If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   So it's the Monday after sequester...what happened to all the doom, gloom, mayhem, and despair predicted by the White House? White House: Um, yeah, we might have been exaggerating a little. Still the Republicans' fault, though   (foxnews.com) divider line 261
    More: Obvious, Kentucky Republican, White House, Senate Republican Leader, Kelly Ayotte, wage earners, Gene Sperling, military sciences, Mitch McConnell  
•       •       •

776 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Mar 2013 at 8:01 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



261 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-04 08:56:32 AM  

BeesNuts: MattStafford: Was I wrong?  What would happen if bond yields returned to their historical average?  Obviously, we couldn't afford to borrow as much as we do, and would have forced austerity - very similar to what Greece is going through.  Oh - I forgot, our bond yields will stay historically low forever and the dollar will be the global reserve currency for a million more years.  Get your heads out the sand.

How many years do you think it will take before "bond yields returned to their historical average"?

I'll throw a month of TF on it if you're willing to nut up and actually make a prediction instead of this weak shiat.  Over and over.  With slightly different analogies attached.


I'll give him 2 months if he does that, but using coconuts instead of "bond yields" the whole time.
 
2013-03-04 08:56:44 AM  

MattStafford: machodonkeywrestler: Yes, and people usually don't flaunt their ignorance.

Then just explain how I was wrong - if bond yields go up we'll be forced to seriously cut spending or print our way out of debt.  Both options result in lots of pain for the average person.


IF our bond yields go up.  IF.  Which means our economy would have to be stronger.  Which means government revenue would grow, which means we should be able to stop borrowing and eventually pay down our debt, until this whole cycle repeats itself again.  Relax dude.
 
2013-03-04 08:58:02 AM  

MattStafford: lordjupiter: They can sometimes actually see long-term, even if it is just biological impulse.

Funny coming from the "in the long run, we're all dead" side of the aisle.


Are... Are you saying that people on one "side of the aisle" won't die?
 
2013-03-04 08:58:35 AM  

MattStafford: machodonkeywrestler: Yes, and people usually don't flaunt their ignorance.

Then just explain how I was wrong - if bond yields go up we'll be forced to seriously cut spending or print our way out of debt.  Both options result in lots of pain for the average person.


1. Bond situation is not even a fraction of Greece's
2. Entitlement programs do not approach the level of Greece
3. USA actually has a GDP comprised of something other than tourism and olive oil
4. You are comparing apples and rocks. The 2 situations are so dissimilar that it's a real stretch to even mention the 2 as a problem of the same order of magnitude. You should really research the actual situation more before you make these baseless comments.
 
2013-03-04 08:59:40 AM  

Evil Twin Skippy: I have friends who are dealing with this shiat, and the notices were are out a month ago. Eating tuna and ramen is today.


If only they had worked harder, prosperity would be trickling down all over them.
 
2013-03-04 08:59:42 AM  

Tomahawk513: MattStafford: machodonkeywrestler: Yes, and people usually don't flaunt their ignorance.

Then just explain how I was wrong - if bond yields go up we'll be forced to seriously cut spending or print our way out of debt.  Both options result in lots of pain for the average person.

IF our bond yields go up.  IF.  Which means our economy would have to be stronger.  Which means government revenue would grow, which means we should be able to stop borrowing and eventually pay down our debt, until this whole cycle repeats itself again.  Relax dude.


machodonkeywrestler: MattStafford: machodonkeywrestler: Yes, and people usually don't flaunt their ignorance.

Then just explain how I was wrong - if bond yields go up we'll be forced to seriously cut spending or print our way out of debt.  Both options result in lots of pain for the average person.

1. Bond situation is not even a fraction of Greece's
2. Entitlement programs do not approach the level of Greece
3. USA actually has a GDP comprised of something other than tourism and olive oil
4. You are comparing apples and rocks. The 2 situations are so dissimilar that it's a real stretch to even mention the 2 as a problem of the same order of magnitude. You should really research the actual situation more before you make these baseless comments.


Just QFT'ing here, don't mind me.
 
2013-03-04 09:03:09 AM  
So this is the thread where all the Farkers living in 'reality' selectively forget how they said this country would turn cataclysmic if we had sequester?

