|
|
Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Tuesday that she shouldn’t have speculated about leaks coming from the White House, walking back hear earlier comments that the White House was partly responsible for the leak of national security information.
The California Democrat, who chairs of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said she regretted speculating about the White House’s role in leaks relating to national security.
“I was asked [at the World Affairs Council on Monday] whether the White House might be responsible for recent national security leaks. I stated that I did not believe the president leaked classified information. I shouldn’t have speculated beyond that, because the fact of the matter is I don’t know the source of the leaks,” Feinstein said in her statement.
She had said at the WAC forum that she “think[s] the White House has to understand that some of this is coming from their ranks,” although she was careful to add that she didn’t think the president was behind the leaks.
On Tuesday, in a speech before the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Reno, Nevada, Mitt Romney was expected to refer to Feinstein’s comments in blasting Obama over the leaks.
Feinstein responded that she was “disappointed” that her comments were used by Romney to criticize the president.
“I am disappointed by the statements made by Mr. Romney today regarding a question I was asked yesterday at the World Affairs Council,” she said. “I regret my remarks are being used to impugn President Obama or his commitment to protecting national security secrets.”
The senator said that she knew that the president was “extremely troubled” by leaks, which led to stories about American involvement in cyber-attacks on Iran, and the disclosure of an Al Qaeda plot to blow up a U.S.-bound airliner.
“His administration has moved aggressively to appoint two independent U.S. attorneys. There is an investigation under way, and it is moving forward quickly,” Feinstein said.
Source.
I'm sure she regrets "speculating" (more like stating the obvious) for obvious political reasons. This is going to be a very big deal during the election. If Obama were smart, he'd throw someone under the bus sooner rather than later to make this go away and prove that his administration doesn't play politics with national security.
|
If the debt grows slower than GDP, you can generally just let it become obsolete. It'll become a smaller percentage of GDP and you'll be able to pay back a fair bit of it.
|
On July 25 2012 07:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 04:33 aksfjh wrote:On July 25 2012 04:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 25 2012 03:57 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 25 2012 03:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 25 2012 03:05 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 25 2012 02:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 20:23 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 24 2012 03:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2012 02:26 paralleluniverse wrote:
[quote]
What exactly do they blame Obama for? For the GFC? He wasn't even in office at the time. For this I'd blame Wall Street and Reagan/Clinton/Bush for their deregulation of the financial industry,
For the job losses, most of that happened around the time of his inauguration before he had any chance to react.
For the slow recovery? Give me the chain of causes and effects that starts at "fiscal stimulus" and ends at "makes the economy worse".
I blame Republicans for preventing Obama from doing more. The fiscal stimulus was huge and the recovery is very slow. Too much was blown on keeping people that vote Democrat happy. It didn't make the economy worse but we got very little bang for our buck. The stimulus wasn't huge relatively. China had a $600 billion stimulus for an economy that's 1/3 the size of the US in terms of GDP. And when you're splashing around $700 billion, anyone who you give it to could be called a "special interest". Construction is a special interest. So is research. Education is also a special interest. Tax cuts for the middle class... well middle class people have special interests too. The question originally raised is who is to blame. Let's put it this way: Who's stopping more stimulus now? The stimulus WAS huge. Show me a bigger fiscal stimulus post WW2 in the US if you want to prove otherwise. The US has also added to the stimulus already this year, as it has in each year of the recession. Are Republicans blocking somethings that Obama wants to do? Yep. Opposition parties do tend to do that. Would be nice if Obama had some political capital left over but that wad was already blown getting Obamacare passed. Show me a bigger recession since the Great Depression. It was a 4% of GDP stimulus to plug an 8% of GDP output