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  
•       •       •

774 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
 
MFK
2013-03-04 08:02:47 AM
STFU Fox News.
 
2013-03-04 08:04:54 AM
"Nobody ever suggested that this ... was going to have all its impact in the first few days," he told "NBC's "Meet the Press." "It is a slow grind."

Pretty much this. Even with all the doom-and-gloom, it should be somewhat obvious to anyone with intelligence that it wasn't going to happen overnight.  Same way if you lose your job, even if you have no savings, you don't find yourself in a box on the street corner the very next morning.
 
2013-03-04 08:05:03 AM
Bullshiat mountain just got a little bit taller.
 
2013-03-04 08:06:18 AM
Relax, subby.  Teapartygeddon just takes a while to build up steam.
 
2013-03-04 08:09:00 AM

Smirky the Wonder Chimp: Relax, subby.  Teapartygeddon just takes a while to build up steam.


I'm giving it 15 days until, "No one saw this disaster coming!"
 
2013-03-04 08:10:47 AM
Yup, let's see where we are come late fall when most of the cuts are actually in place.
 
2013-03-04 08:12:07 AM
So Uncle Sam goes into the hospital and asks Paul Krugman what's wrong with him. Krugman says "You have a fecalith lodged in your legislative system and severe media fatigue."

Uncle Sam wipes the sweat from his forehead and says "Well, at least I don't have a fecalith lodged in my legislative system."
 
2013-03-04 08:12:41 AM
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.
 
2013-03-04 08:12:58 AM

Wyalt Derp: Bullshiat mountain just got a little bit taller.


I am so, so glad John Stewart introduced that nickname.
 
2013-03-04 08:13:58 AM
What happened to those released illegal aliens? That was because of the budget, right? Or was that also political posturing?

Both sides are babies.

Austerity. Let's call it was it is.
 
2013-03-04 08:14:33 AM
Seriously?  Before the start of business on Day 2?

Here, let me light the curtains with a match.  What, the entire house hasn't burned down in the first few seconds?  Must be safe, then!  Take that, firehaters!!

This comes from the people who declared that Obama "own" the economic failures and the recession in his first month or two in office, and anyone who blames whatsisname Texas Guy for anything that happened in the 8 years prior is just scapegoating.
 
2013-03-04 08:15:19 AM

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".
 
2013-03-04 08:16:38 AM

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."
 
2013-03-04 08:16:43 AM
For a glimpse of the future, let's check in with Greece.  Things are totally awesome there, right?
 
2013-03-04 08:18:35 AM

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Smirky the Wonder Chimp: Relax, subby.  Teapartygeddon just takes a while to build up steam.

I'm giving it 15 days until, "No one saw this disaster coming!"


More like 30. Soon as the furlough notices appear.
 
2013-03-04 08:18:51 AM

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.
 
2013-03-04 08:23:01 AM
Do you have the mental capacities and reasoning skills of a 5 year old?

Then FOX News is the place for you!
 
2013-03-04 08:25:38 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.


Bond yields are the new coconut economy.
 
2013-03-04 08:26:29 AM
Also, don't forget, there is the end of the Continuing Budget Resolution at the end of March. So in a Month we could have a full government shutdown.
 
2013-03-04 08:27:13 AM

MindStalker: Also, don't forget, there is the end of the Continuing Budget Resolution at the end of March. So in a Month we could have a full government shutdown.


Which worked out so well for Republicans the last time it occurred.

Special popcorn. I'm buying some.
 
2013-03-04 08:27:52 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.


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.
 
2013-03-04 08:28:10 AM
Furloughs haven't started yet.  Wait until the 800,000 federal employees get that 20% pay cut which will then get passed on to all the local businesses that they won't be spending money at anymore.
 
2013-03-04 08:29:59 AM
img560.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-04 08:30:58 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.


Actually yeah, it is part of the problem. We had two, trillion dollar wars that one President left off the books for 8 years, and cut taxes at the same time.

But it's convenient for the right wing to forget that, which is why it needs to be constantly brought back up.
 
2013-03-04 08:31:04 AM
once again:

THERE WOULD BE NO SEQUESTER IF REPUBLICANS HADN'T HELD AMERICA'S CREDIT HOSTAGE IN THE SUMMER OF 2011.
 
2013-03-04 08:32:36 AM

FlashHarry: once again:

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


Can we just get this to appear at the bottom of the thread perpetually, like Moderator posts?
 
2013-03-04 08:33:58 AM
Of course Fox News would say that - scientific research doesn't matter at all to Republicans (and frankly, barely matters more to many Democrats). Scientists find other things to do when their grants get cut, and they aren't going back to their old research when the grants are available again.
 
2013-03-04 08:34:00 AM

FlashHarry: once again:

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


...Politicians hadn't spent every penny of our inheritance and credit on a decades long hooker and blow party for their corporate sponsors.
 
2013-03-04 08:34:45 AM
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.
 
2013-03-04 08:34:48 AM

Tomahawk513: FlashHarry: once again:

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

Can we just get this to appear at the bottom of the thread perpetually, like Moderator posts?


But then they wouldn't be "fair and balanced."
 
2013-03-04 08:35:07 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."



Cavepeople.  We're dealing with cavepeople.

At least animals have instincts that tell them when the superficial and dominant characteristics in their surroundings don't tell the entire story.  They don't sit on an egg for 5 minutes and think, "well, that didn't work".  They store nuts for the coming winter while food is plentiful.  They can sometimes actually see long-term, even if it is just biological impulse.  Fox Newzers lack such instincts in addition to the higher orders of reason that might approximate or compensate for them.

The show shouldn't be "Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader", it should be "Are You Smarter Than A Squirrel?"
 
2013-03-04 08:36:15 AM
Shouldn't we have been conquered by the Russians, Iranians, Chinese, or North Koreans by now?  I could have sworn the Republicans cried about our security vulnerabilities. Surely, our enemies that spend way less than 10% on their militaries are going to take advantage. OMG, they are talking about canceling air shows. I've never understood why we waste so much money on those things anyway.
 
2013-03-04 08:37:00 AM

Retro42: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Smirky the Wonder Chimp: Relax, subby.  Teapartygeddon just takes a while to build up steam.

I'm giving it 15 days until, "No one saw this disaster coming!"

More like 30. Soon as the furlough notices appear.


Add two more weeks for it to filter down through payroll.
 
2013-03-04 08:37:26 AM
THERE WOULD BE NO SEQUESTER IF REPUBLICANS HADN'T HELD AMERICA'S CREDIT HOSTAGE IN THE SUMMER OF 2011.
 
2013-03-04 08:37:42 AM

Retro42: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Smirky the Wonder Chimp: Relax, subby.  Teapartygeddon just takes a while to build up steam.

I'm giving it 15 days until, "No one saw this disaster coming!"

More like 30. Soon as the furlough notices appear.


That horse has bolted. Close the barn door.

I have friends who are dealing with this shiat, and the notices were are out a month ago. Eating tuna and ramen is today.
 
2013-03-04 08:37:49 AM

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.
 
2013-03-04 08:38:06 AM

Smirky the Wonder Chimp: Relax, subby.  Teapartygeddon just takes a while to build up steam.


They're distracted by The Scooter Store getting raided.  It's had to mobilize when your powered wheelchairs aren't getting shipped.
 
2013-03-04 08:38:13 AM
THERE WOULD BE NO SEQUESTER IF REPUBLICANS HADN'T HELD AMERICA'S CREDIT HOSTAGE IN THE SUMMER OF 2011.
 
2013-03-04 08:38:46 AM
Next up on Fox - Why haven't our ridiculous strawman arguments come to pass?
 
2013-03-04 08:39:34 AM

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


Ursas xeroxing.
 
2013-03-04 08:41:32 AM
And at the first sign of actual (or imagined) trouble, Faux News will explode with outrage
 
2013-03-04 08:42:31 AM

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.
 
2013-03-04 08:45:45 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.


Only if about 1000 other random variables that separate us from Greece were suddenly magically true. But keep on repeating that right wing news talking point.
 
2013-03-04 08:45:46 AM

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.


Yes, and people usually don't flaunt their ignorance.
 
2013-03-04 08:47:41 AM

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.
 
2013-03-04 08:49:12 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.


Not sure if troll or just unaware of how stupid, but I've seen enough from you to know it doesn't matter.
 
2013-03-04 08:49:49 AM
FNC sounds disappointed that the US didn't transform into Darfur at midnight on the 1st.
 
2013-03-04 08:50:24 AM

Generation_D: Only if about 1000 other random variables that separate us from Greece were suddenly magically true. But keep on repeating that right wing news talking point.


I'm curious as to what would prevent us from having a situation similar to Greece if our bond yields did return to historical averages?  We would either have massive inflation and a depression if we printed our way out of debt, or massive deflation and a depression if we cut spending.  The effect on main street would be similar.
 
2013-03-04 08:52:01 AM

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.
 
2013-03-04 08:53:32 AM

lordjupiter: Not sure if troll or just unaware of how stupid, but I've seen enough from you to know it doesn't matter.


The left, in general, advocates Keynesianism, or policy heavily influenced by Keynesianism.  Keynes said in the long run, we're all dead.  Unless I'm missing something here.
 
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.
 
2013-03-04 10:06:42 AM

MindStalker: 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.


You are assuming that the government has control over bond yields.  They don't, yields are set by the market.  Of course, they could simply print money and buy bonds to keep yields low, but that is a surefire recipe for disaster.
 
2013-03-04 10:06:43 AM

NateGrey: SlothB77:

Arent you the idiot that said 30,000 illegals were let go into the street because Rush told you?



You are correct sir.
 
2013-03-04 10:07:29 AM

cameroncrazy1984: China isn't even buying all of our new debt NOW.


Sure - The Federal Reserve is.  I'm sure you think that is a sustainable and smart practice, of course.
 
2013-03-04 10:08:29 AM

MattStafford: MindStalker: 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.

You are assuming that the government has control over bond yields.  They don't, yields are set by the market.  Of course, they could simply print money and buy bonds to keep yields low, but that is a surefire recipe for disaster.


http://www.ehow.com/about_6828637_prime-interest-rate-effect-bonds.h tm l

Sorry, it appears that your economics degree missed this little tidbit.
 
2013-03-04 10:08:35 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?


That sounds like a claim, maybe the makings of a prediction. Care to elaborate on that?

Why would you demand higher rates from a stronger economy?

Really? You don't know how bond prices and yields can change during a boom economy?

Oh that sure was hard info to find. Bond prices drop in a good economy, because people tend to have more cash to put into stocks. They're not as interested in parking their money in a bond at that point, because in general, the bond-selling institution has more revenue and is selling fewer bonds. They're actually making and doing sh*t worth investing into via stock. For the government, this means during a boom it's paying down debt due to increased revenue, thanks to higher tax rates, and citizens having more money to spend. So bond prices drop and yields go up. Its an inverse relationship. Hence right now where bonds are expensive and yields are crap. (Thank jebus I got into a TIPS fund when I did).

