Gyroscopic Investing

Storm wrote: Fuck you, John Boehner, and fuck you Mitch McConnell.

eeeeeeeew

Storm wrote: A deal has been reached...

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la ... 1540.story

I'll take my winnings in the form of cold hard cash... LOL

Seriously though, fuck you guys (congress).  My portfolio does not thank you for waiting until the last possible minute to pull yourselves off your ass and do your constitutionally mandated duty.  Fuck you, John Boehner, and fuck you Mitch McConnell.

Again, you seem to only hold a single party responsible for this mess.  It takes two to tango.  A single party is incapable of NOT reaching a deal (in most cases).

Yes, but making a deal means negotiation and compromise which a large segment of the Republican party seems unwilling to do.

I realy think that this problem is further complicated by both sides unwillingness to talk straight. I think that fundamentally one of the big issues with the economy is that there is an income distribution problem. There is simply not enough money flowing to consumers to allow them to consume the products that the economy is capable of producing (without taking on enormous quantities of debt).  I think that the democrats should just get past the debt nonsense and tell Americans that our income inequality is leading to economic instability and therefore we need to spread the money around more.

You may disagree with the priciple of this but I would caution people not to ignore the importance of reasonable equality in living standards. If the upper crust thinks that the present distribution inequality in the US can and should continue, I would point to countries like Venezuela as an example of what happens when principle is pushed too far. Social breakdown and forced nationalization is a rather extreme way to solve a problem that could be headed off much earlier through more reasonable measures.

RuralEngineer wrote: Again, you seem to only hold a single party responsible for this mess.  It takes two to tango.  A single party is incapable of NOT reaching a deal (in most cases).

I get what you're saying, but lets be honest here.  One party in DC is crazy and its not the Democrats.  I'm not to the point where I'm going to say they are equally crazy because its not true.  One party thinks a piece of paper they were coerced into signing by Grover Norquist is worth throwing 99% of us under the bus.  I'm justified in telling them to go fuck themselves.

Storm wrote: One party in DC is crazy and its not the Democrats.  I'm not to the point where I'm going to say they are equally crazy because its not true.  One party thinks a piece of paper they were coerced into signing by Grover Norquist is worth throwing 99% of us under the bus.

You're not wrong about the Republicans, but the Democrats did the exact same thing for tax hikes! They said, "we're not going to pass a bill that preserves tax cuts for most people unless it raises taxes for the top earners!" Both parties stuck to their intransigence on their pet issue, be it keeping taxes for the wealthy low, or letting them rise.

Earlier in the thread, you admitted that now is not the time to raise taxes on anyone. So I'm curious to know where your hostility to the Republicans on this matter originates, since they were fighting for what appears to be your exact position. If now isn't the time to raise taxes on anyone, aren't the Democrats totally wrong in their insistence on raising the top bracket's rates? And aren't both parties wrong about letting the payroll tax cut expire?

Pointedstick wrote: I wasn't trying to muzzle you, Benko, but you often seem fixated on Obama and the Democrats in particular.

The democrats are in power.  The fiscal "compromise" increases taxes and increases spending which is democrat religion 101. 

What the republicans say is irrelevant, since for the most part, they have no spine and the end result is usually caving (see above).

Storm wrote:

RuralEngineer wrote: Again, you seem to only hold a single party responsible for this mess.  It takes two to tango.  A single party is incapable of NOT reaching a deal (in most cases).

I get what you're saying, but lets be honest here.  One party in DC is crazy and its not the Democrats.  I'm not to the point where I'm going to say they are equally crazy because its not true.  One party thinks a piece of paper they were coerced into signing by Grover Norquist is worth throwing 99% of us under the bus.  I'm justified in telling them to go fuck themselves.

I think your political leanings are blinding you here.  The Dems were just as ready to throw 99% of us under the bus in order to attack the rich.  Just because you agree with their motive doesn't make their actions any less crazy.  Both parties were equally bad in this fiasco.

Also, you declared victory a bit early.  The deal was only in the Senate.  There is no deal with the House yet.  House Majority leader Cantor has said he opposes the deal.  I'm still in the running for winning this prize.

So an entire economy is held hostage by a very small minority of economically-illiterate shitheels in DC because we have no separation of economy and state.

The sheer irony is that raising taxes won't increase or decrease revenues as it will stay fixed at 19% of GDP as it has for the last 60 years.

Whatever happens shortly, it must portrend the third party rising in 2016.  It will come out of the Republican Party.

MachineGhost wrote: raising taxes won't increase or decrease revenues

But it will make things "more fair"and punish the rich which is the point.

MachineGhost wrote: Whatever happens shortly, it must portrend the third party rising in 2016.  It will come out of the Republican Party.

A third party coming out of the republican just ensures victory for the democrats.

Benko wrote:

MachineGhost wrote: Whatever happens shortly, it must portrend the third party rising in 2016.  It will come out of the Republican Party.

A third party coming out of the republican just ensures victory for the democrats.

Not if it is a moderate party, like Libertarians.  A social liberal and fiscal conservative party could take a massive bite from both sides of the current political poles.