Let's back to February 19th, 2013:

F. Chuck Todd last night on MSNBC Nightly News. Brian Williams talked to him, and Brian Williams said, "What's gonna happen here, Chuck -- and, if it does happen, and if it's fixed, you wonder why people are so deeply angry and cynical and checked out of our politics?"

TODD: I can understand if viewers tonight think this is Chicken Little all over again: The president holding another event surrounded by people who could see, uhh, dire effects of a budget compromise. It feels like we've been through this before. "The sky is falling! What are we gonna do?" The president is testing the political limits of the public cynicism, which is, "How much are they gonna believe this? Are they gonna look up and say, 'How often are you gonna say this? I'm through listening to Washington."
 
2013-03-04 09:03:59 AM  
where i work sequester impacts have already been felt as we were prepping for them...actual government civilian furloughs do not begin for at least 30 days

Now whether DoD really needed to furlough or cancel deployments to meet the budget cut instead of gold-watching other programs is a different story
 
2013-03-04 09:06:55 AM  

MattStafford: BeesNuts: How many years do you think it will take before "bond yields returned to their historical average"?

I'll throw a month of TF on it if you're willing to nut up and actually make a prediction instead of this weak shiat. Over and over. With slightly different analogies attached.

The market can stay rational longer than you can stay solvent, as they say.  All I can tell you is where our actions are leading us, accurately predicting a time frame is far more difficult.  I'd say it is similar to climate change science.  Will you discount climate change science because people refuse to make predictions about when the change will happen, or after you look back on failed past predictions?  I can tell you where our actions will lead us, similar to climate change scientists explaining where our actions will lead us - when is an entirely different matter.


They do make predictions in climatology. They also adjust those predictions in light of new evidence, which comes in from the field and has to be peer-reviewed. It's why climatology uses models to buttress its theory. The models shift overtime, gradually adding understanding to the theory.

The same happens in economics. You aren't an economist though. You just pretend to know things about it. So you stay in your specious gray area so nobody can nail you down to one thing or another, and you can keep braying your Von Mises Institute talking points over and over.

You keep asking people to answer questions you set up in the first place. So they do, and you ignore it and go back to the original question. I've lost track of the number of times "bond yields" have shown up in your posts. It keeps getting explained to you, but you blow it off and go back to it again, and whine that nobody answers you.

One more time, here we go:

IF our bond yields go up.  IF.  Which means our economy would have to be stronger.  Which means government revenue would grow, which means we should be able to stop borrowing and eventually pay down our debt, until this whole cycle repeats itself again.  Relax dude.

1. Bond situation is not even a fraction of Greece's
2. Entitlement programs do not approach the level of Greece
3. USA actually has a GDP comprised of something other than tourism and olive oil
4. You are comparing apples and rocks. The 2 situations are so dissimilar that it's a real stretch to even mention the 2 as a problem of the same order of magnitude. You should really research the actual situation more before you make these baseless comments.


Thanks to Tomahawk513 and machodonkeywrestler for summarizing better than I can.
 
2013-03-04 09:09:12 AM  

SlothB77: So this is the thread where all the Farkers living in 'reality' selectively forget how they said this country would turn cataclysmic if we had sequester?

Let's back to February 19th, 2013:

F. Chuck Todd last night on MSNBC Nightly News. Brian Williams talked to him, and Brian Williams said, "What's gonna happen here, Chuck -- and, if it does happen, and if it's fixed, you wonder why people are so deeply angry and cynical and checked out of our politics?"

TODD: I can understand if viewers tonight think this is Chicken Little all over again: The president holding another event surrounded by people who could see, uhh, dire effects of a budget compromise. It feels like we've been through this before. "The sky is falling! What are we gonna do?" The president is testing the political limits of the public cynicism, which is, "How much are they gonna believe this? Are they gonna look up and say, 'How often are you gonna say this? I'm through listening to Washington."


What are you arguing here? Use your words.
 
2013-03-04 09:09:55 AM  

johnny_vegas: where i work sequester impacts have already been felt as we were prepping for them...actual government civilian furloughs do not begin for at least 30 days

Now whether DoD really needed to furlough or cancel deployments to meet the budget cut instead of gold-watching other programs is a different story


The brass were totally ready to compromise operational capacity just to prove a point. They hate having their budgets touched, so they'll ground some training flights, moor some boats, and furlough civilians to cry and beg Congress to give them more money.