So not only have people pointed out you're wrong about your, "But the bond yields!" argument loop, they're now using Investopedia to show you don't know the basics of the goddamned stock market.

Coconuts.
 
2013-03-04 10:10:23 AM

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: China isn't even buying all of our new debt NOW.

Sure - The Federal Reserve is.  I'm sure you think that is a sustainable and smart practice, of course.


Intragovernment debt holdings currently stand at about $4.6T. Out of a total of about $16T

I'm sorry, you were saying something about the government buying all of our new debt?
 
2013-03-04 10:11:04 AM

cameroncrazy1984: MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: China isn't even buying all of our new debt NOW.

Sure - The Federal Reserve is.  I'm sure you think that is a sustainable and smart practice, of course.

Intragovernment debt holdings currently stand at about $4.6T. Out of a total of about $16T

I'm sorry, you were saying something about the government buying all of our new debt?


Oh, and of THAT, the Fed owns about $1.66T
 
2013-03-04 10:11:46 AM

cameroncrazy1984: China entering into bilateral agreements with other countries is not evidence that demand for US treasuries will be lower than it is now.


Perhaps in your fantasy world.  If the dollar loses reserve status, demand for Treasuries will collapse.  China entering into agreements to bypass the dollar is evidence that the dollar's reserve status is at least a little bit threatened.  Combine that with various other actions going on, as I've detailed throughout other threads, and the situation is far more worrisome than you give it credit.
 
2013-03-04 10:13:18 AM

MattStafford: China entering into agreements to bypass the dollar is evidence


No, it isn't. You have yet to be able to provide evidence that they are entering these agreements "to bypass the dollar"
 
2013-03-04 10:13:59 AM
Now that we have all these savings from the cuts and since it didn't hurt too bad, we should probably pass an upper class tax cut. They can then create some jobs to take up the slack.
 
2013-03-04 10:14:06 AM

cameroncrazy1984: http://www.ehow.com/about_6828637_prime-interest-rate-effect-bonds.h tm l

Sorry, it appears that your economics degree missed this little tidbit.


Its almost like you didn't read my post.  The Federal Reserve can print money and buy Treasuries, but in that capacity they are acting as a market participant - and buying new debt with freshly printed currency is an extremely dangerous practice, which, if continued, will surely lead to disaster.
 
2013-03-04 10:14:18 AM

MattStafford: MindStalker: 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.

You are assuming that the government has control over bond yields.  They don't, yields are set by the market.  Of course, they could simply print money and buy bonds to keep yields low, but that is a surefire recipe for disaster.


Only if you consider inflation a disaster. The rich certainly do. Middle class homeowners see it as a mixed bag. Sure, you buy less stuff, but paying the mortgage isn't a big deal anymore.

Maybe the Democrats should frame the issue that way? The rich better get comfortable paying more taxes, because the inflation caused by NOT addressing this problem will hurt a whole lot more.
 
2013-03-04 10:14:21 AM

MattStafford: 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?


Of course there will be higher yields in the future.  We're at a record low because of a farking global economic collapse.  When those higher yields come, they will apply to new debt, not the existing obligations.  Our current ability to borrow is practically at will and what's more the rates on our new debt are such that when inflation is taken into account we will end up paying a negative return in real dollars.  In short, this is not an immediate concern.  We can devise a tax structure that would allow us to do some borrowing now to pay for jobs to keep our roads and bridges from collapsing and still be able to pay that debt off in 30 years.
 
2013-03-04 10:14:34 AM

MattStafford: NateGrey: Shut up Fark Coconut Economist, you cock.

I'm guessing you still believe that China is going to be buying all of the new debt we issue in the next few years, and simply want to cover your ears when I present evidence why this is not the case, and is a serious problem.


lol You are kidding right? You never provide evidence. You simply make stupid statements and are called out on it. You are the guy who tried to use an isolated island as an analogy for the Economy? The same guy who tried to equate the US Budget to a Household Budget when even Rush Limbaugh says thats wrong? Absolutely and utterly stupid.
 
2013-03-04 10:14:43 AM

cameroncrazy1984: MattStafford: China entering into agreements to bypass the dollar is evidence

No, it isn't. You have yet to be able to provide evidence that they are entering these agreements "to bypass the dollar"


Evidence? Where he's going he doesn't need evidence.
 
2013-03-04 10:16:14 AM

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: http://www.ehow.com/about_6828637_prime-interest-rate-effect-bonds.h tm l

Sorry, it appears that your economics degree missed this little tidbit.

Its almost like you didn't read my post.  The Federal Reserve can print money and buy Treasuries, but in that capacity they are acting as a market participant - and buying new debt with freshly printed currency is an extremely dangerous practice, which, if continued, will surely lead to disaster.


It appears that you don't understand the Fed also can set the prime rate.
 
2013-03-04 10:17:09 AM

MattStafford: 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?


Oh so you DO understand bond prices drop in a bull market. So why are you so paranoid? Lower prices means LOWER DEMAND. That means fewer bonds being sold. Volume decreases, even if yield increases per bond. This means the US government has to pay out less overall due to the new bonds being sold costing less. That's because, you know, fewer want the bonds, and the US government's revenue has INCREASED because people have work and more money to spend, and are paying more into the treasury.

And thanks to cameroncrazy1984, people are now using e-how to disprove your idiocy. Begone, coconut lord. Next time it'll be Wikipedia itself. You know what, screw it. I'll see if I have an Uncle John's Bathroom Reader somewhere, and use something in there to disprove your bullcrap.
 
2013-03-04 10:18:32 AM

verbaltoxin: Bond prices drop in a good economy, because people tend to have more cash to put into stocks.


Ceteris paribus, you are making the argument that bond yields are positively correlated with the strength of an economy?  The stronger the economy, the higher the yields?
 
2013-03-04 10:19:21 AM

Stile4aly: MattStafford: 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?

Of course there will be higher yields in the future.  We're at a record low because of a farking global economic collapse.  When those higher yields come, they will apply to new debt, not the existing obligations.Our current ability to borrow is practically at will and what's more the rates on our new debt are such that when inflation is taken into account we will end up paying a negative return in real dollars.  In short, this is not an immediate concern.  We can devise a tax structure that would allow us to do some borrowing now to pay for jobs to keep our roads and bridges from collapsing and still be able to pay that debt off in 30 years.


cameroncrazy1984: MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: http://www.ehow.com/about_6828637_prime-interest-rate-effect-bonds.h tm l

Sorry, it appears that your economics degree missed this little tidbit.

Its almost like you didn't read my post.  The Federal Reserve can print money and buy Treasuries, but in that capacity they are acting as a market participant - and buying new debt with freshly printed currency is an extremely dangerous practice, which, if continued, will surely lead to disaster.

It appears that you don't understand the Fed also can set the prime rate.


Just QFT'ing for coconut economists out there.
 
2013-03-04 10:19:21 AM

verbaltoxin: And thanks to cameroncrazy1984, people are now using e-how to disprove your idiocy. Begone, coconut lord. Next time it'll be Wikipedia itself. You know what, screw it. I'll see if I have an Uncle John's Bathroom Reader somewhere, and use something in there to disprove your bullcrap


This could be a fun game. What's the most basic fact that we can stump  MattStafford on using the most random of sources?
 
2013-03-04 10:21:30 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Intragovernment debt holdings currently stand at about $4.6T. Out of a total of about $16T

I'm sorry, you were saying something about the government buying all of our new debt?


Did you somehow miss the word new?  The fark is wrong with your reading comprehension?  And I know they aren't buying all of our new debt, but the Federal Reserve is monetizing a significant portion of it.
 
2013-03-04 10:21:55 AM

MattStafford: verbaltoxin: Bond prices drop in a good economy, because people tend to have more cash to put into stocks.

Ceteris paribus, you are making the argument that bond yields are positively correlated with the strength of an economy?  The stronger the economy, the higher the yields?


Holy f*cking sh*t, is it so hard to read the Investopedia link in my goddamned comment? It explains exactly what the relationship is between bond prices and yields in the economy. It's inverse. It's the exact situation we have RIGHT NOW: high bond prices and low yields, and a weakened economy that's slowly leaving a recession.

How hard is that to understand? Seriously.
 
2013-03-04 10:23:05 AM

cameroncrazy1984: No, it isn't. You have yet to be able to provide evidence that they are entering these agreements "to bypass the dollar"


Why else would China enter into these agreements, except to bypass the dollar.  Before they made the agreement, if China wanted to trade with Australia, they would first have to convert to the USD.  Now, they no longer have to do that.  Are you seriously making the argument that that was done for a reason besides bypassing the USD?
 
2013-03-04 10:23:28 AM

MattStafford: And I know they aren't buying all of our new debt, but the Federal Reserve is monetizing a significant portion of it.


And you're also wrong about that. Try and keep up. Those numbers are from Jan 2013.
 
2013-03-04 10:23:30 AM

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Intragovernment debt holdings currently stand at about $4.6T. Out of a total of about $16T

I'm sorry, you were saying something about the government buying all of our new debt?

Did you somehow miss the word new?  The fark is wrong with your reading comprehension?  And I know they aren't buying all of our new debt, but the Federal Reserve is monetizing a significant portion of it.


No one can have this little self-awareness, right?
 
2013-03-04 10:23:55 AM

madgonad: Only if you consider inflation a disaster. The rich certainly do. Middle class homeowners see it as a mixed bag. Sure, you buy less stuff, but paying the mortgage isn't a big deal anymore.

Maybe the Democrats should frame the issue that way? The rich better get comfortable paying more taxes, because the inflation caused by NOT addressing this problem will hurt a whole lot more.


Inflation primarily hurts the poor and middle class, as they have less access to inflation proof investments.
 
2013-03-04 10:24:26 AM

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: No, it isn't. You have yet to be able to provide evidence that they are entering these agreements "to bypass the dollar"

Why else would China enter into these agreements, except to bypass the dollar.  Before they made the agreement, if China wanted to trade with Australia, they would first have to convert to the USD.  Now, they no longer have to do that.  Are you seriously making the argument that that was done for a reason besides bypassing the USD?


A) China enters these agreements to strengthen trade agreements with countries that are not the US.

B) Why would they continue to pin the Yuan to the dollar if they wanted to move away from it?
 
2013-03-04 10:24:37 AM

cameroncrazy1984: verbaltoxin: And thanks to cameroncrazy1984, people are now using e-how to disprove your idiocy. Begone, coconut lord. Next time it'll be Wikipedia itself. You know what, screw it. I'll see if I have an Uncle John's Bathroom Reader somewhere, and use something in there to disprove your bullcrap

This could be a fun game. What's the most basic fact that we can stump  MattStafford on using the most random of sources?


I say we just go to the same place he probably does, Zero Hedge, and use his own BS against him.
 