gap. As Krugman, Romer, and other economists have said, the stimulus needed to be twice the size. But I guess, if there was another $700 billion stimulus, that money has to go somewhere. Wherever it would hypothetically ended up would be called a "special interest". I don't need to show you a bigger recession. A stimulus need not cover 100% of the drop in spending to be effective. Recessions can solve themselves and monetary policy has a stimulative effect as well. The point of Keynesian economic theory is not that stimulus is necessary, but without it the recovery may take too long and leave a lot of damage in its wake. Moreover, the recession DID END. The economy has been growing since Q3 of '09 - yet the recovery has been slow and not self-sustaining. At this point in the recovery the economy shouldn't need continued stimulus. Part of the reason for the lackluster recovery is the stimulus itself - too much was blown on wasteful spending. Like it or not all spending is not equal. Monetary policy is at the zero lower bound. And while the stimulus doesn't need to cover the entire output gap, it doesn't change the fact that it wasn't large enough. The recession (as defined by a board of economist being 2 quarters of negative growth) did *technically* end, but output is still below potential GDP, and employment is far below maximum employment, and so the economy has not recovered. Not all spending is equal, for example spending on infrastructure has better fiscal effects than tax cuts. You also haven't justified how the stimulus constitutes wasteful spending. But suppose you're right, how did you come to the conclusion that wasteful spending is bad for the economy in a recession? Sure, good spending is better than wasteful spending. But wasteful spending is better than no spending at all. The problem with just spending is that it is temporary and you need to pay it back. In the short run the spending provides a boost to the economy but once it ends you have nothing (or worse, only debt). When the government just throws money around as stimulus everyone knows it and acts accordingly. For example, a retailer will add more cashiers and stock a bit more inventory, but the retailer will be very reluctant to add more stores because he knows that once the stimulus ends a lot of the demand he sees will vanish. Additionally the debt the government incurs is problematic for two reasons. First, the debt will need to be paid back somehow and at sometime in the future. This creates more uncertainty for businesses thinking of expansion because they now have to consider the now increased possibility of taxes increasing. Secondly, adding debt works counter to monetary policy. Low interest rates are supposed to drive investors into riskier assets. However, the government is making it easier for investors to stay in safe Treasuries by issuing a lot more of them. Good stimulus needs to leave you with something after it is gone. For example, tax credits for building alternative energy plants are good. Their construction provides jobs now and once completed provide the economy with a stream of income to replace the government stimulus once it is gone. Infrastructure spending, in general, has the same effect as new roads mean new businesses along side them - and a larger tax base from which to repay the debt. The debt never has to be paid back. The only thing we have to do is continue to finance it, which means pay the interest. Right now, investors are lending at a loss to the U.S. on any bond at or shorter than 10 years. If we can use this moment to stimulate the economy with PURE spending (no tax breaks), we will see a huge return and can then lower gov spending. Technically yes, you can refinance the debt over and over. But in practice this is the same as repaying the debt since you'll pay a lot more in interest. You can't really avoid paying it back. Nor can you guarantee that rates will be low at your next refinancing.
We refinance daily through long and short term bonds. What DOES happen is that, while paying the interest, the economy and interest erode our debt for us. As long as the combination of the 2 is larger than the deficit, the debt as a percentage of GDP shrinks, which is essentially the same as paying it off. The key is to use the low bond rates when we can, and cut back on deficit spending when rates increase. The notion that the rates will increase to an unsustainable amount very rapidly just isn't true for a country that has control over its own currency and a diversified economy. We will have plenty of warning, and plenty of opportunities to reign in spending before the debt becomes too large to service (without cutting a bunch into government services).
Edit: SEIGE TANK WOOOO! (2k posts)
|
|
|
Hey xDaunt, this one's for you. It's a interesting quote that points out the obvious weakness in Romney's economic policy.
