|
|
On July 14 2012 00:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 23:42 aksfjh wrote:On July 13 2012 19:40 Danglars wrote:This truly is wishful thinking. The size of the US debt and its rate of growth will eclipse all attempts to spread its burden / allay it through the selling of bonds. (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/41486). See elsewhere in the thread for the growth of public debt. It's a tidal wave that will swallow up the holding of debt if allowed to continue. So the spending problem / revenue problem needs addressing. Both parties have their plans. The "cut spending now, NOW, NOW..." is a decidedly conservative Republican tack. I must say conservative Republican because spending deficits tend to grow under both parties majorities in Congress. So you get tired of yelling at the spending side of government to undergo painful cutbacks, knowing the pain of undertaking them will be worse if undertaken further along. It is no new fad to claim the facts support your argument and leave the opponent in the dust, see thread for ex. I hope you can also see why people eager for the immediate passage of spending cuts do not consider the current buying of US debt to quell the alarm. The only direct thing that matters about the debt is the interest we have to pay on it. Currently, we pay less on that interest than we did in 2007. Indirect factors are debt to GDP ratio and debt growth in relation to GDP growth, but those are more "spook" factors than actual notes of concern. The worry is that when interest rates rise the debt will slowly be refinanced at a higher rate. That will make the budget very hard to manage and pretty scary along with the growing demands of social security / medicare. Certainly massive austerity right now isn't a good idea but a little more prudence would go a long way.
![[image loading]](http://kirklindstrom.com/Articles/2012/0518_10-Year_Treasury_Bond_Yield_History_1900_2012-1.gif)
There is no urgent need to cut the deficit. Wait until the economy is near full employment.
|
On July 14 2012 01:13 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2012 00:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 13 2012 23:42 aksfjh wrote:On July 13 2012 19:40 Danglars wrote:This truly is wishful thinking. The size of the US debt and its rate of growth will eclipse all attempts to spread its burden / allay it through the selling of bonds. (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/41486). See elsewhere in the thread for the growth of public debt. It's a tidal wave that will swallow up the holding of debt if allowed to continue. So the spending problem / revenue problem needs addressing. Both parties have their plans. The "cut spending now, NOW, NOW..." is a decidedly conservative Republican tack. I must say conservative Republican because spending deficits tend to grow under both parties majorities in Congress. So you get tired of yelling at the spending side of government to undergo painful cutbacks, knowing the pain of undertaking them will be worse if undertaken further along. It is no new fad to claim the facts support your argument and leave the opponent in the dust, see thread for ex. I hope you can also see why people eager for the immediate passage of spending cuts do not consider the current buying of US debt to quell the alarm. The only direct thing that matters about the debt is the interest we have to pay on it. Currently, we pay less on that interest than we did in 2007. Indirect factors are debt to GDP ratio and debt growth in relation to GDP growth, but those are more "spook" factors than actual notes of concern. The worry is that when interest rates rise the debt will slowly be refinanced at a higher rate. That will make the budget very hard to manage and pretty scary along with the growing demands of social security / medicare. Certainly massive austerity right now isn't a good idea but a little more prudence would go a long way. There is no urgent need to cut the deficit. Wait until the economy is near full employment.
There is currently the problem that the projected deficit will only increase due to the incrased costs of healthcare, as well as various other programs, and the cost of the soon to expire tax cuts, should they be extended. These things create a deficit that needs to be attacked at the source and not just danced around.