2013-03-04 10:24:56 AM

Stile4aly: When those higher yields come, they will apply to new debt, not the existing obligations.


You realize we issue serious amounts of debt all the time, right?  If yields ticked up today, we would face serious funding constraints.
 
2013-03-04 10:25:13 AM

cameroncrazy1984: A) China enters these agreements to strengthen trade agreements relations with countries that are not the US.


FTFM
 
2013-03-04 10:25:48 AM

verbaltoxin: cameroncrazy1984: verbaltoxin: And thanks to cameroncrazy1984, people are now using e-how to disprove your idiocy. Begone, coconut lord. Next time it'll be Wikipedia itself. You know what, screw it. I'll see if I have an Uncle John's Bathroom Reader somewhere, and use something in there to disprove your bullcrap

This could be a fun game. What's the most basic fact that we can stump  MattStafford on using the most random of sources?

I say we just go to the same place he probably does, Zero Hedge, and use his own BS against him.


Sorry, I left my barn boots at my grandparents' house.
 
2013-03-04 10:26:02 AM

MattStafford: madgonad: Only if you consider inflation a disaster. The rich certainly do. Middle class homeowners see it as a mixed bag. Sure, you buy less stuff, but paying the mortgage isn't a big deal anymore.

Maybe the Democrats should frame the issue that way? The rich better get comfortable paying more taxes, because the inflation caused by NOT addressing this problem will hurt a whole lot more.

Inflation primarily hurts the poor and middle class, as they have less access to inflation proof investments.


This just in: the poor can afford to invest right now. Or at any time. And apparently lower bond prices means fewer people can afford them. Black is really night. The Moon is just the Sun at night. More at 10.
 
2013-03-04 10:27:18 AM

NateGrey: lol You are kidding right? You never provide evidence. You simply make stupid statements and are called out on it. You are the guy who tried to use an isolated island as an analogy for the Economy? The same guy who tried to equate the US Budget to a Household Budget when even Rush Limbaugh says thats wrong? Absolutely and utterly stupid.


So was I wrong about China not increasing their holdings of Treasuries relative to their past purchases recently?  I can post the graph again that shows their Treasury holdings leveling off again, if that would help.  Am I wrong about China making massive investments in gold over the past few years?  Because I can source that.  Am I wrong about China making numerous bilateral trade agreements to bypass the dollar?  Sources on sources on sources for that?  What makes you think China will continue to buy large amounts of treasury debt when their actions indicate just the opposite?
 
2013-03-04 10:27:35 AM

MattStafford: Stile4aly: When those higher yields come, they will apply to new debt, not the existing obligations.

You realize we issue serious amounts of debt all the time, right?  If yields ticked up today, we would face serious funding constraints.


But...they haven't. So you're point is, as usual, "But bond yields!"

All your statements rely on "if" and yet you can't be bothered to predict anything.
 
2013-03-04 10:27:57 AM

s2s2s2: THERE WOULD BE NO SEQUESTER IF GENE SPERLING HADN'T COME UP WITH IT!

FTFY

Guess where Gene works.


the sequester was created as part of a deal reached with congressional republicans when they threatened to refuse to raise the debt ceiling - which would have caused america to default on its debt obligations. if republicans had simply raised the debt ceiling - AS THEY HAD DOZENS OF TIMES BEFORE* - there would have been no sequester. this GOP brinksmanship, by the way, caused markets to tumble, the US to receive a credit downgrade and the economy to stall.

and let's not forget, the sequester itself was created as a penalty for the failure of the so-called "super-committee" to reach a budget deal. the super-committee that was mandated by the aforementioned agreement.

republicans refused to negotiate on taxes, so the deal wasn't reached. and therefore the sequester happened.

*before the black guy became president, that is
 
2013-03-04 10:28:10 AM

MattStafford: Stile4aly: When those higher yields come, they will apply to new debt, not the existing obligations.

You realize we issue serious amounts of debt all the time, right?  If yields ticked up today, we would face serious funding constraints.


Why? Usually when yields tick up we sell less of them as other investments become "safer"

How can one economist be  so wrong about everything in his field? I only took a few classes at university and I know more than you do.
 
2013-03-04 10:28:20 AM

cameroncrazy1984: It appears that you don't understand the Fed also can set the prime rate.


How do they do that again?
 
2013-03-04 10:29:55 AM

verbaltoxin: That's because, you know, fewer want the bonds, and the US government's revenue has INCREASED because people have work and more money to spend, and are paying more into the treasury.


I'm not sure why you are acting as though this is a foregone conclusion.  Are you stating the only possible way for yields to rise is if the economy improves?  Yields can rise without the economy improving.  I'm sure you are aware of that, however.
 
2013-03-04 10:30:37 AM
From Rubinit: The president is interested in breaking the back of the opposition not accommodating or passing centrist legislation.

If ONLY this were true now!  IF ONLY this had been true since election day in 2008!!
 
2013-03-04 10:30:40 AM

MattStafford: I'm not sure why you are acting as though this is a foregone conclusion.


We could ask you the same question.
 
2013-03-04 10:31:24 AM

MattStafford: NateGrey: lol You are kidding right? You never provide evidence. You simply make stupid statements and are called out on it. You are the guy who tried to use an isolated island as an analogy for the Economy? The same guy who tried to equate the US Budget to a Household Budget when even Rush Limbaugh says thats wrong? Absolutely and utterly stupid.

So was I wrong about China not increasing their holdings of Treasuries relative to their past purchases recently?  I can post the graph again that shows their Treasury holdings leveling off again, if that would help.  Am I wrong about China making massive investments in gold over the past few years?  Because I can source that.  Am I wrong about China making numerous bilateral trade agreements to bypass the dollar?  Sources on sources on sources for that?  What makes you think China will continue to buy large amounts of treasury debt when their actions indicate just the opposite?


So you're saying bond demand overseas is falling......

Hmm, when bond demand decreases what effect does that have on bond prices, exactly?

(Kids, time to remember that Investopedia link I gave not but a half hour ago.)

It's almost like the economy were....slowly recovering....and that would mean, that maybe, just maybe, the demands for bonds have slipped a little?

Hmm, I wonder what else has changed the last few years? Lower unemployment rates, slightly higher tax revenue, decreasing war costs...

Yes it's almost as if everything you're claiming will happen is happening in the opposite direction. And China's bond demands are reflecting that.
 
2013-03-04 10:33:13 AM

MattStafford: verbaltoxin: That's because, you know, fewer want the bonds, and the US government's revenue has INCREASED because people have work and more money to spend, and are paying more into the treasury.

I'm not sure why you are acting as though this is a foregone conclusion.  Are you stating the only possible way for yields to rise is if the economy improves?  Yields can rise without the economy improving.  I'm sure you are aware of that, however.


Yeah when say, a central entity raises the prime rate yields can rise, as you apparently don't know, based on what we've seen so far.
 
2013-03-04 10:34:17 AM

MattStafford: 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.


Actually, I doubt Wright Patt would be one of the bases that closes at any time in the near future. I have no problem with cuts to military spending. It's indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts that are the problem. You are presenting a false choice. The real option would be to look at things that are not needed (live certain weapons systems the military has said it doesn't need), not cuts to everything. And it's not just slow spending now, or lose everything later. It's more like a punnet square where "Big Cuts During a Weak Economy" and "Big Cuts During a Strong Economy" are along one side and "Smart Cuts" and "Indiscriminate Cuts" are along the top. We are now in the Dumb Cuts/Big Cuts During a Weak Economy square.
 
2013-03-04 10:36:25 AM

verbaltoxin: Holy f*cking sh*t, is it so hard to read the Investopedia link in my goddamned comment? It explains exactly what the relationship is between bond prices and yields in the economy. It's inverse. It's the exact situation we have RIGHT NOW: high bond prices and low yields, and a weakened economy that's slowly leaving a recession.

How hard is that to understand? Seriously.


I'm not talking about the relationship between yields and prices, I'm talking about the relationship between the strength of an economy and bond yields.  You are acting as though the only possible way for yields to rise is if the economy gets stronger - this is not the case.  Yields can rise because an economy is weak as well.
 
2013-03-04 10:37:46 AM

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

 
2013-03-04 10:37:46 AM

MattStafford: I'm talking about the relationship between the strength of an economy and bond yields.  You are acting as though the only possible way for yields to rise is if the economy gets stronger - this is not the case.  Yields can rise because an economy is weak as well.


Please show us when that has happened in the history of ever.
 
2013-03-04 10:42:19 AM

MattStafford: verbaltoxin: Holy f*cking sh*t, is it so hard to read the Investopedia link in my goddamned comment? It explains exactly what the relationship is between bond prices and yields in the economy. It's inverse. It's the exact situation we have RIGHT NOW: high bond prices and low yields, and a weakened economy that's slowly leaving a recession.

How hard is that to understand? Seriously.

I'm not talking about the relationship between yields and prices, I'm talking about the relationship between the strength of an economy and bond yields.  You are acting as though the only possible way for yields to rise is if the economy gets stronger - this is not the case.  Yields can rise because an economy is weak as well.


I'm not "acting" anything. I literally explained what happens in the market. It's a phenomenon so well-understood, it's in every Investing 101 book everywhere. Which you seem to haven't read. I even explained WHY it happens. I did it in the most basic way possible, outside of using coconuts to analogize it. I also answered why yields could go up on bonds during a bad economy - which you also conveniently ignored.

It doesn't need reexplaining that US bonds are not Greek bonds. We're in no danger of reaching junk status. Greek bonds are cheap, but their yield is high due to RISK. Greek bonds are high risk due to their lack of industry, high unemployment, huge (Vastly huge per capita) debt, and inability to borrow cheaply. The US has high debt but we have ways to pay it off. Our bonds are also expensive with low yields. There's reasons for all this, but you, the pretend economist, have no way to explain that.
 
2013-03-04 10:43:15 AM

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


New right wing talking point: suggestion = order from on high. Congress just had no choice, folks! Obama suggested it!
 
2013-03-04 10:43:35 AM

MattStafford: You realize we issue serious amounts of debt all the time, right? If yields ticked up today, we would face serious funding constraints.


And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. Bond yields are not going up substantially in the next thirty years or more; the market as a whole has placed a tremendous bet that Treasury yields over the next several decades will be in the low single digits, and ten-year Treasury yields are well below 2% despite the House of Representatives nearly causing a default twice in the last two years and a credit rating downgrade.

Furthermore, by constantly harping about "average" bond yields you only demonstrate your ignorance. The distribution of bond yields since 1900 shows tremendous positive skew because of the Volcker intervention to fix the economic issues caused by stagflation, which are highly unlikely to repeat themselves again anytime soon (meaning this century). A simple histogram of bond yields shows this very clearly. Refusing to take the steps necessary to return us to economic growth because of fears of a low-probability event that we can solve anyway if it comes to that is beyond foolish.
 
