Isn’t reducing Medicare and Social Security benefits also a technical default? I believe those benefits are collateralized by Treasuries…not sure of the mechanics though.
On a related note, how bad do you feel for Boehner right now. That guy’s been working around the clock trying to get something done for the past couple weeks without a friend in the world. He’s surrounded by his own party, a bunch of lunatics that refuse to work with him, while the Dems are opposing him too, poor guy just needs a friend.
It would not be a default in the financial sense, but it would be perceived by many voters as a default in a political sense. There will probably be legal challenges, saying that there was an implied contract when current retirees paid social security taxes, but I am not sure if they would hold any water, since the legislature can change the law at will. But it cannot do certain things retroactively… for example, it can’t convict you of a crime that wasn’t legally a crime when you committed it… it might be possible to argue somehow that the implied contract was different when you entered it.
@ cannon yes, i agree that the right-wing nuts don’t want any new taxes. but that is the primary source of funds to pay for government expenditures. even if they borrow now, they will have to raise taxes in the future to pay of those debts. the point i was trying to make was that due to this recklessness future debts will be higher because of higher interest costs. which in turn will necessitate higher taxes. the tax issue is a “practical” (not sure if that term can be used with repubs) to implement their ideology of small government. with no money/revenue there can be no government programs. they believe that government should not interfere with private life. except other than who you can marry and deciding for women when they should have children. other than those you are free to do whatever!
@ Black Swan You could say the same thing about Obama then couldn’t you. He has to take a stance that is not popular with his party and the repubs just keep saying no. I am pretty sure if Obama made a statement saying the “world is round” the tea-party would call him “a mysterious socialist promoting crazy science”
Yeah, but at least the dens are generally supporting Obama getting a reasonable deal done. Boehner’s party’s just stone walling him with looniness. How exasperating is that?
I think this is a helpful chart. http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2.html?ref=sunday
I’m not a big fan of the Tea Party, but you have to consider that very few of them would have gotten elected if the white house and congress weren’t so extremely on the left the past few years. Now we got ourselves a barbell of ideologies. Less and less room for moderates in the world.
MCalamari Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I’m not a big fan of the Tea Party, but you have > to consider that very few of them would have > gotten elected if the white house and congress > weren’t so extremely on the left the past few > years. Now we got ourselves a barbell of > ideologies. Less and less room for moderates in > the world. I agree. I think tea party is more or less a byproduct of of B.O.'s far left policy. Had B.O. took a more center left approach, there may not have been a Tea Party. Or at least not as die hard and extreme as they are now. Not a tea party fan myself either. But I firmly believe that B.O.'s rob the rich and pay the poor policy or threat is one of the root causes of how we got to today’s mess. As many of us suspect, voters will be so disgust with the incumbents in 2012 and throw many of them out. Including B.O.
AlphaSeeker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As many of us suspect, voters will be so disgust > with the incumbents in 2012 and throw many of them > out. > > Including B.O. I guess this chart will be pretty depressing for you, then: http://cr4re.com/charts/charts.html?Employment#category=Employment
I don’t know where “the center” is anymore. And I don’t understand where the right starts asserting that Obama is governing from the “far left.” The right seems to define the center as GWB, and anything to the left of that as “extreme left.”
The Tea Party is BO’s fault because he’s too far left? Just stop, this is getting embarrassing.
LBriscoe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Tea Party is BO’s fault because he’s too far > left? Just stop, this is getting embarrassing. It is Obama’s fault, but it’s because he’s at the wrong end of another spectrum, and not a political one.
Com’ on guys/gals. You know it and I know it too, that B.O. got into the WH becaue of voters’ digust about GWB, the economy, financial crisis, etc… And GOP got the house due to a small fraction fo the voters’ (tea party) disgust about B.O., his talks about cutting 95% of people’s tax while raising it for the top 2% or 5%, and the ever business-unfriendly health care bill, etc. The tea party would have never got its momentum had B.O. took less populist approach. Of course, you are wise to know that populism is left (far left) and is BAD for the economy (short and long term). If you take a look the economic history of Latin America, you will see that populism is the main reason that they failed to unlease that region’s potential compared to the Asian Tigers.
On a policy basis, the current president has - kept the bush tax cuts and added on a payroll tax cut - continued the iraq and afgan wars and even kept Bush’s defense secretary - enacted a health care overall that was basically a copy of what a republican governor had already done and also took from many republican ideas from the 90s (individual mandate) - reduced the number of total government workers - increased spending on border security Some liberal.
NakedPuts Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > AlphaSeeker Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > As many of us suspect, voters will be so > disgust > > with the incumbents in 2012 and throw many of > them > > out. > > > > Including B.O. > > I guess this chart will be pretty depressing for > you, then: > > http://cr4re.com/charts/charts.html?Employment#cat > egory=Employment Great chart. Good way to make a case.
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don’t know where “the center” is anymore. And I > don’t understand where the right starts asserting > that Obama is governing from the “far left.” > > The right seems to define the center as GWB, and > anything to the left of that as “extreme left.” I think this video is a good start for defining the political parties of this country. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW9dxFrAk-I
naturallight Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On a policy basis, the current president has > > - kept the bush tax cuts and added on a payroll > tax cut > - continued the iraq and afgan wars and even kept > Bush’s defense secretary > - enacted a health care overall that was basically > a copy of what a republican governor had already > done and also took from many republican ideas from > the 90s (individual mandate) > - reduced the number of total government workers > - increased spending on border security > > Some liberal. True to a certain degree. Yet his populist talks created such a amount of uncertainty that sucks the confidence and visibility of businesses and they are sitting on their hands. The single most important word in economics is “EXPECTATION”. People make most decsions based on their expections. If they expect uncertainties, no matter how goods the current state is, they are likely to take less action. Reagon was such a popular president among left and right, not because he racked up the country’s debt. Mainly becase he gave Americans a sense of hope. And a strong expectatinon that their better days are ahead of them. Not behind them
You’re changing your argument, your original point was: “I think tea party is more or less a byproduct of of B.O.'s far left policy” Now that it’s pointed out that O’s policies are pretty centrist and to some extent even conservative, it’s now about: “EXPECTATION”. You didn’t say his policies were “viewed as far-left by the TP”, but merely, “B.O.'s far left policy”. *eyeroll*
^ Palantir, don’t digress 1. not a fan of tea party 2. tea party rose to the national popularity in reaction to B.O.'s left policy 3. In response to natrallight = even though B.O. kept some GWB era policy. His talks/plans is to got the populist route. That scares businesses and investors fundementally. Question, why aren’t all these clear to you after all these years of study and practice in the investment field?