My company might actually end up being busier because of the sequester. Canceled ops means all that training has to be done elsewhere.
 
2013-03-04 09:10:14 AM  

keylock71: Do you have the mental capacities and reasoning skills of a 5 year old?

Then FOX News is the place for you!


Cause this threat of cutting the most vital services first with sequester is an appeal to the critical thinkers among us and not political pandering:

images.politico.com

Obama put a peanut gallery of first responders behind him because we all know in a budget crisis the first people you cut are the most critical and vital, like first responders and air traffic controllers.

And lo and behold, now we find out they are not at the top of the chopping block.
 
2013-03-04 09:10:46 AM  
THERE WOULD BE NO SEQUESTER IF REPUBLICANS HADN'T HELD AMERICA'S CREDIT HOSTAGE IN THE SUMMER OF 2011.
 
2013-03-04 09:11:20 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: FNC sounds disappointed that the US didn't transform into Darfur at midnight on the 1st.


If we did turn into Darfur, the GOP would want to bomb us
 
2013-03-04 09:13:27 AM  

FlashHarry: once again:

THERE WOULD BE NO SEQUESTER IF REPUBLICANS HADN'T HELD AMERICA'S CREDIT HOSTAGE IN THE SUMMER OF 2011.


There would be no sequester if Pres. Obama would have just let the damn tax cuts expire.
 
2013-03-04 09:15:30 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: SlothB77: So this is the thread where all the Farkers living in 'reality' selectively forget how they said this country would turn cataclysmic if we had sequester?

Let's back to February 19th, 2013:

F. Chuck Todd last night on MSNBC Nightly News. Brian Williams talked to him, and Brian Williams said, "What's gonna happen here, Chuck -- and, if it does happen, and if it's fixed, you wonder why people are so deeply angry and cynical and checked out of our politics?"

TODD: I can understand if viewers tonight think this is Chicken Little all over again: The president holding another event surrounded by people who could see, uhh, dire effects of a budget compromise. It feels like we've been through this before. "The sky is falling! What are we gonna do?" The president is testing the political limits of the public cynicism, which is, "How much are they gonna believe this? Are they gonna look up and say, 'How often are you gonna say this? I'm through listening to Washington."

What are you arguing here? Use your words.


It's day two of sequester-rama and Washington DC isn't burning, therefore everyone who is not a Tea Party Loon is wrong and whargarble.
 
2013-03-04 09:15:37 AM  
Huh.... you would have thought the 7 minute meeting that Obama held Wed. prior to the sequester would have been enough 'negotiating'.

Come to think of it,   7 minutes for Obama at The Hill would be just about enough time for a photo-op

He must not be very serious about the economy or budget.
 
MFK
2013-03-04 09:15:41 AM  
THERE WOULD BE NO SEQUESTER IF REPUBLICANS HADN'T HELD AMERICA'S CREDIT HOSTAGE IN THE SUMMER OF 2011.
 
2013-03-04 09:16:53 AM  

19 Kilo: HotWingConspiracy: SlothB77: So this is the thread where all the Farkers living in 'reality' selectively forget how they said this country would turn cataclysmic if we had sequester?

Let's back to February 19th, 2013:

F. Chuck Todd last night on MSNBC Nightly News. Brian Williams talked to him, and Brian Williams said, "What's gonna happen here, Chuck -- and, if it does happen, and if it's fixed, you wonder why people are so deeply angry and cynical and checked out of our politics?"

TODD: I can understand if viewers tonight think this is Chicken Little all over again: The president holding another event surrounded by people who could see, uhh, dire effects of a budget compromise. It feels like we've been through this before. "The sky is falling! What are we gonna do?" The president is testing the political limits of the public cynicism, which is, "How much are they gonna believe this? Are they gonna look up and say, 'How often are you gonna say this? I'm through listening to Washington."

What are you arguing here? Use your words.

It's day two of sequester-rama and Washington DC isn't burning, therefore everyone who is not a Tea Party Loon is wrong and whargarble a

nd Furthermore...

FTFY
 
2013-03-04 09:17:16 AM  
Is this the same Fox News that was pumping up the horror of the Obamaquester? Or was that the other Fox News? I can never tell anymore.
 