2013-03-04 10:43:54 AM

verbaltoxin: But...they haven't. So you're point is, as usual, "But bond yields!"

All your statements rely on "if" and yet you can't be bothered to predict anything.


I've made a ton of predictions - I'm only refusing to predict a time frame.  You're making the argument that bond yields will stay historically low in the near future.  I'm making the argument that they will not.

The reasons I believe bond yields will increase in the near future:  Central banks have been moving en masse to gold.  Our largest purchaser of treasuries, the SSTF, will no longer be increasing their holdings.  Our largest foreign purchaser of treasuries, China, will no longer be increasing their holdings.  Several of our other large foreign purchasers, particularly Europe and Japan, are not in position to increase their Treasury holdings.  The Federal Reserve is already monetizing a great deal of Treasuries in order to keep their yields down.

This all indicates to me that there will be a serious drop in demand for Treasuries in the near future, and the Federal Reserve will try to monetize the Treasuries to keep yields low.  This is obviously an unsustainable and short sighted practice.

So that is my argument - what is your argument about why yields will stay low in the future?  Who will be buying the bonds?
 
2013-03-04 10:43:57 AM

MattStafford: NateGrey: lol You are kidding right? You never provide evidence. You simply make stupid statements and are called out on it. You are the guy who tried to use an isolated island as an analogy for the Economy? The same guy who tried to equate the US Budget to a Household Budget when even Rush Limbaugh says thats wrong? Absolutely and utterly stupid.

So was I wrong about China not increasing their holdings of Treasuries relative to their past purchases recently?  I can post the graph again that shows their Treasury holdings leveling off again, if that would help.


Please do.

  Am I wrong about China making massive investments in gold over the past few years?  Because I can source that.

Why don't you, then?

  Am I wrong about China making numerous bilateral trade agreements to bypass the dollar?
  Sources on sources on sources for that?


You are not wrong about China making bilateral agreements.  You are wrong about their motives to do so, though.

 What makes you think China will continue to buy large amounts of treasury debt when their actions indicate just the opposite?

Because the Chinese are not stupid and they will continue to buy stable bonds as part of their investment strategy.  For the foreseable future, US Treasury bonds are still a safe investment, and investors worldwide (which includes China) will continue to add them to their investment baskets.
 
2013-03-04 10:44:03 AM

MattStafford: NateGrey: lol You are kidding right? You never provide evidence. You simply make stupid statements and are called out on it. You are the guy who tried to use an isolated island as an analogy for the Economy? The same guy who tried to equate the US Budget to a Household Budget when even Rush Limbaugh says thats wrong? Absolutely and utterly stupid.

So was I wrong about China not increasing their holdings of Treasuries relative to their past purchases recently?  I can post the graph again that shows their Treasury holdings leveling off again, if that would help.  Am I wrong about China making massive investments in gold over the past few years?  Because I can source that.  Am I wrong about China making numerous bilateral trade agreements to bypass the dollar?  Sources on sources on sources for that?  What makes you think China will continue to buy large amounts of treasury debt when their actions indicate just the opposite?


You were wrong and embarrassed when you said that China was buying NO treasuries. Why are you so hung up on China anyway, someone else will step in.

Japan's purchases of U.S. Treasuries helped it overtake China last year as the largest foreign holder of American securities, including equities, asset-backed paper and U.S. government debt, U.S. Treasury Department figures show.


No one is disputing China is slowing down, but your speculation as to why is nonsensical and wrong like everything else you say.

Chinese buying of Treasuries has slowed due to the gradual appreciation in the yuan, with China not needing quite so many Treasuries to keep the currency fixed in place. Link

The good thing is the dumber the things you say, the easier it is for everyone to put your GED in Economics in place.
 
2013-03-04 10:45:01 AM

cameroncrazy1984: A) China enters these agreements to strengthen trade agreements with countries that are not the US.

B) Why would they continue to pin the Yuan to the dollar if they wanted to move away from it?


So are you suggesting that China will continue to convert to USD prior to trading with Australia, despite the fact they recently made an agreement specifically letting them bypass that step?
 
2013-03-04 10:46:50 AM

verbaltoxin: Yeah when say, a central entity raises the prime rate yields can rise, as you apparently don't know, based on what we've seen so far.


The Federal Reserve doesn't have complete control over yields, as you seem to suggest.
 
2013-03-04 10:47:31 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Please show us when that has happened in the history of ever.


Greece?
 
2013-03-04 10:48:32 AM

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


why did he suggest it? what was it in response to?

go ahead. i'll wait.
 
2013-03-04 10:48:37 AM

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Please show us when that has happened in the history of ever.

Greece?


Greece sells US bonds? No wonder their economy is so farked, they're not even servicing their own debt!
 
2013-03-04 10:49:09 AM

NateGrey: someone else will step in.


Who?
 
2013-03-04 10:49:39 AM

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: A) China enters these agreements to strengthen trade agreements with countries that are not the US.

B) Why would they continue to pin the Yuan to the dollar if they wanted to move away from it?

So are you suggesting that China will continue to convert to USD prior to trading with Australia, despite the fact they recently made an agreement specifically letting them bypass that step?


Does China suddenly not buy oil anymore? Or did the $AUS suddenly become the petrodollar when I wasn't looking.
 
2013-03-04 10:50:10 AM

MattStafford: verbaltoxin: But...they haven't. So you're point is, as usual, "But bond yields!"

All your statements rely on "if" and yet you can't be bothered to predict anything.

I've made a ton of predictions - I'm only refusing to predict a time frame.  You're making the argument that bond yields will stay historically low in the near future.  I'm making the argument that they will not.

The reasons I believe bond yields will increase in the near future:  Central banks have been moving en masse to gold.  Our largest purchaser of treasuries, the SSTF, will no longer be increasing their holdings.  Our largest foreign purchaser of treasuries, China, will no longer be increasing their holdings.  Several of our other large foreign purchasers, particularly Europe and Japan, are not in position to increase their Treasury holdings.  The Federal Reserve is already monetizing a great deal of Treasuries in order to keep their yields down.

This all indicates to me that there will be a serious drop in demand for Treasuries in the near future, and the Federal Reserve will try to monetize the Treasuries to keep yields low.  This is obviously an unsustainable and short sighted practice.

So that is my argument - what is your argument about why yields will stay low in the future?  Who will be buying the bonds?


Hey look who's pretending I argued things I didn't! I didn't say yields would stay low in the future. I made no prediction whatsoever. I pointed out what is ACTUALLY HAPPENING. It's also known as "reality."

Quanlify "serious drop." Point out what that actually means. Look at what's actually happening around us. Look at real, macroeconomic indicators. Not the stuff you keep pretending.

Your argument on its face says, "DUH." Of course yields will rise, because demand will drop. I've already pointed out WHY to you a dozen times already. The "why" is what counts. You don't seem to understand it's not 2007 anymore. Unemployment is lower and tax revenue will grow this year. The US government, once it un-f*cks this sequester mess, is on track to pay down more debt in the near future. We're very slowly recovering. So what does that do to bond prices, Matthew? What happens when demand drops on bonds?What happens to the yields? What happens when a government has more revenue to pay down debt? Come on, you've only predicted it and I've only explained it numerous times now, what does that actually mean?
 
2013-03-04 10:50:22 AM

cameroncrazy1984: MattStafford: I'm talking about the relationship between the strength of an economy and bond yields.  You are acting as though the only possible way for yields to rise is if the economy gets stronger - this is not the case.  Yields can rise because an economy is weak as well.

Please show us when that has happened in the history of ever.


cameroncrazy1984: MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Please show us when that has happened in the history of ever.

Greece?

Greece sells US bonds? No wonder their economy is so farked, they're not even servicing their own debt!


Its almost like you moved the goal posts on that one.  Greece is an economy whose rates dramatically increased due to perceived weakness in their economy.
 
2013-03-04 10:51:35 AM

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: http://www.ehow.com/about_6828637_prime-interest-rate-effect-bonds.h tm l

Sorry, it appears that your economics degree missed this little tidbit.

Its almost like you didn't read my post.  The Federal Reserve can print money and buy Treasuries, but in that capacity they are acting as a market participant - and buying new debt with freshly printed currency is an extremely dangerous practice, which, if continued, will surely lead to disaster.


You really believe this, don't you. Like, 100% think that this is completely true.

Again, please let me know where you got your economics degree from so that I can make sure I never accidentally take a class from that university. Because whatever you paid, it was too much.

Then go back to being a terrible quarterback.
 
2013-03-04 10:52:12 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Does China suddenly not buy oil anymore? Or did the $AUS suddenly become the petrodollar when I wasn't looking.


China has bilateral trade agreements with Russia (second largest oil producer) that bypass the dollar.  China has bilateral agreements with Iran (fourth largest oil producer) to bypass the dollar.  The world is shifting away from the dollar, and you are just willfully ignoring the evidence showing it.
 
2013-03-04 10:53:22 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 Obama had used his supermajority properly and forced a budget resolution in his first 2 years in office. But he couldn't be bothered to properly lead then so I don't expect him to now.
 
2013-03-04 10:53:36 AM
static2.businessinsider.com
 
2013-03-04 10:54:43 AM

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: MattStafford: I'm talking about the relationship between the strength of an economy and bond yields.  You are acting as though the only possible way for yields to rise is if the economy gets stronger - this is not the case.  Yields can rise because an economy is weak as well.

Please show us when that has happened in the history of ever.

cameroncrazy1984: MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Please show us when that has happened in the history of ever.

Greece?

Greece sells US bonds? No wonder their economy is so farked, they're not even servicing their own debt!

Its almost like you moved the goal posts on that one.  Greece is an economy whose rates dramatically increased due to perceived weakness in their economy.


Oh, forgive me for assuming you'd want to be intellectually consistent for once. Greece's debt is a completely different animal from US debt due to several factors but most notably that the world reserve currency is the US dollar.
 
2013-03-04 10:55:32 AM
Austrian economists:

Predicting economic doom is just around the corner for nearly 50 years.
 
2013-03-04 10:55:45 AM

Big Man On Campus: 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 Obama had used his supermajority properly and forced a budget resolution in his first 2 years in office. But he couldn't be bothered to properly lead then so I don't expect him to now.


HOW DARE THE PRESIDENT NOT DO CONGRESS' JOB!!!
 
2013-03-04 10:56:12 AM

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: MattStafford: I'm talking about the relationship between the strength of an economy and bond yields.  You are acting as though the only possible way for yields to rise is if the economy gets stronger - this is not the case.  Yields can rise because an economy is weak as well.

Please show us when that has happened in the history of ever.

cameroncrazy1984: MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Please show us when that has happened in the history of ever.

Greece?

Greece sells US bonds? No wonder their economy is so farked, they're not even servicing their own debt!

Its almost like you moved the goal posts on that one.  Greece is an economy whose rates dramatically increased due to perceived weakness in their economy.