"Romney does not have a plan to fix the short term crisis, in the sense that he’d be proposing exactly the same things if the economy were doing great. But the politics of the presidential race are such that Romney needs to promise that electing him would fix the crisis. To make this case, he has to sell the American people on the idea that government — and Obama’s hostility towards individual initiative and American free enterprise — are to blame for holding back the recovery, and that shoving both of those things “out of the way” will reignite the economy. That’s why Romney continues to falsely claim that stimulus spending only succeeded in growing government and didn’t help the private sector at all. That’s why he continues to falsely claim that Obama “demeans success.” That’s why he continues to falsely claim that Obama thinks only government, and not individual initiative, creates jobs — and that this is why you’re suffering. These ideas are essential to Romney’s entire argument. Without them, he doesn’t have one," - Greg Sargent.
Going to be a fun election this year!
|
On July 25 2012 10:09 Defacer wrote:Hey xDaunt, this one's for you. It's a interesting quote that points out the obvious weakness in Romney's economic policy. Show nested quote +"Romney does not have a plan to fix the short term crisis, in the sense that he’d be proposing exactly the same things if the economy were doing great. But the politics of the presidential race are such that Romney needs to promise that electing him would fix the crisis. To make this case, he has to sell the American people on the idea that government — and Obama’s hostility towards individual initiative and American free enterprise — are to blame for holding back the recovery, and that shoving both of those things “out of the way” will reignite the economy. That’s why Romney continues to falsely claim that stimulus spending only succeeded in growing government and didn’t help the private sector at all. That’s why he continues to falsely claim that Obama “demeans success.” That’s why he continues to falsely claim that Obama thinks only government, and not individual initiative, creates jobs — and that this is why you’re suffering. These ideas are essential to Romney’s entire argument. Without them, he doesn’t have one," - Greg Sargent. Going to be a fun election this year!
Sure, I'd love to see Romney flesh out his economic plan more, and lots conservatives have called upon Romney to do just that. Nonetheless, I have no doubt that Romney would be a better steward of the economy (if for no other reason than he is neither a democrat nor Obama), and polls are showing that my opinion is in the majority on the point.
As for the rest of the quote, let's just say that I disagree with Sargent and fall into Krauthammer's camp as I mentioned in a previous post.
At a minimum, it looks like democrats, liberals, and the Obama campaign have finally figured out how badly Obama fucked up with that Roanoke speech. The root problem is that, regardless of what Obama actually believes, Obama has enough of the stink of being anti-enterprise that his speech has done nothing but confirm the suspicions (or fears, if you will) of many Americans.
|
On July 25 2012 10:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 10:09 Defacer wrote:Hey xDaunt, this one's for you. It's a interesting quote that points out the obvious weakness in Romney's economic policy. "Romney does not have a plan to fix the short term crisis, in the sense that he’d be proposing exactly the same things if the economy were doing great. But the politics of the presidential race are such that Romney needs to promise that electing him would fix the crisis. To make this case, he has to sell the American people on the idea that government — and Obama’s hostility towards individual initiative and American free enterprise — are to blame for holding back the recovery, and that shoving both of those things “out of the way” will reignite the economy. That’s why Romney continues to falsely claim that stimulus spending only succeeded in growing government and didn’t help the private sector at all. That’s why he continues to falsely claim that Obama “demeans success.” That’s why he continues to falsely claim that Obama thinks only government, and not individual initiative, creates jobs — and that this is why you’re suffering. These ideas are essential to Romney’s entire argument. Without them, he doesn’t have one," - Greg Sargent. Going to be a fun election this year! Sure, I'd love to see Romney flesh out his economic plan more, and lots conservatives have called upon Romney to do just that. Nonetheless, I have no doubt that Romney would be a better steward of the economy (if for no other reason than he is neither a democrat nor Obama), and polls are showing that my opinion is in the majority on the point. As for the rest of the quote, let's just say that I disagree with Sargent and fall into Krauthammer's camp as I mentioned in a previous post. At a minimum, it looks like democrats, liberals, and the Obama campaign have finally figured out how badly Obama fucked up with that Roanoke speech. The root problem is that, regardless of what Obama actually believes, Obama has enough of the stink of being anti-enterprise that his speech has done nothing but confirm the suspicions (or fears, if you will) of many Americans.