2013-03-04 09:17:49 AM  

missiv: FlashHarry: once again:

THERE WOULD BE NO SEQUESTER IF REPUBLICANS HADN'T HELD AMERICA'S CREDIT HOSTAGE IN THE SUMMER OF 2011.

There would be no sequester if Pres. Obama would have just let the damn tax cuts expire.


Not sure if serious.
 
2013-03-04 09:20:21 AM  

verbaltoxin: lordjupiter: Yakk: I learned this weekend that the president played Golf with Tiger Woods so the problems are non-existent. These are the types on insights you can only gain from watching FoxNews.

Kind of like years ago when they saw people in a shopping mall before Xmas, therefore "no recession".

Or, "It snowed a lot, so no global warming."


Or "The poor aren't really poor 'cuz they have refrigerators!"
 
2013-03-04 09:20:34 AM  

MattStafford: BeesNuts: How many years do you think it will take before "bond yields returned to their historical average"?

I'll throw a month of TF on it if you're willing to nut up and actually make a prediction instead of this weak shiat. Over and over. With slightly different analogies attached.

The market can stay rational longer than you can stay solvent, as they say.  All I can tell you is where our actions are leading us, accurately predicting a time frame is far more difficult.  I'd say it is similar to climate change science.  Will you discount climate change science because people refuse to make predictions about when the change will happen, or after you look back on failed past predictions?  I can tell you where our actions will lead us, similar to climate change scientists explaining where our actions will lead us - when is an entirely different matter.


Translation:

No, I'm really just throwing shiat at the walls.  Also, let me make an analogy because I don't really have that excellent a grasp of macroeconomics.  Aren't I just the smartest?

Your steadfast insistence that an increase in bond yields will be our economic downfall is more interesting than the blanket insistence that "something is coming!", but it doesn't compare to climate science for a couple reasons.

1.  Climate science is based on observations.  The predictions are made based on real data.
and
2.  These predictions are validated by scientist around the world, also making observations.

I don't doubt that the bond market will go through some kind of alteration in the next decade or two.  Nor do I doubt that interest rates will rise, also in that time frame.  I struggle with the same thing I struggled with before the specific culprit of bond yields arose.   Coconuts.
 
2013-03-04 09:20:36 AM  

MFK: THERE WOULD BE NO SEQUESTER IF REPUBLICANS HADN'T HELD AMERICA'S CREDIT HOSTAGE IN THE SUMMER OF 2011.


virturl.com
 
2013-03-04 09:21:37 AM  

MattStafford: GoodyearPimp: For a glimpse of the future, let's check in with Greece.  Things are totally awesome there, right?

If we keep our current borrow and spend policy as is, we will look like Greece once our bond yields go up a bit.


Looks like it hurt some liberals' feelings when you told them the truth.
 
2013-03-04 09:24:21 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: FNC sounds disappointed that the US didn't transform into Darfur at midnight on the 1st.


Yeah, but the power went out in random outlets in my house, presumably because it was wired stupid in the 70's and one tripped circuit spreads it's love all over the place.

Thanks, Obama!
 
2013-03-04 09:25:09 AM  
He used the presence of the first responders - whose jobs he said were on the line as a result of the cuts - to issue a direct challenge to Republicans.

"Are you willing to see a bunch of emergency responders lose their jobs because you want to protect some special interest tax loophole?" Obama said.

On Friday, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said he'd have to furlough 5,000 air-traffic controllers. On Saturday, the president warned in his weekly radio address that thousands of teachers "will be laid off," and "tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find child care."

On Sunday, the White House released a report for each state detailing how many unsafe bridges would be left unrepaired. On Monday, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar threatened to close all National Park campgrounds. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said she'd have to sideline 5,000 border agents. Immigration and Customs Enforcement announced it would release from detention several hundred illegal immigrants.


It was a bluff.  Republicans didn't blink.  Now we dare Obama to emergency first responders during sequester, risking American's lives.  Sure, he could cut other things like flyovers at sports events.