|
On July 14 2012 01:17 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2012 01:13 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 14 2012 00:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 13 2012 23:42 aksfjh wrote:On July 13 2012 19:40 Danglars wrote:This truly is wishful thinking. The size of the US debt and its rate of growth will eclipse all attempts to spread its burden / allay it through the selling of bonds. (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/41486). See elsewhere in the thread for the growth of public debt. It's a tidal wave that will swallow up the holding of debt if allowed to continue. So the spending problem / revenue problem needs addressing. Both parties have their plans. The "cut spending now, NOW, NOW..." is a decidedly conservative Republican tack. I must say conservative Republican because spending deficits tend to grow under both parties majorities in Congress. So you get tired of yelling at the spending side of government to undergo painful cutbacks, knowing the pain of undertaking them will be worse if undertaken further along. It is no new fad to claim the facts support your argument and leave the opponent in the dust, see thread for ex. I hope you can also see why people eager for the immediate passage of spending cuts do not consider the current buying of US debt to quell the alarm. The only direct thing that matters about the debt is the interest we have to pay on it. Currently, we pay less on that interest than we did in 2007. Indirect factors are debt to GDP ratio and debt growth in relation to GDP growth, but those are more "spook" factors than actual notes of concern. The worry is that when interest rates rise the debt will slowly be refinanced at a higher rate. That will make the budget very hard to manage and pretty scary along with the growing demands of social security / medicare. Certainly massive austerity right now isn't a good idea but a little more prudence would go a long way. There is no urgent need to cut the deficit. Wait until the economy is near full employment. There is currently the problem that the projected deficit will only increase due to the incrased costs of healthcare, as well as various other programs, and the cost of the soon to expire tax cuts, should they be extended. These things create a deficit that needs to be attacked at the source and not just danced around.
Investors are fully aware of the US's long run fiscal situation and take this into account when freely handing over their money to the US government in the form of 10 year bonds.
As with any financial market indicator, the 10 year US treasury yield essentially reflects all publicly known information.
|
I really hope that Romney wins this, I'm so tired of Obama.
|
On July 14 2012 01:13 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2012 00:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 13 2012 23:42 aksfjh wrote:On July 13 2012 19:40 Danglars wrote:This truly is wishful thinking. The size of the US debt and its rate of growth will eclipse all attempts to spread its burden / allay it through the selling of bonds. (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/41486). See elsewhere in the thread for the growth of public debt. It's a tidal wave that will swallow up the holding of debt if allowed to continue. So the spending problem / revenue problem needs addressing. Both parties have their plans. The "cut spending now, NOW, NOW..." is a decidedly conservative Republican tack. I must say conservative Republican because spending deficits tend to grow under both parties majorities in Congress. So you get tired of yelling at the spending side of government to undergo painful cutbacks, knowing the pain of undertaking them will be worse if undertaken further along. It is no new fad to claim the facts support your argument and leave the opponent in the dust, see thread for ex. I hope you can also see why people eager for the immediate passage of spending cuts do not consider the current buying of US debt to quell the alarm. The only direct thing that matters about the debt is the interest we have to pay on it. Currently, we pay less on that interest than we did in 2007. Indirect factors are debt to GDP ratio and debt growth in relation to GDP growth, but those are more "spook" factors than actual notes of concern. The worry is that when interest rates rise the debt will slowly be refinanced at a higher rate. That will make the budget very hard to manage and pretty scary along with the growing demands of social security / medicare. Certainly massive austerity right now isn't a good idea but a little more prudence would go a long way. There is no urgent need to cut the deficit. Wait until the economy is near full employment.
If you wait until full employment to just start cutting the deficit you will have quite a lot of debt and you would expect interest rates to be much higher by then as well.
Cutting the deficit would be prudent once job growth is strong enough to push the unemployment rate down (sustained 200K+/mo). Once the economy is on better footing you really lose the excuse for exceptional fiscal stimulus.