Yes Greece is exactly like the US. Do you wonder why people laugh at you?
 
2013-03-04 10:56:52 AM

Big Man On Campus: But he couldn't be bothered to properly lead then so I don't expect him to now.


By properly lead, do you mean alienate the other party entirely and only pay attention to your own agenda? You should have written, "STOP TRYING TO WORK WITH US! ARE YOU INSANE? YOU SHOULD HAVE PUSHED EVERYTHING THROUGH WHEN YOU HAD THE CHANCE!" Next you'll accuse him of trying to be a dictator.
 
2013-03-04 10:57:29 AM

verbaltoxin: WHICH IS WHY GREEK BONDS AREN'T AS RISKY AS US ONES.


What?

verbaltoxin: Hey look, you did it again! Putting words in my mouth. I never said, "Complete control."

But there you are, ignoring, misreading, lying and misdirecting. But it's those other dum-dums that can't read and don't give evidence, right?

I'm done with you. You're not stupid. You're just a f*cking liar. Go f*ck yourself.


Again - you are acting as though the only way yields will ever rise is if the Fed allows those yields to rise.  I've been making the argument they can rise due to actions from actors outside of our government, and it seems to me like you are just arguing that that is impossible.
 
2013-03-04 10:59:58 AM

Fart_Machine: LyingPieceofSh*t: cameroncrazy1984: LyingF*ckingTurdBlossom: I'm talking about the relationship between the strength of an economy and bond yields.  You are acting as though the only possible way for yields to rise is if the economy gets stronger - this is not the case.  Yields can rise because an economy is weak as well.

Please show us when that has happened in the history of ever.

cameroncrazy1984: TrollingF*ckingAsshole: cameroncrazy1984: Please show us when that has happened in the history of ever.

Greece?

Greece sells US bonds? No wonder their economy is so farked, they're not even servicing their own debt!

Its almost like you moved the goal posts on that one.  Greece is an economy whose rates dramatically increased due to perceived weakness in their economy.

Yes Greece is exactly like the US. Do you wonder why people laugh at you?


His answers are on the level of "not even wrong." They're so bad, so false and so stupid they don't even qualify as wrong. He has to actually understand what he's talking about to even be wrong.
 
2013-03-04 11:03:27 AM

Big Man On Campus: There would be no sequester if Obama had used his supermajority properly and forced a budget resolution in his first 2 years in office. But he couldn't be bothered to properly lead then so I don't expect him to now.


yes, it's true; he made the mistake of trying to reason with republicans. he knows better now.
 
2013-03-04 11:03:51 AM

Big Man On Campus: 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 Obama had used his supermajority properly and forced a budget resolution in his first 2 years in office. But he couldn't be bothered to properly lead then so I don't expect him to now.


Please remind us how long Obama had a "supermajority". Also please remind us how we could know at that time that the Republicans would commit economic treason in 2011, and why failure to account for that is the Democrats' fault. And, y'know, since recovering from recession requires short-term deficits, and thus the debt ceiling was going to have to be raised anyway, what you seem to be saying is that had Democrats run roughshod over Republicans (and I thank you for your admission that they did not), Republicans would have either been less likely to commit economic treason upon taking the slightest bit of power, or they would've continued to be a non-entity in Congress.

In other words, what you're saying is that we can only have nice things if Republicans are reduced to the most inconsequential minority in Congress possible.
I thank you and agree with your conclusions.
 
2013-03-04 11:03:54 AM

MattStafford: NateGrey: Is that what it is? You have trouble reading more than one line? You are a lost cause, I dont see why you need to lie about your education. From your writing it is very apparent. Back to ridiculing.

Japan, with their 230% debt to GDP ratio, is going to be buying our treasuries in significant enough quantities to keep yields down?


My question is what rule says the demand would have to be filled by any one single entity.

It's not really a question. It's more a pointing-out of yet another breathtaking idiocy.
 
2013-03-04 11:08:12 AM

Big Man On Campus: 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 Obama had used his supermajority properly and forced a budget resolution in his first 2 years in office. But he couldn't be bothered to properly lead then so I don't expect him to now.


Obama did not have a supermajority in his first two years. Democrats had a bare supermajority for six months in 2009. They managed to do it that year because the Senate's budget resolution cannot be filibustered if it is identical to the House. Everything else has faced a filibuster fight or differences between the House and Senate versions, which caused a fight. In 2010 the House and Senate effectively passed a resolution by using several piecemeal resolutions to accomplish the same goal.

So, that addresses the most glaring derp in your statement. The second derp is that we would *still* have a sequester now because it was only put in place because the Republicans held the debt limit hostage, which would have happened with or without a budget resolution.
 
2013-03-04 11:09:51 AM

cameroncrazy1984: My question is what rule says the demand would have to be filled by any one single entity.

It's not really a question. It's more a pointing-out of yet another breathtaking idiocy.


So what entities are out there that will replace China's 100 billion/yr and the Trust Fund's ~100 billion/yr Treasury purchases?  Japan will also be facing a debt crisis shortly, and will have trouble servicing their own debt, let alone buying our debt.  Europe is clearly broken, and only getting worse.
 
2013-03-04 11:11:39 AM

FlashHarry: the sequester


...was proposed by Whitehouse staffer Gene Sperling. I'm not excusing the GOP, but the WH is denying it was their proposal. It was.

I know the GOP are dirtbags, but the WH's lying about the sequester only helps the GOP.

FlashHarry: yes, it's true; he made the mistake of


...not leading his party to a budget resolution when he had a majority in both houses, and democrats were boasting the end of the GOP.
 
2013-03-04 11:13:40 AM

MattStafford: Again - you are acting as though the only way yields will ever rise is if the Fed allows those yields to rise.


Well, they're the ones printing them, so they are the ones chosing what number to put on them.

(You are the one who claimed in THIS thread that the Fed can print money whenever it wants to, so don't come arguing that there may be other factors at play....)
 
2013-03-04 11:13:59 AM

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: My question is what rule says the demand would have to be filled by any one single entity.

It's not really a question. It's more a pointing-out of yet another breathtaking idiocy.

So what entities are out there that will replace China's 100 billion/yr and the Trust Fund's ~100 billion/yr Treasury purchases?  Japan will also be facing a debt crisis shortly, and will have trouble servicing their own debt, let alone buying our debt.  Europe is clearly broken, and only getting worse.


Well considering that the majority of our debt is being held by the public, I'd say various other groups. Non-government entities hold over $12T of our current debt. Against that, $200b per year is nothing.
 
2013-03-04 11:18:47 AM

MattStafford: NateGrey: Is that what it is? You have trouble reading more than one line? You are a lost cause, I dont see why you need to lie about your education. From your writing it is very apparent. Back to ridiculing.

Japan, with their 230% debt to GDP ratio, is going to be buying our treasuries in significant enough quantities to keep yields down?


rlv.zcache.com
 
2013-03-04 11:21:06 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Non-government entities hold over $12T of our current debt. Against that, $200b per year is nothing.


You are making the same mistake people who confuse debt and deficit make.  200 billion might not be a lot compared to 12 trillion, but it is certainly a significant portion of the trillion dollar deficits we are currently running.
 
2013-03-04 11:21:53 AM

NateGrey: rlv.zcache.com


So was that a yes?  Or a refusal to answer the question?
 
2013-03-04 11:22:09 AM

MattStafford: lordjupiter: Not sure if troll or just unaware of how stupid, but I've seen enough from you to know it doesn't matter.

The left, in general, advocates Keynesianism, or policy heavily influenced by Keynesianism.  Keynes said in the long run, we're all dead.  Unless I'm missing something here.


You, in general, miss quite a bit.
 
2013-03-04 11:23:43 AM

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Non-government entities hold over $12T of our current debt. Against that, $200b per year is nothing.

You are making the same mistake people who confuse debt and deficit make.  200 billion might not be a lot compared to 12 trillion, but it is certainly a significant portion of the trillion dollar deficits we are currently running.


So those who currently hold a VAST majority of the debt aren't currently buying new debt? What's your evidence for that?
 
2013-03-04 11:26:26 AM
MattStafford:

i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-04 11:26:52 AM

MattStafford: 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.


Ok, I'm really sick of this shtick. Let's look at this from an economically sound perspective.

1. Bond yields are entirely a product of demand. So long as the majority of buyers accept a lower yield, it won't go up.

2. Demand for bonds is driven by a desire for safe and stable shelter investments.

Given those two underlying premises, in order for demand for us bonds to drop, and thus raise yields, both of the following conditions need to be met:

First, another investment mechanism needs to rise to the stability level of US bonds. Since no other nation is anywhere near being in a position to offer it's own bonds (either due to instability or due to not issuing enough bonds to satisfy demand), we're looking at a bond alternative. The only two seriously floated are gold and mixed currency baskets. Gold has both a supply and a volatility problem, as well as being impractical. Currency baskets both make amassing large reserves more complicated and costly, as well as being largely irrelevant so long as the US maintains economic hegemony and the dollar it's still seen as the standard currency.

Second, the US needs to become seriously destabilized. Not 'omg deficit!' destabilized, but 'omg no one will finance our debt, and interest rates have already risen above inflation' destabilized. Yes, this is circular logic, but it's largely accurate, if a little simplistic. In order for bond yields to rise, bound yields need to have already risen.

We've seen so far that us bonds appear very resistant to yields going up. They actually dropped, IIRC, after our credit reasoning went down, because as bad as it is here, it's still safer than investing in China, the Eurozone, India, and pretty much anywhere else.

So, Matt, tell me what cataclysm is going to make China or the eurozone a safer place for long term investment than the US. Difficulty: every possible alternative has the same underlying structural problems we do, except larger in magnitude.
 
2013-03-04 11:27:22 AM

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Smirky the Wonder Chimp: Relax, subby.  Teapartygeddon just takes a while to build up steam.

I'm giving it 15 days until, "No one saw this disaster coming!"


15 days...

About one pay check cycle.

I'd say give it a month, but by the 27th the newest brinkmanship from Republicans will have the nation yawning "Again?".
 
2013-03-04 11:27:28 AM

MattStafford: NateGrey: rlv.zcache.com

So was that a yes?  Or a refusal to answer the question?


www.flixya.com
 
2013-03-04 11:28:05 AM

cameroncrazy1984: So those who currently hold a VAST majority of the debt aren't currently buying new debt? What's your evidence for that?


Social Security is now running at a deficit, meaning they won't be buying any new Treasuries.  China has stopped increasing their Treasury holdings.  Both of these are facts.
 
2013-03-04 11:28:21 AM

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

why did he suggest it? what was it in response to?

go ahead. i'll wait.


... the country's desire to cut spending?
 