Take the Department of Transportation. Its budget last year was $75 billion; this year it is $89 billion. If Mr. LaHood believes he should start accumulating his $600 million in sequester savings by furloughing air-traffic controllers, the House Transportation Committee can ask why he didn't begin by cutting expenditures like Alaska sightseeing trains ($72 million), old-fashioned trolleys in Missouri ($22 million plus) and sidewalks to nowhere in Florida ($1.1 million)? These were all Department of Transportation outlays identified by Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn last October.

Or consider the Federal Communications Commission. News reports suggest that the FCC will achieve its required $28 million in savings by laying off employees and delaying equipment purchases.

If it does, the House Commerce Committee can ask the FCC chairman to explain why he's not cutting the waste in the $2.2 billion-a-year program the FCC runs to provide free cellphones for low-income individuals. That program is riddled with fraud: An FCC survey of its five biggest providers found that 41% of participants were either ineligible or didn't respond to requests to prove they were eligible.
 
2013-03-04 09:26:02 AM  

machodonkeywrestler: MattStafford: machodonkeywrestler: Yes, and people usually don't flaunt their ignorance.

Then just explain how I was wrong - if bond yields go up we'll be forced to seriously cut spending or print our way out of debt.  Both options result in lots of pain for the average person.

1. Bond situation is not even a fraction of Greece's
2. Entitlement programs do not approach the level of Greece
3. USA actually has a GDP comprised of something other than tourism and olive oil
4. You are comparing apples coconuts and rocks.canals The 2 situations are so dissimilar that it's a real stretch to even mention the 2 as a problem of the same order of magnitude. You should really research the actual situation more before you make these baseless comments.

 
2013-03-04 09:27:10 AM  
Sloth isn't upset by real things, but by the way people talk about them.  Furloughs aren't troublesome, but having first responders stand behind him while he talked about Furloughs was inexcusable.

Barack Hussein Obama had 40 first responders stand with him while he made that speech.  That is almost 4 tens and that is terrible.
 
2013-03-04 09:29:15 AM  

SlothB77: Let's back to February 19th, 2013:

F. Chuck Todd last night on MSNBC Nightly News. Brian Williams talked to him, and Brian Williams said, "What's gonna happen here, Chuck -- and, if it does happen, and if it's fixed, you wonder why people are so deeply angry and cynical and checked out of our politics?"


DITTOHEAD ALERT! ATTENTION, PEOPLE, THIS IS A CLASS ONE DITTOHEAD ALERT
 
2013-03-04 09:32:08 AM  

SlothB77: He used the presence of the first responders - whose jobs he said were on the line as a result of the cuts - to issue a direct challenge to Republicans.

"Are you willing to see a bunch of emergency responders lose their jobs because you want to protect some special interest tax loophole?" Obama said.

On Friday, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said he'd have to furlough 5,000 air-traffic controllers. On Saturday, the president warned in his weekly radio address that thousands of teachers "will be laid off," and "tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find child care."

On Sunday, the White House released a report for each state detailing how many unsafe bridges would be left unrepaired. On Monday, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar threatened to close all National Park campgrounds. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said she'd have to sideline 5,000 border agents. Immigration and Customs Enforcement announced it would release from detention several hundred illegal immigrants.

It was a bluff.  Republicans didn't blink.  Now we dare Obama to emergency first responders during sequester, risking American's lives.  Sure, he could cut other things like flyovers at sports events.


Take the Department of Transportation. Its budget last year was $75 billion; this year it is $89 billion. If Mr. LaHood believes he should start accumulating his $600 million in sequester savings by furloughing air-traffic controllers, the House Transportation Committee can ask why he didn't begin by cutting expenditures like Alaska sightseeing trains ($72 million), old-fashioned trolleys in Missouri ($22 million plus) and sidewalks to nowhere in Florida ($1.1 million)? These were all Department of Transportation outlays identified by Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn last October.

Or consider the Federal Communications Commission. News reports suggest that the FCC will achieve its required $28 million in savings by laying off employees and delaying equipment purchases.

If it ...


Keep doing the lord's work, deep cover mole.
 
2013-03-04 09:33:22 AM  

SlothB77: It was a bluff.


No it wasn't. It's a shiat sandwich that the GOP is going to have to eat soon.
 
2013-03-04 09:34:41 AM  
I live in a base town. Furloughs are scheduled to begin in April. If the Republicans want the cuts to be permanent, we'll see how happy their voters are come April.
 