If I'm not mistaken, most liberals are in the same boat as myself in response to the speech. He could have chosen better words, but the general idea is correct. Of those commenting, most are coming to his defense and expanding on the point. It's gaining less traction than Romney's only tax return, imo.
|
On July 25 2012 08:37 aksfjh wrote:
We refinance daily through long and short term bonds. What DOES happen is that, while paying the interest, the economy and interest erode our debt for us. As long as the combination of the 2 is larger than the deficit, the debt as a percentage of GDP shrinks, which is essentially the same as paying it off. The key is to use the low bond rates when we can, and cut back on deficit spending when rates increase. The notion that the rates will increase to an unsustainable amount very rapidly just isn't true for a country that has control over its own currency and a diversified economy. We will have plenty of warning, and plenty of opportunities to reign in spending before the debt becomes too large to service (without cutting a bunch into government services).
Edit: SEIGE TANK WOOOO! (2k posts)
This is so terribly naive. I've never heard anyone try to claim that interest erodes debt (I think you might mean inflation).
But you can't find any examples of a debt crisis where a country had plenty of warning and jumped out of the way just in time (edit: maybe Clinton in 1993). More than that, you can't find any areas where the US can plausibly cut enough spending to rein in the debt to serviceable levels and it's far less realistic than you think for the US to just print its way out of trouble. Ironically, this has become especially clear under Obama, who has committed himself far more to global stability than he has to what's solely in America's best interest. The US can't just shuck off these de facto obligations to avoid a crisis and in most cases it would just make things worse.
Japan is a good test case. They have sky-high debt (the highest in the OECD at 200+% of GDP). They don't have a problem yet but they also don't have any clear ways to pay it off. If anything, the government is committed to doing anything to avoid interest rates from rising and maintaining the status quo at any price. The EU's woes are added examples of how it's never as easy as you think to just slash spending to sustainable levels.
I don't think debt is necessarily a bad thing, especially in the short term. But there's no doubt that Obama has more problems than he has answers to and that he's done a piss-poor job of managing them with the resources that he used. Can Romney do better? To be honest, I doubt it. Whenever he faces of question of "Okay, Obama botched that. What would you do differently?", he never has a good answer.
|
On July 25 2012 10:42 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 10:30 xDaunt wrote:On July 25 2012 10:09 Defacer wrote:Hey xDaunt, this one's for you. It's a interesting quote that points out the obvious weakness in Romney's economic policy. "Romney does not have a plan to fix the short term crisis, in the sense that he’d be proposing exactly the same things if the economy were doing great. But the politics of the presidential race are such that Romney needs to promise that electing him would fix the crisis. To make this case, he has to sell the American people on the idea that government — and Obama’s hostility towards individual initiative and American free enterprise — are to blame for holding back the recovery, and that shoving both of those things “out of the way” will reignite the economy. That’s why Romney continues to falsely claim that stimulus spending only succeeded in growing government and didn’t help the private sector at all. That’s why he continues to falsely claim that Obama “demeans success.” That’s why he continues to falsely claim that Obama thinks only government, and not individual initiative, creates jobs — and that this is why you’re suffering. These ideas are essential to Romney’s entire argument. Without them, he doesn’t have one," - Greg Sargent. Going to be a fun election this year! Sure, I'd love to see Romney flesh out his economic plan more, and lots conservatives have called upon Romney to do just that. Nonetheless, I have no doubt that Romney would be a better steward of the economy (if for no other reason than he is neither a democrat nor Obama), and polls are showing that my opinion is in the majority on the point. As for the rest of the quote, let's just say that I disagree with Sargent and fall into Krauthammer's camp as I mentioned in a previous post. At a minimum, it looks like democrats, liberals, and the Obama campaign have finally figured out how badly Obama fucked up with that Roanoke speech. The root problem is that, regardless of what Obama actually believes, Obama has enough of the stink of being anti-enterprise that his speech has done nothing but confirm the suspicions (or fears, if you will) of many Americans. If I'm not mistaken, most liberals are in the same boat as myself in response to the speech. He could have chosen better words, but the general idea is correct. Of those commenting, most are coming to his defense and expanding on the point. It's gaining less traction than Romney's only tax return, imo.
