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.

(Washington Post)   Remember how the sequester was supposed to turn America into Mad Max meets Lord of the Flies? Seems we can live without a little spending   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 269
    More: Obvious, Concord Coalition  
•       •       •

1726 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Jul 2013 at 10:49 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-02 03:56:15 PM  

dartben: MattStafford: dartben: In 1981 our gdp was 3.1 trillion. Today it's about 16 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, we're still earning about 150% more today in real dollars than we were in 1981.

So no, I am not worried.

And our debt is a far higher percentage of our GDP.  Again, you are operating under the assumption that interest rates will remain historically low.  I've offered some reasons as why this isn't the case (or at least you shouldn't be so sure of it) and it appears you have just ignored them.

So you admit we have a higher debt load at a historically low rate? And this is somehow a sign the credit markets are drying up?


Well he is partially right. They are moving to countries who are at higher risk with higher yields. People are leaving US bonds because they are just so low. (but that doesn't fit his narrative)
 
2013-07-02 03:58:01 PM  
Remember how the sequester was supposed to turn America into Mad Max meets Lord of the Flies?

No.  When was that?
 
2013-07-02 03:59:45 PM  

Corvus: Debeo Summa Credo: Corvus: MattStafford: Corvus: So you thing the US is the same as Sub-Saharan country economically?

Until you explain to me why a debt financed safety net in the US would have an ROI greater than one and a debt financed safety net in Sub-Saharan Africa would have an ROI less than one, I will operate under the assumption that a debt financed safety net works similarly in all countries.

Here is another for you to ignore:

US TREASURY BOND YIELD : 1.75

SUB-SAHRA AFRICA BOND YIELD: 4.28 (they are lower than usual)

Citation on that second one? Which countries?

And maturity on the first?

Here you go anyways.:

http://www.ventures-africa.com/2013/06/sub-saharan-africas-debt-capi ta l-markets-rising-to-the-occasion/


Thanks. I am farking shocked that sub Saharan debt is 4.3%. The article gave no context as to the maturity and where that number came from but that is ridiculously low. I know south African ten year bonds are above 7.5%.
 
2013-07-02 04:00:43 PM  

MattStafford: dartben: In 1981 our gdp was 3.1 trillion. Today it's about 16 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, we're still earning about 150% more today in real dollars than we were in 1981.

So no, I am not worried.

And our debt is a far higher percentage of our GDP.  Again, you are operating under the assumption that interest rates will remain historically low.  I've offered some reasons as why this isn't the case (or at least you shouldn't be so sure of it) and it appears you have just ignored them.


I have a question for you. If you are lending me $1000 for a month which would you take:

A) I have 2 home mortgages and I have 1,000,000 in debt financed (and I have income to pay the amount I have to every month) but I will get $1000 next month from a friend.
B) I have no debt but have no cash on hand and way to get cash next month.

You are trying to say A is more important than B for someone loaning you money, that's not true at all.
 
2013-07-02 04:01:22 PM  

StrikitRich: And the White House tours are still shut down, but somehow they found $100 million to pay for the President's trip to Africa and money to give tanks and F-16s to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.


It's not "somehow", you dunce. Part of the responsibilities and duties for a chief executive happen to be diplomatic visits to other nations. Part of the job description, been that way since Theodore Roosevelt's first trip to the Panama Canal in 1906. And if there weren't people on his planet both foreign and domestic who would just love to put an "I killed the president of the united states" notch on their belt, it wouldn't cost so much for the president to go anywhere.

Imagine if you couldn't even go to the local fast food joint without five cars, 20 agents, and local law enforcement clearing the streets for three blocks around. That's what the life of a president is like. You don't go shopping by yourself, you don't go out to eat by yourself, you don't even take a dump by yourself. You either take an assload of security or you sit in your house and have people bring it to you.

How would you like not being able to drive your own car and having someone collect your sh*t for eight years?

As for the tanks and guns for the Muslim Brotherhood... I'm suspecting your beef with them is the "Muslim" part, not the fact that they might actually be doing some good in Egypt. Besides, we have more than enough surplus military bullsh*t just rotting in warehouses all over this country, and what little bit the US might have given the rebels pales in comparison with the billions of dollars worth of sh*t this country shipped to those other sandy sh*tholes, Iraq and Afghanistan every year for the last decade.
 
2013-07-02 04:01:38 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Corvus: Debeo Summa Credo: Corvus: MattStafford: Corvus: So you thing the US is the same as Sub-Saharan country economically?

Until you explain to me why a debt financed safety net in the US would have an ROI greater than one and a debt financed safety net in Sub-Saharan Africa would have an ROI less than one, I will operate under the assumption that a debt financed safety net works similarly in all countries.

Here is another for you to ignore:

US TREASURY BOND YIELD : 1.75

SUB-SAHRA AFRICA BOND YIELD: 4.28 (they are lower than usual)

Citation on that second one? Which countries?

And maturity on the first?

Here you go anyways.:

http://www.ventures-africa.com/2013/06/sub-saharan-africas-debt-capi ta l-markets-rising-to-the-occasion/

Thanks. I am farking shocked that sub Saharan debt is 4.3%. The article gave no context as to the maturity and where that number came from but that is ridiculously low. I know south African ten year bonds are above 7.5%.


I know. I was shocked too. I guess the debt forgiveness stuff has really helped them a lot.