2013-03-04 11:30:15 AM
www.troll.me
 
2013-03-04 11:31:49 AM

Lusiphur: First, another investment mechanism needs to rise to the stability level of US bonds. Since no other nation is anywhere near being in a position to offer it's own bonds (either due to instability or due to not issuing enough bonds to satisfy demand), we're looking at a bond alternative. The only two seriously floated are gold and mixed currency baskets. Gold has both a supply and a volatility problem, as well as being impractical. Currency baskets both make amassing large reserves more complicated and costly, as well as being largely irrelevant so long as the US maintains economic hegemony and the dollar it's still seen as the standard currency.


Then certainly you would find it interesting all of the recent investment in gold by central banks?  China is buying record amounts.  Countries are verifying their reserves held in other countries.  I doubt there would be this much interest in gold if there weren't questions about the stability of the dollar.

Lusiphur: Second, the US needs to become seriously destabilized. Not 'omg deficit!' destabilized, but 'omg no one will finance our debt, and interest rates have already risen above inflation' destabilized. Yes, this is circular logic, but it's largely accurate, if a little simplistic. In order for bond yields to rise, bound yields need to have already risen.


The Federal Reserve is already monetizing our Treasuries in order to keep yields low.  Do you believe that is a sustainable practice?

Lusiphur: So, Matt, tell me what cataclysm is going to make China or the eurozone a safer place for long term investment than the US. Difficulty: every possible alternative has the same underlying structural problems we do, except larger in magnitude.


Everywhere has massive problems - globalization is a biatch.  But again, I would point to the massive gold purchases by central banks to see where we are headed.
 
2013-03-04 11:32:12 AM

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: So those who currently hold a VAST majority of the debt aren't currently buying new debt? What's your evidence for that?

Social Security is now running at a deficit, meaning they won't be buying any new Treasuries.  China has stopped increasing their Treasury holdings.  Both of these are facts.


http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2013-01/18/content_16135181.htm

This article from a month and a half ago says that you are either an idiot or lying. Either way, i hope you don't actually invest, because i really don't feel like supporting you with food stamps when you loose everything.
 
2013-03-04 11:33:23 AM

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: MattStafford: I'm talking about the relationship between the strength of an economy and bond yields.  You are acting as though the only possible way for yields to rise is if the economy gets stronger - this is not the case.  Yields can rise because an economy is weak as well.

Please show us when that has happened in the history of ever.

cameroncrazy1984: MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Please show us when that has happened in the history of ever.

Greece?

Greece sells US bonds? No wonder their economy is so farked, they're not even servicing their own debt!

Its almost like you moved the goal posts on that one.  Greece is an economy whose rates dramatically increased due to perceived weakness in their economy.


 Greece's rates increased dramatically because they took advantage of their participation in the Eurozone to sell tremendous amounts of debt backed by the strength of the Euro despite the fact that the Greek economy couldn't support it.  When that debt began to default and Greece's banks collapsed, the Greeks could not rescue them without coordination from other EU partners unless they chose to exit the Euro (which would have been a catastrophe of its own accord).

In short, the fact that the EU uses a central currency without a central government creates a serious problem of moral hazard for those member states with weaker economies.  The US does not have that problem because our central bank and Federal government work in concert.   Rates will go up, certainly, but not in the dramatic fashion you suggest.
 
2013-03-04 11:35:10 AM

MattStafford: Lusiphur: First, another investment mechanism needs to rise to the stability level of US bonds. Since no other nation is anywhere near being in a position to offer it's own bonds (either due to instability or due to not issuing enough bonds to satisfy demand), we're looking at a bond alternative. The only two seriously floated are gold and mixed currency baskets. Gold has both a supply and a volatility problem, as well as being impractical. Currency baskets both make amassing large reserves more complicated and costly, as well as being largely irrelevant so long as the US maintains economic hegemony and the dollar it's still seen as the standard currency.

Then certainly you would find it interesting all of the recent investment in gold by central banks?  China is buying record amounts.  Countries are verifying their reserves held in other countries.  I doubt there would be this much interest in gold if there weren't questions about the stability of the dollar.

Lusiphur: Second, the US needs to become seriously destabilized. Not 'omg deficit!' destabilized, but 'omg no one will finance our debt, and interest rates have already risen above inflation' destabilized. Yes, this is circular logic, but it's largely accurate, if a little simplistic. In order for bond yields to rise, bound yields need to have already risen.

The Federal Reserve is already monetizing our Treasuries in order to keep yields low.  Do you believe that is a sustainable practice?

Lusiphur: So, Matt, tell me what cataclysm is going to make China or the eurozone a safer place for long term investment than the US. Difficulty: every possible alternative has the same underlying structural problems we do, except larger in magnitude.

Everywhere has massive problems - globalization is a biatch.  But again, I would point to the massive gold purchases by central banks to see where we are headed.


Gold process have flattened. Large scale institutional buying would raise process significantly. Why are gold process not soaring higher?

At this point, i have to conclude that you are intentional making shiat up. No one can be that stupid.
 
2013-03-04 11:35:16 AM
What China not increasing their holdings might look like:

China remains the largest foreign creditor of the United States after it increased its holdings of US treasury bonds by $19.7 billion in December, data released by the US Treasury Department showed on Friday.
Link

China loves the US dollar again as America roars back
Jin Zhongxia, head of the central bank's research institute, said America's energy revolution and export revival had shaken up the global landscape and would lead to a stronger dollar over time. "The dollar's global dominance will continue," he said.
Link
 
2013-03-04 11:35:48 AM

Lusiphur: This article from a month and a half ago says that you are either an idiot or lying. Either way, i hope you don't actually invest, because i really don't feel like supporting you with food stamps when you loose everything.


A relatively insignificant increase.  Take a look at their Treasury holdings on a larger time scale.  Sure, they have occasional fluctuations up and down, but their holdings have remained relatively stable - not increasing - over the past few years.
 
2013-03-04 11:36:22 AM
You know what's really, REALLY annoying me about this sequester thing?

I see Righties bashing Obama because of all of the drastic cuts, and then they turn around and bash Obama for "over hyping" the "drastic" cuts. Seriously guys, it's time to pick A position on stuff like this.

And yes, it IS still the GOP's fault. They want to stopp getting the blame assigned to them, they need to denounce this whole "Party of No" thing immediately. Once again, you can't have it both ways. You want to be obstructionists? Fine, but you can't whine when people call you obstructionists...
 
2013-03-04 11:38:52 AM

Mikey1969: I see Righties bashing Obama because of all of the drastic cuts, and then they turn around and bash Obama for "over hyping" the "drastic" cuts.


The GOP's Smartly Incoherent Messaging on Spending Cuts
 
2013-03-04 11:39:09 AM

Lusiphur: Gold process have flattened. Large scale institutional buying would raise process significantly. Why are gold process not soaring higher?

At this point, i have to conclude that you are intentional making shiat up. No one can be that stupid.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-21/brazil-doubles-gold-reserve s- with-third-purchase-as-banks-buy.html

Are you suggesting central banks are not buying serious amounts of gold?
 
2013-03-04 11:40:16 AM
This is maybe not doom gloom and mayhem, but I walk by our state's official research library on my way to work, and they had posted notices that they're no longer doing business on Mondays. I don't know that's from the sequester for sure, but they weren't there last Friday.

What really incenses me is the trivialization of the cuts by the GOP, as though all that money had zero impact. It's not that it had no impact, it's just that THEY don't care because it doesn't impact them. It's the epitome of "I got mine, fark you" boiled down into social programs. I routinely see schoolchildren taking field trips to the aforementioned library, as well as a lot of college age kids and others who go there, who are all obviously getting something out of the institution.

Like I've said in other threads about the sequester- this money isn't coming out of organizations that are flush with cash, a lot of discretionary programs have already had deep cuts from the recession, and this is just taking more out. I know more than a few people who are getting furloughed directly as a consequence of the sequester- they're educators, social services people, and defense contractor people. I guess the GOP is content with just being 80% as good a country as we used to be.
 
2013-03-04 11:41:39 AM

NateGrey: China remains the largest foreign creditor of the United States after it increased its holdings of US treasury bonds by $19.7 billion in December, data released by the US Treasury Department showed on Friday.Link

China loves the US dollar again as America roars back
Jin Zhongxia, head of the central bank's research institute, said America's energy revolution and export revival had shaken up the global landscape and would lead to a stronger dollar over time. "The dollar's global dominance will continue," he said.


3.bp.blogspot.com

What not increasing their holdings might look like.  You see how it increases steadily for a while, then levels off?  Yeah.
 
2013-03-04 11:42:44 AM

MattStafford: Social Security is now running at a deficit, meaning they won't be buying any new Treasuries.


Just because they're issuing more checks than what they are collecting doesn't mean they don't still have money in the bank.

And what do you think SS is doing with the amount of money they have on hand?  Keeping it under their mattress, or investing it in something relatively safe?

MattStafford: I doubt there would be this much interest in gold if there weren't questions about the stability of the dollar.


Could it be that they see the current rise in price of gold as a short term gain possibility?  Why do you assume that the only possible scenario is that Central Banks have all decided that T bills stink, all of a sudden?

MattStafford: The Federal Reserve is already monetizing our Treasuries in order to keep yields low.


Again, you come to the wrong conclusion.  They are doing it to stimulate the economy.  Keeping bond rates low is only a side effect of a growing economy.
 
2013-03-04 11:42:47 AM
MattStafford in thread.

Commence application of head to brick wall.

Repeat.
 
2013-03-04 11:42:54 AM
I was all excited to come into a sequester thread today to post my personal narrative of how I see the sequestration affecting my local community, and then I realized that 90% of the thread is arguing about gold.

Oh well.
 
2013-03-04 11:45:40 AM

MattStafford: NateGrey: China remains the largest foreign creditor of the United States after it increased its holdings of US treasury bonds by $19.7 billion in December, data released by the US Treasury Department showed on Friday.Link

China loves the US dollar again as America roars back
Jin Zhongxia, head of the central bank's research institute, said America's energy revolution and export revival had shaken up the global landscape and would lead to a stronger dollar over time. "The dollar's global dominance will continue," he said.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 850x527]

What not increasing their holdings might look like.  You see how it increases steadily for a while, then levels off?  Yeah.


lol Sept 2012. Seems legit.
 
2013-03-04 11:45:48 AM

MattStafford: NateGrey: China remains the largest foreign creditor of the United States after it increased its holdings of US treasury bonds by $19.7 billion in December, data released by the US Treasury Department showed on Friday.Link

China loves the US dollar again as America roars back
Jin Zhongxia, head of the central bank's research institute, said America's energy revolution and export revival had shaken up the global landscape and would lead to a stronger dollar over time. "The dollar's global dominance will continue," he said.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 850x527]

What not increasing their holdings might look like.  You see how it increases steadily for a while, then levels off?  Yeah.


I like how your own graph contradicts what you're saying. Draw a best-fit line to project that trend for any reasonable timespan (i.e. not just 2011 and 2012) and what do you think you're going to see?
 