I don't expect any liberals to think less of Obama for his speech because they generslly agree with what he said. I also think that liberals don't really understand why many people (particularly moderates) find the comments to be offensive.
|
On July 25 2012 11:46 xDaunt wrote:
I don't expect any liberals to think less of Obama for his speech because they generslly agree with what he said. I also think that liberals don't really understand why many people (particularly moderates) find the comments to be offensive.
you are right, "liberals" don´t think less of Obama because of his speach.
and maybe i don´t understand why people (republicans) find it offensive, but hey i can give it a try.
Because they live in lala land, and don´t want reality to interfere with their world view.
when i researched the "incident" a bit, the first source i found was an interview on faux news, getting one of those small business owners in a one on one with a fox guy, talking about it´s all his work that he did so his company is successfull.
He first starts off how his dad build everything (so he didn´t do it) and then goes on how his dad took out a loan many years ago to start the company and build it from there.
So the guy that faux news picks as the best representative for building everything on your own starts off how his dad got a loan from a bank.
Are you fucking kidding me?? there is no arguing with these people, there is just facepalming over their stupidity and hoping that natural selection speeds up and kills those retards off faster.
But hey, go Romney, i fucking hope he wins, nothing could be better for the German Economy.
|
On July 25 2012 12:10 Golgon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 11:46 xDaunt wrote:
I don't expect any liberals to think less of Obama for his speech because they generslly agree with what he said. I also think that liberals don't really understand why many people (particularly moderates) find the comments to be offensive.
you are right, "liberals" don´t think less of Obama because of his speach. and maybe i don´t understand why people (republicans) find it offensive, but hey i can give it a try. Because they live in lala land, and don´t want reality to interfere with their world view. when i researched the "incident" a bit, the first source i found was an interview on faux news, getting one of those small business owners in a one on one with a fox guy, talking about it´s all his work that he did so his company is successfull. He first starts off how his dad build everything (so he didn´t do it) and then goes on how his dad took out a loan many years ago to start the company and build it from there. So the guy that faux news picks as the best representative for building everything on your own starts off how his dad got a loan from a bank. Are you fucking kidding me?? there is no arguing with these people, there is just facepalming over their stupidity and hoping that natural selection speeds up and kills those retards off faster. But hey, go Romney, i fucking hope he wins, nothing could be better for the German Economy.
Ahh yes, wishing death upon those that you disagree with, the natural sign of a reasonable man...
|
On July 25 2012 12:10 Golgon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 11:46 xDaunt wrote:
I don't expect any liberals to think less of Obama for his speech because they generslly agree with what he said. I also think that liberals don't really understand why many people (particularly moderates) find the comments to be offensive.
Are you fucking kidding me?? there is no arguing with these people, there is just facepalming over their stupidity and hoping that natural selection speeds up and kills those retards off faster.
Every time I update myself on how European leaders are handling the financial crisis there I have the same reaction.
|
On July 25 2012 12:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 12:10 Golgon wrote:On July 25 2012 11:46 xDaunt wrote:
I don't expect any liberals to think less of Obama for his speech because they generslly agree with what he said. I also think that liberals don't really understand why many people (particularly moderates) find the comments to be offensive.
Are you fucking kidding me?? there is no arguing with these people, there is just facepalming over their stupidity and hoping that natural selection speeds up and kills those retards off faster. Every time I update myself on how European leaders are handling the financial crisis there I have the same reaction.