Yea I was expecting something like 90% or something myself too.
 
2013-07-02 04:02:28 PM  

Corvus: A) I have 2 home mortgages and I have 1,000,000 in debt financed (and I have income to pay the amount I have to every month) but I will get $1000 next month from a friend.
B) I have no debt but have no cash on hand and NO way to get cash next month.

You are trying to say A is more important than B for someone loaning you money, that's not true at all.


FTFM
 
2013-07-02 04:12:00 PM  

dartben: So you admit we have a higher debt load at a historically low rate? And this is somehow a sign the credit markets are drying up?


No, I'm not suggesting that is a sign that credit markets are drying up.

The signs are:  China is internationalizing it's currency.  China has stopped increasing their UST holdings.  The SSTF is no longer able to increase their UST holdings.  Japan and Europe are both in dire financial situations and can't afford to increase their UST holdings.  The Federal Reserve has been buying incredible amounts of UST, which is the only thing keeping yields as low as they are.

Combine all of that stuff together, and you might get a glimpse at the larger picture.
 
2013-07-02 04:21:45 PM  

MattStafford: The signs are: China is internationalizing it's currency.


They are letting  their currency priced based on the markets freely and no longer artificially limiting it's price?

I was unaware of this, can you link me to a story about this?
 
2013-07-02 04:24:34 PM  

MattStafford: . China has stopped increasing their UST holdings.


As of when? Earlier this year they bought a shiat ton of US treasuries.


China, the largest foreign lender to the U.S. government, boosted its holdings of Treasuries in February to the most in 15 months, while No. 2 Japan sold the debt for a fourth-consecutive month. China's position increased $8.7 billion, or 0.7 percent, to $1.223 trillion, U.S. Treasury Department data released yesterday show.

8.7 Trillion seems more than none. Or are you confused with treasuries resold by the central bank again?
 
2013-07-02 05:22:51 PM  
Site complains that I've used 3 of my 20 free articles this month but provides no way to use the 4th.

FAIL.
 
2013-07-02 05:41:10 PM  

lunogled: Yes, well, science in the US is experiencing a disaster but who needs them learned people?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7455/full/nj7455-527a.html


Eggheads is what got us into this mess!
 
2013-07-02 05:42:41 PM  

MattStafford: palelizard: In cases of places where there's no longer a source of income (the factory moved, the mine dried up, the plant closed, etc), it gives those people enough of a bump to move to a more viable area rather than stay trapped in a cycle of poverty.

Sure - but it doesn't fix the economy.  Suppose two towns, A and B.  The major factory that used to reside in A just moved to B, because they can pay a cheaper wage there.  People are suggesting that a sound economic move from A is to borrow money and finance a safety net for its citizens.  Clearly, that isn't a sound, long term strategy and will only last as long as people are willing to loan town A money.


Which town has more coconuts?
 
2013-07-02 05:54:59 PM  
Remember how the sequester caused the U.S. Forest Service alone will hire 500 fewer firefighters and deploy 50 fewer engines this season.
 
2013-07-02 05:58:27 PM  

Evil High Priest: lunogled: Yes, well, science in the US is experiencing a disaster but who needs them learned people?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7455/full/nj7455-527a.html

Eggheads is what got us into this mess!


Kill all economists! Problem solved.

Actually, an economist is a "scientist" like a string theorist is a "scientist".
 
2013-07-02 06:00:48 PM  
It wouldn't be so bad if they made cuts like any rational business would vs. cutting the items they knew would draw attention to the cuts in order to get their cushy budgets back.
 
2013-07-02 10:25:54 PM  
Some of us haven't seen a pay raise in years and are getting furloughed but hey, no biggie as long as your taxes don't go up right?
 
2013-07-03 12:42:35 AM  
Tell that to my friend who just found out she's being laid off because of the sequester.
 
2013-07-03 08:56:23 AM  

mediablitz: vpb: Unless you're poor and rely on community health centers or one of the other health programs cut, but I guess subby didn't include them in "we".

I'm sure the 70,000 North Carolinians who lost unemployment benefits are saying the "little bit of less spending" is working out great for them too!

As long as you don't actually LOOK (talking about the author of this article), everything is just farking peachy!


That wasn't from the sequester cuts though, that was due to our stupid conservative Teabagger legislature cutting state unemployment check amounts. Federal regulations say if a state does that they lose their qualification for the Federal unemployment assistance program, which is what happened starting July 1. NC is the only farking state in the nation to have this happen, and our idiotic Teabag legislators wring their hands and whine "but we had to do this, we have to pay back this Federal debt we racked up". Except, there are states with larger Federal debts than NC has, they worked out plans to pay back the debt in a reasonable manner and the Fed granted them more time to do it.

Not NC though; they don't want to even talk to the Federal government for fear of catching liberalism or something, so they just said "no, we must pay back this debt as fast as possible", and used that as justification to slash spending on every single state funded program they could authorize. Why this isn't getting more attention from the media surprises me; what they are doing to this state is every bit as bad as what Ohio or Texas or Kansas has or is doing. Worse perhaps, since NC has been a southern Democrat state for so long, now the conservatives are ramming far-right programs through the legislature as fast as they can in an attempt to convert the state into yet another conservative paradise (i.e. Mississippi or Kansas).
 
Displayed 19 of 269 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report