2013-03-04 11:45:53 AM

MattStafford: What not increasing their holdings might look like. You see how it increases steadily for a while, then levels off? Yeah.


It's almost as if your graph answered the other question you had earlier.  Look at who else is buying those T-bills: Europe and Canada.
 
2013-03-04 11:48:07 AM

Flab: Just because they're issuing more checks than what they are collecting doesn't mean they don't still have money in the bank.

And what do you think SS is doing with the amount of money they have on hand? Keeping it under their mattress, or investing it in something relatively safe?


They are no longer collecting more money than they pay out.  They have nothing to invest.  They've already bought Treasuries with their old surpluses, they aren't buying anymore, which is the point.

Flab: Could it be that they see the current rise in price of gold as a short term gain possibility? Why do you assume that the only possible scenario is that Central Banks have all decided that T bills stink, all of a sudden?


Sure - I guess it's possible that a ton of central banks throughout the world decided to start acting like an investment bank looking to make a short term gain.  I, however, use context to try to understand the world around me, and that context leads me to believe that people are worried about the stability of the global economy, and the USD dollar as well.

Flab: Again, you come to the wrong conclusion. They are doing it to stimulate the economy. Keeping bond rates low is only a side effect of a growing economy.


Sure.
 
2013-03-04 11:49:01 AM

NateGrey: lol Sept 2012. Seems legit.


You serious about that?
 
2013-03-04 11:49:59 AM

Fubini: I like how your own graph contradicts what you're saying. Draw a best-fit line to project that trend for any reasonable timespan (i.e. not just 2011 and 2012) and what do you think you're going to see?


Past actions are not an indicator of future actions.
 
2013-03-04 11:50:03 AM

Flab: MattStafford: What not increasing their holdings might look like. You see how it increases steadily for a while, then levels off? Yeah.

It's almost as if your graph answered the other question you had earlier.  Look at who else is buying those T-bills: Europe and Canada.


Yep. Plenty of other people happy to buy our debt.

China not buying as much debt can mean something about us or it can mean something about China. In reality it means something about both, but if I had to assign a reason I'd be more likely to look at China's recent economic performance before I looked at ours.
 
2013-03-04 11:50:44 AM

Flab: It's almost as if your graph answered the other question you had earlier. Look at who else is buying those T-bills: Europe and Canada.


Europe?  Broke as all fark, about to collapse into social unrest Europe?  We're going to rely on them to lend us money?  You guys are delusional.
 
2013-03-04 11:53:34 AM

MattStafford: Fubini: I like how your own graph contradicts what you're saying. Draw a best-fit line to project that trend for any reasonable timespan (i.e. not just 2011 and 2012) and what do you think you're going to see?

Past actions are not an indicator of future actions.


Wow. Remind me not to take advice from you in the future.

We do occasionally have cataclysmic events that cause the course of events to completely defy our experience, but to act like every moment in time is totally unconnected to the past is foolish.
 
2013-03-04 11:55:37 AM

MattStafford: Fubini: I like how your own graph contradicts what you're saying. Draw a best-fit line to project that trend for any reasonable timespan (i.e. not just 2011 and 2012) and what do you think you're going to see?

Past actions are not an indicator of future actions.


And yet, they're what you base everything you say on.
 
2013-03-04 11:59:13 AM

Fubini: Wow. Remind me not to take advice from you in the future.

We do occasionally have cataclysmic events that cause the course of events to completely defy our experience, but to act like every moment in time is totally unconnected to the past is foolish.


It is foolish to think that China will continue to buy 100 billion dollars worth of bonds every year just because they used to.
 
2013-03-04 11:59:13 AM
 
2013-03-04 11:59:39 AM
Considering it's still at least six weeks till things like furloughs kick in I am sure we are a long way off from seeing the full effects.

Plus, that just isn't how financing in the gov works.
 
2013-03-04 12:04:45 PM

MattStafford: Flab: It's almost as if your graph answered the other question you had earlier. Look at who else is buying those T-bills: Europe and Canada.

Europe?  Broke as all fark, about to collapse into social unrest Europe?  We're going to rely on them to lend us money?  You guys are delusional.


You're looking at this entirely wrong. The question is not whether the US economy is going to do good or bad tomorrow, the question is whether the US economy is going to be relatively stable over the foreseeable future, in relationship to other world economies.

The fact that people still want to buy our debt shows that most people still consider the US to be a strong and stable market, relative to the rest of the world. It's a little macabre to think about it this way, but as long as we're just doing the best, even if we weren't doing as well as we were a year or five years ago, we're still in a pretty strong position.
 
2013-03-04 12:05:59 PM

Flab: MattStafford: They are no longer collecting more money than they pay out. They have nothing to invest. They've already bought Treasuries with their old surpluses, they aren't buying anymore, which is the point.

Liar.

Assets: Of our FY 2012 total assets identified in the Table of Key Measures above, $2,750.4 billion relates to earmarked funds for the OASI and DI programs, and approximately 98.3 percent are investments. Investments increased $64.5 billion over the previous year.
Liabilities: Liabilities grew in FY 2012 by $4.9 billion, primarily because of the growth in benefits due and payable, which is attributable to the 3.6 percent Cost of Living Adjustment provided to beneficiaries as of January 1, 2012. The majority of our liabilities (85.3 percent) consist of benefits that have accrued as of the end of the fiscal year but have not been paid.
Net Position: Our net position grew $59.3 billion in FY 2012 to $2,665.0 billion, which is attributable to financing sources in excess of our net cost. At this time, tax revenues, interest earned, and transfers related to Payroll Tax Holiday legislation continue to exceed benefit payments made to OASI and DI beneficiaries, keeping our programs solvent. (PDF)


http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

From the report:  "Social Security's expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983, and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period."
 
2013-03-04 12:06:11 PM

MattStafford: NateGrey: lol Sept 2012. Seems legit.

You serious about that?


www.cartoonstock.com
 
2013-03-04 12:06:32 PM

MattStafford: Past actions are not an indicator of future actions.


Wait, did you just try to dispute inductive reasoning?

Wow. Just, wow. That's beyond the pale, even for you.
 
2013-03-04 12:07:01 PM

Fubini: The fact that people still want to buy our debt shows that most people still consider the US to be a strong and stable market, relative to the rest of the world. It's a little macabre to think about it this way, but as long as we're just doing the best, even if we weren't doing as well as we were a year or five years ago, we're still in a pretty strong position.


It doesn't matter if people think we're the best if they have no money to invest.
 
2013-03-04 12:08:25 PM

Ishkur: Wait, did you just try to dispute inductive reasoning?

Wow. Just, wow. That's beyond the pale, even for you.


I'm getting called out now for saying that, just because China used to buy large amounts of Treasuries, they won't necessarily buy large amounts of Treasuries in the future?  Christ.
 
2013-03-04 12:09:17 PM

Fubini: I was all excited to come into a sequester thread today to post my personal narrative of how I see the sequestration affecting my local community, and then I realized that 90% of the thread is arguing about gold.

Oh well.


Yep, the local Air Force base is giving furloughs to 90% of its workforce but this would have never happened if we were still under the Gold Standard...or something.
 
2013-03-04 12:14:39 PM

MattStafford: I'm getting called out now for saying that, just because China used to buy large amounts of Treasuries, they won't necessarily buy large amounts of Treasuries in the future? Christ.


Doesn't mean they'll stop either. The stupidity of your statement is in the implicit assertion that the past has absolutely no relevance to future events.

That's complete horseshiat. Where the fark do you come up with this crap!?
 
2013-03-04 12:16:03 PM

Mrtraveler01: Yep, the local Air Force base is giving furloughs to 90% of its workforce but this would have never happened if we were still under the Gold Standard...or something.


The argument would be that being on the gold standard would prevent us from hiring that workforce in the first place.  Fiat currency allows a country to temporarily live beyond their means - not permanently.  Having said that, however, a fiat currency can still function fine, its success or failure depends on those controlling it.
 
2013-03-04 12:18:09 PM

Ishkur: Doesn't mean they'll stop either. The stupidity of your statement is in the implicit assertion that the past has absolutely no relevance to future events.

That's complete horseshiat. Where the fark do you come up with this crap!?


No, it doesn't mean they'll stop.  The fact that they stopped means they'll stop.

Me - China has stopped increasing their Treasury holdings.  This graph shows that for the past few years, their holdings have remained stable.

Him - If you draw a line of best fit starting from 2000, I would expect China to continue to increase their holdings at the same rate.

But yeah, side with him if it helps you sleep at night.
 
2013-03-04 12:22:46 PM

MattStafford: Flab: MattStafford: They are no longer collecting more money than they pay out. They have nothing to invest. They've already bought Treasuries with their old surpluses, they aren't buying anymore, which is the point.

Liar.

Assets: Of our FY 2012 total assets identified in the Table of Key Measures above, $2,750.4 billion relates to earmarked funds for the OASI and DI programs, and approximately 98.3 percent are investments. Investments increased $64.5 billion over the previous year.
Liabilities: Liabilities grew in FY 2012 by $4.9 billion, primarily because of the growth in benefits due and payable, which is attributable to the 3.6 percent Cost of Living Adjustment provided to beneficiaries as of January 1, 2012. The majority of our liabilities (85.3 percent) consist of benefits that have accrued as of the end of the fiscal year but have not been paid.
Net Position: Our net position grew $59.3 billion in FY 2012 to $2,665.0 billion, which is attributable to financing sources in excess of our net cost. At this time, tax revenues, interest earned, and transfers related to Payroll Tax Holiday legislation continue to exceed benefit payments made to OASI and DI beneficiaries, keeping our programs solvent. (PDF)

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

From the report:  "Social Security's expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983, and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period."


Oh, FFS...  Social Security doesn't pay current beneficiaries with money from the FICA account.  They use FICA income to invest in T bills as they have since their inception.  When these T bills pay off, they use that money to pay beneficiaries.  The fact that they're running a deficit to non-interest income means they may have slightly less to invest, but it's not as if Social Security is going to cease purchasing T bills so that they can pay current beneficiaries.
 
2013-03-04 12:26:44 PM

MattStafford: Me - China has stopped increasing their Treasury holdings. This graph shows that for the past few years, their holdings have remained stable.
Him - If you draw a line of best fit starting from 2000, I would expect China to continue to increase their holdings at the same rate.


But since you claim that past actions have no effect on future actions, you are unable to make any predictions regarding China, period. Maybe they'll buy more. Maybe they'll stop. Who farking knows -- it's all just totally lolrandom!! Your argument is farking useless.

You retard.
 
2013-03-04 12:28:07 PM

MattStafford: Ishkur: Doesn't mean they'll stop either. The stupidity of your statement is in the implicit assertion that the past has absolutely no relevance to future events.

That's complete horseshiat. Where the fark do you come up with this crap!?

No, it doesn't mean they'll stop.  The fact that they stopped means they'll stop.

