day-year

    Toto is tugging the curtain and its giving way.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  181. TWC’s cancelling of Current was in the works, and has cost aljazeera 20% of the booked viewership.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  182. What time does today’s episode of watch Sammy tie himself up in knots start?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  183. Progressives nowadays have had the past 4 years and have gotten us into where we are with the policies of the early 1930s – and seem to be stuck on continuing them … (sigh)

    I often say that we’re far more leftwing today compared with over 70 years ago. And we are from a social-cultural standpoint.

    But I have to admit that as dumb as things are in the 21st century — and as foolish as the modern-day liberal is — the desire to ratchet up tax rates to a level as confiscatory and absurd as the upper 70-percentile range (as was done by both Herbert Hoover and, of course, Franklin Roosevelt) isn’t a part of the political handbook.

    Nonetheless, I imagine that Barry Obama and his cabal are salivating over what France’s socialist/ultra-liberal president is enacting or favoring. Perhaps also what Argentina’s president, the super-leftwing Cristina Kirchner, is promoting in her mess of a country.

    Mark (ca32ec)

  184. Here’s some of what rational people face.

    In my local weekly rag, a letter writer slams another writer because they complained of the profligate ways of the current administration.
    To buttress his argument, he cites the $11T Debt “passed on by one of the worst Presidents in history”, never mentioning that GWB “inherited” half that from his predecessors. He also glibbly skips over the part that Obama’s deficts have increased the debt by another $5-6T in just four-years, where the same amount was added by Bush but over 8-years.
    Also, in breaking out the debt increases by partisan control of both ends of PA Avenue, you get this:
    FY-02 (the first Bush/GOP Congress budget) to FY-07: the debt increased by an average of $533B/yr;
    FY-08 (the first Pelosi/Reid budget) saw a debt increase of $1.017B, followed by $1.885B (this was the year that started with a continuing resolution, with a budget signed by Obama on 21 Jan 09); and then $1.651T in FY-10, $1.228T in FY-11, and $1.224T in FY-12!
    It should be noted that the last Budget passed by both houses of Congress, and signed by the President, was in April-09, presumably for FY-10.
    Ever since the Stimulus, which ramped up the baseline, the deficit has soared from an avg of $553B under Bush/GOP, to $1.4T/yr under Pelosi/Reid/Obama,
    with the GOP-led House only able to prevent it from getting worse.
    It is very difficult to take accusations of Bush, and the GOP, being spendthrifts when looking at these numbers – even though Conservatives were very upset with the Hastert/DeLay House for their spending priorities, and the fact that GWB never vetoed a spending bill.
    The Dem record on spending, particularly for special interests, is absolutely mind-numbing, and (I hate using this word, but it fits) OBSCENE!

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  185. Time Warner Cable Refused to sell Current to Glan Beck. Seems Beck wasn’t liberal or America hating.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  186. TWC had nothing to do with it, it was CurrenTV that refused Beck’s offer.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  187. 185. No time today.

    But I will send a sample:

    If the reason for the downgrade in 2011 was solely because of the underlying debt dynamics, and had nothing to do with political wrangling, then why did it happen just at the time of the debt ceiling fight?? Was that a big coincidence?

    That was not an expected time to get these issues settled.

    Now the Standard and Poor’s credit rating agency said what happened was at that point they realized that an agreement that would stop the debt from eventually climbing so high that it would start creating risks of nonpayment
    (avoiding that is what they mean when they talk of the debt being stabilized) was not in the cards – that there was a lower chance than they had thought a few months before that things would get worked out.

    That sounds strange. Were they really expecting something to happen because of the debt ceiling?

    And that’s as close as you can get to an underlying issue. It’s not so much the issue itself, as that you can see it’s not going to be resolved.

    The Republicans were not strong enough to settle it on their own, even if you thought they were
    on the right course. They were just strong enough maybe to paralyze the government, and that didn’t help anything, even if you think that didn’t itself cause a problem.

    But there was also was then and now, fear that these games of chicken would itself do something bad. I’m not sure what – it sounds like maybe it’s only fear that massive austerity would create a recession (which isn’t true I think – that Keynesism and ignores monetary policy, which is dominant. But people believe that, including the credit rating agencies.)

    I’m not sure what these people in the credit rating agencies expect or hope for – it might be a mathematical impossibility,m since too quick debt reduction is supposed to be bad for the economy.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  188. If the reason for the downgrade in 2011 was solely because of the underlying debt dynamics, and had nothing to do with political wrangling, then why did it happen just at the time of the debt ceiling fight?? Was that a big coincidence?

    Sammy – I don’t think it was any coincidence, why would you?

    That sounds strange. Were they really expecting something to happen because of the debt ceiling?

    Why wouldn’t they expect something to happen? President Obama had pledged to restore fiscal responsibility and even appointed a commission to make recommendations to help him to it. Absolutely nothing strange about expecting something to happen.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  189. 193.

    SF: “If the reason for the downgrade in 2011 was solely because of the underlying debt dynamics, and had nothing to do with political wrangling, then why did it happen just at the time of the debt ceiling fight?? Was that a big coincidence?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/4/2013 @ 1:32 pm

    Sammy – I don’t think it was any coincidence, why would you?

    I don’t – but not being a coincidence means it had to be about the political dysfunction, not the debt – actually a closer reading shows it is a little bit more complicated.

    “That sounds strange. Were they really expecting something to happen because of the debt ceiling?”

    Why wouldn’t they expect something to happen?

    President Obama had pledged to restore fiscal responsibility and even appointed a commission to make recommendations to help him to it.

    Absolutely nothing strange about expecting something to happen.

    Yes there is. It indicates a real unfamiliarity with the way Washington works.

    Anyway it looks like maybe it was the failure to reach an agreement and maybe more concern about the dysfunction than the brinksmanship.

    It seems to me these rating agencies would be satisfied with a pledge to cut money in the future.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4703 secs.