That dude is German, you cant shit talk them. They are looking after themselves and a whole fucking continent.
|
On July 25 2012 11:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 10:42 aksfjh wrote:On July 25 2012 10:30 xDaunt wrote:On July 25 2012 10:09 Defacer wrote:Hey xDaunt, this one's for you. It's a interesting quote that points out the obvious weakness in Romney's economic policy. "Romney does not have a plan to fix the short term crisis, in the sense that he’d be proposing exactly the same things if the economy were doing great. But the politics of the presidential race are such that Romney needs to promise that electing him would fix the crisis. To make this case, he has to sell the American people on the idea that government — and Obama’s hostility towards individual initiative and American free enterprise — are to blame for holding back the recovery, and that shoving both of those things “out of the way” will reignite the economy. That’s why Romney continues to falsely claim that stimulus spending only succeeded in growing government and didn’t help the private sector at all. That’s why he continues to falsely claim that Obama “demeans success.” That’s why he continues to falsely claim that Obama thinks only government, and not individual initiative, creates jobs — and that this is why you’re suffering. These ideas are essential to Romney’s entire argument. Without them, he doesn’t have one," - Greg Sargent. Going to be a fun election this year! Sure, I'd love to see Romney flesh out his economic plan more, and lots conservatives have called upon Romney to do just that. Nonetheless, I have no doubt that Romney would be a better steward of the economy (if for no other reason than he is neither a democrat nor Obama), and polls are showing that my opinion is in the majority on the point. As for the rest of the quote, let's just say that I disagree with Sargent and fall into Krauthammer's camp as I mentioned in a previous post. At a minimum, it looks like democrats, liberals, and the Obama campaign have finally figured out how badly Obama fucked up with that Roanoke speech. The root problem is that, regardless of what Obama actually believes, Obama has enough of the stink of being anti-enterprise that his speech has done nothing but confirm the suspicions (or fears, if you will) of many Americans. If I'm not mistaken, most liberals are in the same boat as myself in response to the speech. He could have chosen better words, but the general idea is correct. Of those commenting, most are coming to his defense and expanding on the point. It's gaining less traction than Romney's only tax return, imo. I don't expect any liberals to think less of Obama for his speech because they generslly agree with what he said. I also think that liberals don't really understand why many people (particularly moderates) find the comments to be offensive.
yea that speech was really fucking bad.
i'm genuinely curious as to why people think Romney would be better for the economy. He wants to decrease taxes and state revenue, which is the absolute wrong thing to do when we're faced with such a huge deficit. Don't say he'll decrease government spending because that's just blatantly false as every single Republican and Democrat budget coming out of Congress has shown increases in spending.
|
Romney hasn't actually won the RNC yet has he? Information is tough to come by, but all the evidence I can find says that Ron Paul is either ahead in the delegate count, or at least very close. It certainly isn't as cut and dry as cable news would have you believe.
|
On July 25 2012 12:57 Millitron wrote:
Romney hasn't actually won the RNC yet has he? Information is tough to come by, but all the evidence I can find says that Ron Paul is either ahead in the delegate count, or at least very close. It certainly isn't as cut and dry as cable news would have you believe.
It isn't remotely close and even if it were (which it isn't) they would probably just invalidate the votes of faithless delegates and such.
|
On July 25 2012 11:07 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 08:37 aksfjh wrote:
We refinance daily through long and short term bonds. What DOES happen is that, while paying the interest, the economy and interest erode our debt for us. As long as the combination of the 2 is larger than the deficit, the debt as a percentage of GDP shrinks, which is essentially the same as paying it off. The key is to use the low bond rates when we can, and cut back on deficit spending when rates increase. The notion that the rates will increase to an unsustainable amount very rapidly just isn't true for a country that has control over its own currency and a diversified economy. We will have plenty of warning, and plenty of opportunities to reign in spending before the debt becomes too large to service (without cutting a bunch into government services).