Me - China has stopped increasing their Treasury holdings.  This graph shows that for the past few years, their holdings have remained stable.

Him - If you draw a line of best fit starting from 2000, I would expect China to continue to increase their holdings at the same rate.

But yeah, side with him if it helps you sleep at night.


Guess what.  The fact that their holdings have remained stable means that they are still buying Treasuries because otherwise the level would decrease as their existing holdings reach maturity.  They are rolling over their holdings from year to year.
 
2013-03-04 12:41:57 PM

MattStafford: What would happen if bond yields returned to their historical average?


People who have savings would see a return on their savings again, and might be more willing to spend a little of it.
 
2013-03-04 12:44:08 PM

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


Spring-summer of 2015.  Maybe 2016.
 
2013-03-04 12:52:00 PM

Therion: If only they had worked harder, prosperity would be trickling down all over them.


No one wants to work harder when that just means they get taxed more.
 
2013-03-04 12:57:12 PM

Sliding Carp: Therion: If only they had worked harder, prosperity would be trickling down all over them.

No one wants to work harder when that just means they get taxed more.


Because I certainly wouldn't want to make over $250K a year if it means a 3% raise in my taxes.  The horror...
 
2013-03-04 12:57:37 PM

Stile4aly: Guess what. The fact that their holdings have remained stable means that they are still buying Treasuries because otherwise the level would decrease as their existing holdings reach maturity. They are rolling over their holdings from year to year.


Which isn't the same as increasing their holdings.
 
2013-03-04 12:59:15 PM

Stile4aly: MattStafford: Flab: MattStafford: They are no longer collecting more money than they pay out. They have nothing to invest. They've already bought Treasuries with their old surpluses, they aren't buying anymore, which is the point.

Liar.

Assets: Of our FY 2012 total assets identified in the Table of Key Measures above, $2,750.4 billion relates to earmarked funds for the OASI and DI programs, and approximately 98.3 percent are investments. Investments increased $64.5 billion over the previous year.
Liabilities: Liabilities grew in FY 2012 by $4.9 billion, primarily because of the growth in benefits due and payable, which is attributable to the 3.6 percent Cost of Living Adjustment provided to beneficiaries as of January 1, 2012. The majority of our liabilities (85.3 percent) consist of benefits that have accrued as of the end of the fiscal year but have not been paid.
Net Position: Our net position grew $59.3 billion in FY 2012 to $2,665.0 billion, which is attributable to financing sources in excess of our net cost. At this time, tax revenues, interest earned, and transfers related to Payroll Tax Holiday legislation continue to exceed benefit payments made to OASI and DI beneficiaries, keeping our programs solvent. (PDF)

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

From the report:  "Social Security's expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983, and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period."

Oh, FFS...  Social Security doesn't pay current beneficiaries with money from the FICA account.  They use FICA income to invest in T bills as they have since their inception.  When these T bills pay off, they use that money to pay beneficiaries.  The fact that they're running a deficit to non-interest income means they may have slightly less to invest, but it's not as if Social Security is going to cease purchasing T bills so that they ...


They can't increase their treasury holdings if they are paying out more than they take in.  And even if they were, it doesn't change the fundamental problem of the situation - The Trust Fund (and pension plans in general) are going to start redeeming their Treasuries instead of increasing their holdings to pay for boomer's retirement.
 
2013-03-04 12:59:28 PM

MattStafford: 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?


Good lord.  I have my own deep misunderstanding of bond rates, based primarily on misapplication of sympathetic magic, and even I know these are probably the two stupidest questions ever asked on Fark.
 
2013-03-04 01:08:10 PM
What a waste of a thread.  Shame on you all.
 
2013-03-04 01:12:40 PM

MattStafford: Stile4aly: Guess what. The fact that their holdings have remained stable means that they are still buying Treasuries because otherwise the level would decrease as their existing holdings reach maturity. They are rolling over their holdings from year to year.

Which isn't the same as increasing their holdings.


Let's keep this simple.  Let's say China holds 10 bonds.  They've bought a bond a year for the past 10 years each with a 10 year maturity.  This year, their first bond comes to maturity and they use the proceeds from that bond to buy a new 10 year bond.

They are still purchasing 1 bond per year, just as they have always done.

They can't increase their treasury holdings if they are paying out more than they take in.  And even if they were, it doesn't change the fundamental problem of the situation - The Trust Fund (and pension plans in general) are going to start redeeming their Treasuries instead of increasing their holdings to pay for boomer's retirement.

Same deal.  Social Security has 100 bonds.  They've bought 10 bonds per year for 10 years.  Starting this year, they redeem their first batch of 10 bonds.  Because this doesn't meet their full obligation, they transfer some of their FICA income to pay for some benefits.  As a result, they can only buy 9 bonds per year.  Yes, it's a drop, but not a catastrophic one.
 
2013-03-04 01:18:44 PM

MattStafford: Flab: MattStafford: They are no longer collecting more money than they pay out. They have nothing to invest. They've already bought Treasuries with their old surpluses, they aren't buying anymore, which is the point.

Liar.

Assets: Of our FY 2012 total assets identified in the Table of Key Measures above, $2,750.4 billion relates to earmarked funds for the OASI and DI programs, and approximately 98.3 percent are investments. Investments increased $64.5 billion over the previous year.
Liabilities: Liabilities grew in FY 2012 by $4.9 billion, primarily because of the growth in benefits due and payable, which is attributable to the 3.6 percent Cost of Living Adjustment provided to beneficiaries as of January 1, 2012. The majority of our liabilities (85.3 percent) consist of benefits that have accrued as of the end of the fiscal year but have not been paid.
Net Position: Our net position grew $59.3 billion in FY 2012 to $2,665.0 billion, which is attributable to financing sources in excess of our net cost. At this time, tax revenues, interest earned, and transfers related to Payroll Tax Holiday legislation continue to exceed benefit payments made to OASI and DI beneficiaries, keeping our programs solvent. (PDF)

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

From the report:  "Social Security's expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983, and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period."


 Yes, that's what I said earlier.  They are handing out more in checks than they are collecting.

HOWEVER the interest on their current investments more than makes up for it, and they are still able to buy new tresury bonds, which is what you said they weren't doing.  Hence me pointing out that your pants are on fire.
 
2013-03-04 01:23:10 PM

MattStafford: Which isn't the same as increasing their holdings.


Meanwhile in reality:

China remains the largest foreign creditor of the United States after it increased its holdings of US treasury bonds by $19.7 billion in December, data released by the US Treasury Department showed on Friday.Link
 
2013-03-04 01:47:04 PM

PanicMan: What a waste of a thread.  Shame on you all.


static.seekingalpha.com
 
2013-03-04 01:52:58 PM
This just in: FOX NEWS disappointed country didn't fall apart overnight.

/stay patriotic, my friends

dukeblue219: "Nobody ever suggested that this ... was going to have all its impact in the first few days," he told "NBC's "Meet the Press." "It is a slow grind."

Pretty much this. Even with all the doom-and-gloom, it should be somewhat obvious to anyone with intelligence that it wasn't going to happen overnight.  Same way if you lose your job, even if you have no savings, you don't find yourself in a box on the street corner the very next morning.


This is how the Conservative mindset works: if it ain't broke tomorrow, it's not worth fixing
 
2013-03-04 01:54:53 PM
have the conservatives even thanked President Obama for shrinking the size of government? something the past Republican presidents have had no success in doing.
 
2013-03-04 01:57:42 PM
I'm assuming the same thing that happens when you cut the military budget slightly?


DNRTFA
 
2013-03-04 02:21:44 PM

verbaltoxin: 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.


Yes with a but.

The gov can't simply renig on signed contracts with private companies like they can cancel their own plans.
 
2013-03-04 03:12:58 PM

Smackledorfer: verbaltoxin: 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.

Yes with a but.

The gov can't simply renig on signed contracts with private companies like they can cancel their own plans.


FYI, it's "renege" unless you want to be this guy:

cdn.madamenoire.com
 
2013-03-04 05:24:28 PM

verbaltoxin: 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.

Bond yields are the new coconut economy.


European bonds, or African bonds? No matter. This is an economics issue, and what we really need here is input from an economist.
 
2013-03-04 05:29:17 PM

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.


Finally! An economist! Except Greece doesn't control their own currency, so the comparison is incredibly stupid. You are an economist, right?
 
2013-03-04 05:35:12 PM

MattStafford: Flab: It's almost as if your graph answered the other question you had earlier. Look at who else is buying those T-bills: Europe and Canada.

Europe?  Broke as all fark, about to collapse into social unrest Europe?  We're going to rely on them to lend us money?  You guys are delusional.


What stupid blog do you get this stuff from?
 
2013-03-04 05:59:26 PM
Over the weekend ive been hearing from the GOP how this is a great thing..I wonder if they feel that way today after hearing about airport delays and base teachers being laid off
 
2013-03-04 05:59:57 PM

Evil High Priest: You are an economist, right?


He plays one on the internet.
 
2013-03-04 07:30:07 PM

Fart_Machine: Evil High Priest: You are an economist, right?

He plays one on the internet.


Not very well..
 
2013-03-05 05:20:36 AM

bgilmore5: Shouldn't we have been conquered by the Russians, Iranians, Chinese, or North Koreans by now?  I could have sworn the Republicans cried about our security vulnerabilities. Surely, our enemies that spend way less than 10% on their militaries are going to take advantage. OMG, they are talking about canceling air shows. I've never understood why we waste so much money on those things anyway.


I think historically they've been inexpensive and are tied into training and not just some HEY LETS SPEND A FORTUNE TO SEE PLANES. I could be wrong though, I think I read that a few years ago.

/agreed that it's still pointless.
 
2013-03-05 06:14:05 AM
And exactly as predicted, the GOP are trying to reduce or eliminate the defense cuts while leaving the domestic cuts in place.
 
2013-03-05 06:14:46 AM
 
2013-03-05 08:20:43 AM

dukeblue219: Same way if you lose your job, even if you have no savings, you don't find yourself in a box on the street corner the very next morning.


I'm sure by 2030, 18 year old literacy will fall to 3% thanks to cutting of head start programs.  Thanks, Obama
 
2013-03-05 09:02:19 AM
The sequester is good for the United States of America. There, I've written it. I don't really see what the big problem is. Anecdotal and local effects of the sequester must be endured, adapted to, and overcome.  Generate value through innovation. Generate revenue through indepedent work. Create. Work.
 
2013-03-05 10:24:39 AM

lantawa: The sequester is good for the United States of America. There, I've written it. I don't really see what the big problem is. Anecdotal and local effects of the sequester must be endured, adapted to, and overcome.  Generate value through innovation. Generate revenue through indepedent work. Create. Work.


How will work be created when demand is reduced, particularly in those areas most affected by the sequester? You know what would create work? A WPA-style infrastructure jobs program.
 
Displayed 261 of 261 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report