2013-03-04 09:34:42 AM  

netcentric: Huh.... you would have thought the 7 minute meeting that Obama held Wed. prior to the sequester would have been enough 'negotiating'.

Come to think of it,   7 minutes for Obama at The Hill would be just about enough time for a photo-op

He must not be very serious about the economy or budget.


The budget isn't his job, you goddamn moron. It's the House's job. Y'know, the place filled with economically-retarded Republicans, that do nothing but try to push theocratic nonsense, fellate the 1%, repeal Obamacare and obstruct?
 
2013-03-04 09:37:57 AM  

netcentric: Huh.... you would have thought the 7 minute meeting that Obama held Wed. prior to the sequester would have been enough 'negotiating'.

Come to think of it,   7 minutes for Obama at The Hill would be just about enough time for a photo-op

He must not be very serious about the economy or budget.


Maybe 7 minutes was more than enough time to realize that nobody in the room was listening.
 
2013-03-04 09:42:27 AM  
How do you people keep following these liar's?
 
2013-03-04 09:44:56 AM  
img7.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-04 09:45:58 AM  

Tomahawk513: IF our bond yields go up. IF. Which means our economy would have to be stronger. Which means government revenue would grow, which means we should be able to stop borrowing and eventually pay down our debt, until this whole cycle repeats itself again. Relax dude.


Why would our economy have to be stronger for bond yields to go up?  In fact - that is the opposite of what would happen.  Why would you demand higher rates from a stronger economy?
 
2013-03-04 09:50:33 AM  

IamKaiserSoze!!!: MattStafford: GoodyearPimp: For a glimpse of the future, let's check in with Greece.  Things are totally awesome there, right?

If we keep our current borrow and spend policy as is, we will look like Greece once our bond yields go up a bit.

But it will get us through a few more election cycles.

Just read that the OMB is projecting the highest US revenue ever for 2013, so obviously our debt problem is a result of not taxing enough.

Nancy, Harry and Barry. Can't make this shiate up.


Though its just an estimate. 2012 revenue was lower than 2007 revenue NOT inflation or population adjusted. They are expecting 2013 to be higher than 2007 inflation and population adjusted. Of course 2012 revenue was lower than expected as well, I will be shocked when 2013 revenue comes in to projections.
 
2013-03-04 09:54:31 AM  
Welcome back to 1996 Republicans! You gonna get a box of rape rape in 2014!
 
2013-03-04 09:56:10 AM  

FlashHarry: once again:

THERE WOULD BE NO SEQUESTER IF GENE SPERLING HADN'T COME UP WITH IT!


FTFY

Guess where Gene works.
 
2013-03-04 09:57:00 AM  

machodonkeywrestler: 1. Bond situation is not even a fraction of Greece's
2. Entitlement programs do not approach the level of Greece
3. USA actually has a GDP comprised of something other than tourism and olive oil
4. You are comparing apples and rocks. The 2 situations are so dissimilar that it's a real stretch to even mention the 2 as a problem of the same order of magnitude. You should really research the actual situation more before you make these baseless comments.


1 - What does that mean?  Are you suggesting that we would be able to afford an increase in bond yields?  I can assure you, we cannot.  A rise in yields to historical averages would be catastrophic.

2 - When you include the DoD as an elaborate jobs program (which is what it is) - our state welfare system is extremely large, and a period of time where it is difficult to finance our borrowing would result in serious cuts, which would ripple through the economy.

3 - The US GDP is 70% consumption, financed to a large extent via debt (both public and private).  The health care industry and the MIC are large components of our GDP, and both would take a severe hit were we unable to continue our current borrowing trends.

4 - The situation in Greece was that they borrowed large amounts of money to build a massive federal government.  They were able to do this because being in the Eurozone (and lying about their deficits) gave them lower rates than they otherwise should have had.  Bond yields went up, and they were no longer able to afford that massive federal government.  The situation in the US that we have borrowed large amounts of money to build a massive federal government.  We were able to do this for a variety of reasons - some artificial, some deserved, which have combined to give us extremely low bond yields (which we still have). The fundamental problem is the same - significant borrowing financed by low interest rates.  When those interest rates increase, problems abound.
 