Edit: SEIGE TANK WOOOO! (2k posts) This is so terribly naive. I've never heard anyone try to claim that interest erodes debt (I think you might mean inflation). But you can't find any examples of a debt crisis where a country had plenty of warning and jumped out of the way just in time (edit: maybe Clinton in 1993). More than that, you can't find any areas where the US can plausibly cut enough spending to rein in the debt to serviceable levels and it's far less realistic than you think for the US to just print its way out of trouble. Ironically, this has become especially clear under Obama, who has committed himself far more to global stability than he has to what's solely in America's best interest. The US can't just shuck off these de facto obligations to avoid a crisis and in most cases it would just make things worse. Japan is a good test case. They have sky-high debt (the highest in the OECD at 200+% of GDP). They don't have a problem yet but they also don't have any clear ways to pay it off. If anything, the government is committed to doing anything to avoid interest rates from rising and maintaining the status quo at any price. The EU's woes are added examples of how it's never as easy as you think to just slash spending to sustainable levels. I don't think debt is necessarily a bad thing, especially in the short term. But there's no doubt that Obama has more problems than he has answers to and that he's done a piss-poor job of managing them with the resources that he used. Can Romney do better? To be honest, I doubt it. Whenever he faces of question of "Okay, Obama botched that. What would you do differently?", he never has a good answer.
Yea, I typed that in a hurry. It's supposed to read "economy and inflation erode our debt."
Also, it took 4 years for rates to go from just under 8% to 5.5%, back to 8%. Even when it did bounce, it only went back to levels we had recently seen. If that is any example to go off of, we would see interest rates go back up to 2.5% at most.
As for Japan and Europe. Japan has been, for a long time, proof that high debt levels aren't cause enough alone to incite bond vigilantes to stop buying debt. What will spark a run on interest rates is a lack of control in monetary policy, fiscal policy, and economic outlook for the country in question. We're seeing just that with EU. Spain and Ireland have no control over monetary policy, and only a shadow of control over fiscal policy. To that point, their economies are very small and specialize in very few goods to export. Their economies rely heavily on the health of the economies they do business with, and those too are doing less than stellar. So, when the governments had to take on huge loans to give to backs in the wake of last housing bust, there was no confidence that they could pay back that loan because of poor growth and bad inflation numbers.
The reason why EU is having troubles slashing spending right now is because so many people rely on the government in hard times. It's hard to make cuts to pensions, unemployment compensation, healthcare, education, and safety, when those are the services we need more than ever.
|
|
|
On July 25 2012 13:17 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 11:07 coverpunch wrote:On July 25 2012 08:37 aksfjh wrote:
We refinance daily through long and short term bonds. What DOES happen is that, while paying the interest, the economy and interest erode our debt for us. As long as the combination of the 2 is larger than the deficit, the debt as a percentage of GDP shrinks, which is essentially the same as paying it off. The key is to use the low bond rates when we can, and cut back on deficit spending when rates increase. The notion that the rates will increase to an unsustainable amount very rapidly just isn't true for a country that has control over its own currency and a diversified economy. We will have plenty of warning, and plenty of opportunities to reign in spending before the debt becomes too large to service (without cutting a bunch into government services).