|
On July 14 2012 01:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2012 01:13 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 14 2012 00:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 13 2012 23:42 aksfjh wrote:On July 13 2012 19:40 Danglars wrote:This truly is wishful thinking. The size of the US debt and its rate of growth will eclipse all attempts to spread its burden / allay it through the selling of bonds. (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/41486). See elsewhere in the thread for the growth of public debt. It's a tidal wave that will swallow up the holding of debt if allowed to continue. So the spending problem / revenue problem needs addressing. Both parties have their plans. The "cut spending now, NOW, NOW..." is a decidedly conservative Republican tack. I must say conservative Republican because spending deficits tend to grow under both parties majorities in Congress. So you get tired of yelling at the spending side of government to undergo painful cutbacks, knowing the pain of undertaking them will be worse if undertaken further along. It is no new fad to claim the facts support your argument and leave the opponent in the dust, see thread for ex. I hope you can also see why people eager for the immediate passage of spending cuts do not consider the current buying of US debt to quell the alarm. The only direct thing that matters about the debt is the interest we have to pay on it. Currently, we pay less on that interest than we did in 2007. Indirect factors are debt to GDP ratio and debt growth in relation to GDP growth, but those are more "spook" factors than actual notes of concern. The worry is that when interest rates rise the debt will slowly be refinanced at a higher rate. That will make the budget very hard to manage and pretty scary along with the growing demands of social security / medicare. Certainly massive austerity right now isn't a good idea but a little more prudence would go a long way. There is no urgent need to cut the deficit. Wait until the economy is near full employment. If you wait until full employment to just start cutting the deficit you will have quite a lot of debt and you would expect interest rates to be much higher by then as well. Cutting the deficit would be prudent once job growth is strong enough to push the unemployment rate down (sustained 200K+/mo). Once the economy is on better footing you really lose the excuse for exceptional fiscal stimulus.
The idea is to approach the deficit seriously when the Fed begins to raise interest rates due to inflation and employment numbers. Also, strong job numers well before full employment is no guarantee, as seen from the data from earlier this year.
|
The deficit does tend to solve itself slowly over time because GDP rises. It's not that it gets paid off in full, it just becomes less significant.
|
On July 13 2012 10:19 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 10:05 1Eris1 wrote:On July 13 2012 09:14 kwizach wrote:
1Eris1, the overall impact on other people of Obama's drug consumption is not comparable to the direct impact of Romney's harassment of people on those people he harassed. End of story. We are not talking about the structural impact of drug consumption, we are talking about individual actions. I don't think that's the arguement though. Is what Romney did worse? Obviously, but I think Bluepanther's point was that they're both criticizable things...If not, then nevermind. He was equating the two based on the fact that they're both illegal while replying to a line of discussion in which the relevant aspect being discussed was harm and potential harm to others.
I was saying it's a double standard to hold something against him simply because it's illegal. It has to be taken in context, and I think his age is extremely relevant to taking something like this in context. My brother once obtained a master key for a golf course's carts. Him and his friends broke into it and drove them around for a few hours one night and caused some damage. Is this a "privileged upbringing that shows disrespect for others' property"? No, we're not rich. He was just a kid doing something stupid yet fun.
And yes, your smoking pot does directly affect others negatively -- which is why I said this isn't an adequate "excuse" for making a distinction between the two illegal behaviors. Now, you may think one is more serious than the other, which is fine. However, objectively, they both show a disregard for the law and the well-being of others.
|
Why are you guys still talking about all of this inane shit (most of which has been covered ad nauseum multiple in this thread already) when there's some legitimately interesting stuff to actually discuss, such as the scuttlebutt of Romney picking Condoleeza Rice as VP?
|
Condolezza.... I love her. I'd want a Rice/Romney ticket more than a Romney/Rice ticket.
But IMO "independent" women voters won't vote for a woman who isn't married and never had kids.
That may be brutal. But it's what I feel.
|
On July 14 2012 02:38 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 10:19 kwizach wrote:On July 13 2012 10:05 1Eris1 wrote:On July 13 2012 09:14 kwizach wrote:
1Eris1, the overall impact on other people of Obama's drug consumption is not comparable to the direct impact of Romney's harassment of people on those people he harassed. End of story. We are not talking about the structural impact of drug consumption, we are talking about individual actions. I don't think that's the arguement though. Is what Romney did worse? Obviously, but I think Bluepanther's point was that they're both criticizable things...If not, then nevermind. He was equating the two based on the fact that they're both illegal while replying to a line of discussion in which the relevant aspect being discussed was harm and potential harm to others. I was saying it's a double standard to hold something against him simply because it's illegal.