2013-03-04 09:57:41 AM  

MattStafford: Tomahawk513: IF our bond yields go up. IF. Which means our economy would have to be stronger. Which means government revenue would grow, which means we should be able to stop borrowing and eventually pay down our debt, until this whole cycle repeats itself again. Relax dude.

Why would our economy have to be stronger for bond yields to go up?  In fact - that is the opposite of what would happen.  Why would you demand higher rates from a stronger economy?


Normally yes, but bond rates are at record lows because they are set low to encourage banks to loan and create a stimulative effect. Once other interest rates rebound and people start looking elsewhere to put their money, bond rates will be forced to rise.
 
2013-03-04 10:00:39 AM  

BeesNuts: MattStafford: BeesNuts: How many years do you think it will take before "bond yields returned to their historical average"?

I'll throw a month of TF on it if you're willing to nut up and actually make a prediction instead of this weak shiat. Over and over. With slightly different analogies attached.

The market can stay rational longer than you can stay solvent, as they say.  All I can tell you is where our actions are leading us, accurately predicting a time frame is far more difficult.  I'd say it is similar to climate change science.  Will you discount climate change science because people refuse to make predictions about when the change will happen, or after you look back on failed past predictions?  I can tell you where our actions will lead us, similar to climate change scientists explaining where our actions will lead us - when is an entirely different matter.

Translation:

No, I'm really just throwing shiat at the walls.  Also, let me make an analogy because I don't really have that excellent a grasp of macroeconomics.  Aren't I just the smartest?

Your steadfast insistence that an increase in bond yields will be our economic downfall is more interesting than the blanket insistence that "something is coming!", but it doesn't compare to climate science for a couple reasons.

1.  Climate science is based on observations.  The predictions are made based on real data.
and
2.  These predictions are validated by scientist around the world, also making observations.

I don't doubt that the bond market will go through some kind of alteration in the next decade or two.  Nor do I doubt that interest rates will rise, also in that time frame.  I struggle with the same thing I struggled with before the specific culprit of bond yields arose.   Coconuts.


His whole thing is that he lies about having an economics degree and then says stupid stuff. Just sayin'.
 
2013-03-04 10:01:07 AM  

BeesNuts: I don't doubt that the bond market will go through some kind of alteration in the next decade or two. Nor do I doubt that interest rates will rise, also in that time frame. I struggle with the same thing I struggled with before the specific culprit of bond yields arose


There is evidence that demand for US Treasuries will be lower in the future than it is now.  Lower demand means higher yields.  The US cannot afford higher yields on its debt, and if subjected to higher yields, would face an extremely serious economic (and social) crisis.  What more do you need to understand that there is a serious problem with our current financial situation?
 
2013-03-04 10:03:22 AM  

DeaH: I live in a base town. Furloughs are scheduled to begin in April. If the Republicans want the cuts to be permanent, we'll see how happy their voters are come April.


Would you prefer a slow down in spending on that base now, or a complete shut down of that base at some point in the future?  Those are the options we are being presented with, and having politicians make the choice for the long term over the short term is impressive, even if unintentional.
 
2013-03-04 10:05:03 AM  

Raharu: [img7.imageshack.us image 800x800]


Yeah, that quote is outdated now.  If you have seen any of John Boehner's recent quotes, he has backtracked considerably from that.
 
2013-03-04 10:05:21 AM  

MattStafford: Would you prefer a slow down in spending on that base now, or a complete shut down of that base at some point in the future?  Those are the options we are being presented wit


Only by the Republicans, but even your scenario of a shutdown "in the future" is better than the sequester because it leaves time for those that rely on the base for income to prepare to get it from other sources.
 
2013-03-04 10:05:40 AM  
I already got an e-mail this morning from one of our big buyers that deals with DOD stuff.

Bottom line is DOD is no longer doing accelerated payments to this huge corporation, so they in turn will not be doing accelerated payments to its suppliers (like my small business).

/Economic ripple... what is that? *rolls eyes at GOP*
 
2013-03-04 10:05:57 AM  

SlothB77: Raharu: [img7.imageshack.us image 800x800]

Yeah, that quote is outdated now.  If you have seen any of John Boehner's recent quotes, he has backtracked considerably from that.


So, he was wrong when he said that? Or is he wrong now?

It's so hard to keep up with the lies sometimes.
 
Displayed 50 of 261 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report