Edit: SEIGE TANK WOOOO! (2k posts) This is so terribly naive. I've never heard anyone try to claim that interest erodes debt (I think you might mean inflation). But you can't find any examples of a debt crisis where a country had plenty of warning and jumped out of the way just in time (edit: maybe Clinton in 1993). More than that, you can't find any areas where the US can plausibly cut enough spending to rein in the debt to serviceable levels and it's far less realistic than you think for the US to just print its way out of trouble. Ironically, this has become especially clear under Obama, who has committed himself far more to global stability than he has to what's solely in America's best interest. The US can't just shuck off these de facto obligations to avoid a crisis and in most cases it would just make things worse. Japan is a good test case. They have sky-high debt (the highest in the OECD at 200+% of GDP). They don't have a problem yet but they also don't have any clear ways to pay it off. If anything, the government is committed to doing anything to avoid interest rates from rising and maintaining the status quo at any price. The EU's woes are added examples of how it's never as easy as you think to just slash spending to sustainable levels. I don't think debt is necessarily a bad thing, especially in the short term. But there's no doubt that Obama has more problems than he has answers to and that he's done a piss-poor job of managing them with the resources that he used. Can Romney do better? To be honest, I doubt it. Whenever he faces of question of "Okay, Obama botched that. What would you do differently?", he never has a good answer. Yea, I typed that in a hurry. It's supposed to read "economy and inflation erode our debt." Also, it took 4 years for rates to go from just under 8% to 5.5%, back to 8%. Even when it did bounce, it only went back to levels we had recently seen. If that is any example to go off of, we would see interest rates go back up to 2.5% at most. As for Japan and Europe. Japan has been, for a long time, proof that high debt levels aren't cause enough alone to incite bond vigilantes to stop buying debt. What will spark a run on interest rates is a lack of control in monetary policy, fiscal policy, and economic outlook for the country in question. We're seeing just that with EU. Spain and Ireland have no control over monetary policy, and only a shadow of control over fiscal policy. To that point, their economies are very small and specialize in very few goods to export. Their economies rely heavily on the health of the economies they do business with, and those too are doing less than stellar. So, when the governments had to take on huge loans to give to backs in the wake of last housing bust, there was no confidence that they could pay back that loan because of poor growth and bad inflation numbers. The reason why EU is having troubles slashing spending right now is because so many people rely on the government in hard times. It's hard to make cuts to pensions, unemployment compensation, healthcare, education, and safety, when those are the services we need more than ever.
Well, I do agree with the bottom line point, which is that there isn't a mathematical formula here. There's no bright line at which the bond market erupts and a debt crisis ensues. But that's very different from insisting that high debt isn't a problem and doesn't present the dry powder that can explode into a crisis.
Suggesting that the US take advantage of low bond yields and try to buy its way out of a crisis is an all-in strategy. If the president tries it and the economy remains in stagnation, the country will really be in a tough spot. But IMO, if your economic plan doesn't provide a way out for debtors and deal with the housing market, it ultimately fixes nothing.
The real basis for my objection to that kind of plan is that it is our generation that ends up paying off the debt through increased taxes. So pretty much you want to bet all the increases in my future income so that plausibly it could be the year 2042 and my after-tax income is exactly the same as it is now, which I definitely do not want to happen.
|
On July 25 2012 12:10 Golgon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 11:46 xDaunt wrote:
I don't expect any liberals to think less of Obama for his speech because they generslly agree with what he said. I also think that liberals don't really understand why many people (particularly moderates) find the comments to be offensive.
you are right, "liberals" don´t think less of Obama because of his speach. and maybe i don´t understand why people (republicans) find it offensive, but hey i can give it a try. Because they live in lala land, and don´t want reality to interfere with their world view. when i researched the "incident" a bit, the first source i found was an interview on faux news, getting one of those small business owners in a one on one with a fox guy, talking about it´s all his work that he did so his company is successfull. He first starts off how his dad build everything (so he didn´t do it) and then goes on how his dad took out a loan many years ago to start the company and build it from there. So the guy that faux news picks as the best representative for building everything on your own starts off how his dad got a loan from a bank. Are you fucking kidding me?? there is no arguing with these people, there is just facepalming over their stupidity and hoping that natural selection speeds up and kills those retards off faster. But hey, go Romney, i fucking hope he wins, nothing could be better for the German Economy.
The words behind Obama's speech are logical and make a lot of sense. However, it's the ATTITUDE which he delivers these words that bugs conservatives so much. Republicans idolize individualism and independence. Obama basically insinuated that we are nothing but a product of our situation. This just isn't true, and that's why there's such a violent reaction to his statements. Have his words been taken out of context by some? Absolutely. But what he said is a contentious topic in the United States even at face value because of the underlying meaning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