As I have already explained to you multiple times, the fact that it was illegal is not the only aspect of the act that was being discussed.
|
I don't think Rice makes sense. She's pro-choice, which wouldn't fly with most ardent conservatives for anyone's VP, let alone Romney who has a reputation of being socially moderate. She also makes it easy to link Romney's ticket with the Bush administration (and the Iraq War), which again I think Romney would like to avoid in order to make this election as much of a referendum on Obama as possible.
|
On July 14 2012 03:47 RCMDVA wrote:
Condolezza.... I love her. I'd want a Rice/Romney ticket more than a Romney/Rice ticket.
But IMO "independent" women voters won't vote for a woman who isn't married and never had kids.
That may be brutal. But it's what I feel.
Rice as the VP candidate would be hilarious. She is partially responsible for ruining american reputation in the world, getting thousands of american troops killed in Iraq and purposefully lying to the american public, the US congress and the entire world about WMD's. Apparantly you get to do all that and still get a VP slot because you're black and a woman.
Bring back the neo-cons, it worked out so well the first time.
|
fwiw, Intrade currently ranks the VP possibilities:
1. Rob Portman
2. Tim Pawlenty
3. Condolezza Rice
4. Marco Rubio
Of these, I still feel like Rubio is the best tactical choice. Pawlenty would be interesting... I hadn't given much thought to him.
|
On July 14 2012 03:58 Derez wrote:
Apparantly you get to do all that and still get a VP slot because you're black and a woman.
Put Obama, Biden, Romney and Condolezza in an room... and Condolezza is the smartest one there by an order of magnitude.
|
On July 14 2012 04:07 RCMDVA wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2012 03:58 Derez wrote:
Apparantly you get to do all that and still get a VP slot because you're black and a woman.
Put Obama, Biden, Romney and Condolezza in an room... and Condolezza is the smartest one there by an order of magnitude.
Smart doesn't do much when all you see is what you want to see. Her main governing asset would be her foreign policy experience, and during the most crucial decision she was ever involved in she was wrong. Not just a little bit wrong, completely fucking wrong. Romney might as well run with Cheney.
I understand Romney wants someone with some foreign policy experience as the second person on the ticket, but getting a neo-con from the high command of the bush days is insane.
|
Choosing anyone closely associated with George Bush and Iraq is a terrible idea. No one wants to see those people anymore. Then again choosing Sarah Palin was an even worse idea so i can see them doing it.
|
On July 14 2012 04:27 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2012 04:07 RCMDVA wrote:On July 14 2012 03:58 Derez wrote:
Apparantly you get to do all that and still get a VP slot because you're black and a woman.
Put Obama, Biden, Romney and Condolezza in an room... and Condolezza is the smartest one there by an order of magnitude. Smart doesn't do much when all you see is what you want to see. Her main governing asset would be her foreign policy experience, and during the most crucial decision she was ever involved in she was wrong. Not just a little bit wrong, completely fucking wrong. Romney might as well run with Cheney. I understand Romney wants someone with some foreign policy experience as the second person on the ticket, but getting a neo-con from the high command of the bush days is insane.
There is no "wrong", it's all simply a matter of what an individual values and chooses to focus on. In Condi's case, it's paranoia about what might happen if the US doesn't have a strong hold over the Middle East. We can't say what would happen if we backed out of the Middle East because we haven't tried it yet.
Regardless, this is not an important issue for voters in 2012 America. She only makes sense as VP because of her double minority status. Frankly, regardless of his choice, Romney has no chance of winning. The Repubs best bet is to run Paul Ryan as Convention Keynote to set up him up for 2012.
|
On July 14 2012 04:31 DannyJ wrote:
Choosing anyone closely associated with George Bush and Iraq is a terrible idea. No one wants to see those people anymore. Then again choosing Sarah Palin was an even worse idea so i can see them doing it.
Really? I mean I wouldn't like it but I'm a dirty lib. I'm not voting for Romney anyway. I didn't get the impression that George Bush is now horribly unpopular among the republicans or anything. It might even make the conservatives more excited about a candidate as 'moderate' as Romney.
And Rice always seemed high in competency.
|
Presidential election doesn't concern me too much in the current mudslinging fest going on in congress. The party who has control over congress decides if the president has any significant amount of power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