Any third party that splits off from the GOP is more likely to be the Tea Party folks, IMO. In other words, the extreme right wing. We already have a moderate Libertarian party that is artificially small due to the two party system.

Pointedstick wrote:

Storm wrote: One party in DC is crazy and its not the Democrats.  I'm not to the point where I'm going to say they are equally crazy because its not true.  One party thinks a piece of paper they were coerced into signing by Grover Norquist is worth throwing 99% of us under the bus.

You're not wrong about the Republicans, but the Democrats did the exact same thing for tax hikes! They said, "we're not going to pass a bill that preserves tax cuts for most people unless it raises taxes for the top earners!" Both parties stuck to their intransigence on their pet issue, be it keeping taxes for the wealthy low, or letting them rise.

Earlier in the thread, you admitted that now is not the time to raise taxes on anyone. So I'm curious to know where your hostility to the Republicans on this matter originates, since they were fighting for what appears to be your exact position. If now isn't the time to raise taxes on anyone, aren't the Democrats totally wrong in their insistence on raising the top bracket's rates? And aren't both parties wrong about letting the payroll tax cut expire?

That's a good point, PS.  Letting the payroll tax cut expire is ugly - I just learned about that.  I think what they've been shooting for in the grand bargain is $1 of tax increases for every $2.50 of spending cuts.  I'm more opposed to the spending cuts side of the equation, which is firmly the R side.  Tax increases through killing loopholes and raising it on $450K or more doesn't affect me personally, although it's not ideal.  Spending cuts that are 2.5x more than the tax increases are deplorable and should not even be on the table.

It looks like now the crazy Rs in the house are scuttling the bill because it only contains tax and spending increases (putting off the cuts for 2 months to give mroe time for political theatre).

I've also got an email from moveon.org asking me to tell my representative in the house to vote No on the bill because it doesn't raise taxes on $250K or more!  Crazy extremists on the D side that I'm ignoring personally, because $250K WILL affect me.

I think the main difference is that the Democratic party is a Center Left party and knows when to ignore the extreme left people in the party.  The Republicans, on the other hand, have sold their party to the Extreme Right and the tea party.

What we desperately need in this country is a Center Right party to take the place of the GOP and marginalize the tea party extremists.  A lot of Americans identify with Center Right, especially on the economy and financial issues.  If they could leave behind the social issue rhetoric and extreme "destroy government by cutting everything" tea party agenda more people would get behind them.

Benko wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: I wasn't trying to muzzle you, Benko, but you often seem fixated on Obama and the Democrats in particular.

The democrats are in power.  The fiscal "compromise" increases taxes and increases spending which is democrat religion 101. 

What the republicans say is irrelevant, since for the most part, they have no spine and the end result is usually caving (see above).

The democrats are not in power.  They can't even get a bill to the President's desk to sign it if the R minority in the senate doesn't filibuster and Boehner doesn't bring it to the majority house for a vote.

RuralEngineer wrote:

Storm wrote:

RuralEngineer wrote: Again, you seem to only hold a single party responsible for this mess.  It takes two to tango.  A single party is incapable of NOT reaching a deal (in most cases).

I get what you're saying, but lets be honest here.  One party in DC is crazy and its not the Democrats.  I'm not to the point where I'm going to say they are equally crazy because its not true.  One party thinks a piece of paper they were coerced into signing by Grover Norquist is worth throwing 99% of us under the bus.  I'm justified in telling them to go fuck themselves.

I think your political leanings are blinding you here.  The Dems were just as ready to throw 99% of us under the bus in order to attack the rich.  Just because you agree with their motive doesn't make their actions any less crazy.  Both parties were equally bad in this fiasco.

Also, you declared victory a bit early.  The deal was only in the Senate.  There is no deal with the House yet.  House Majority leader Cantor has said he opposes the deal.  I'm still in the running for winning this prize.

I disagree that they were willing to throw 99% of us under the bus to attack the rich.  You're right about the deal getting screwed in the house - it doesn't look good.

Wait until 800,000 pink slips go out to DoD civilian employees... The threat of that ought to get their asses in seats and perhaps make Boehner bring the bill to a straight up/down vote.

MachineGhost wrote: So an entire economy is held hostage by a very small minority of economically-illiterate shitheels in DC because we have no separation of economy and state.

The sheer irony is that raising taxes won't increase or decrease revenues as it will stay fixed at 19% of GDP as it has for the last 60 years.

Whatever happens shortly, it must portrend the third party rising in 2016.  It will come out of the Republican Party.

Great points, MG.  We desperately need a Center Right party to balance the Center Left democrats.  I think if a legitimate 3rd party started up, a lot of Center Right Rs would jump ship so they don't get identified with the extremists.  We'll see how bad the bloodletting is in 2014 and let them decide where their allegiances are.

Storm wrote: I think the main difference is that the Democratic party is a Center Left party and knows when to ignore the extreme left people in the party.

If the anti-gun rhetoric coming from the Democrats lately is considered "Center Left" then I'd hate to see what the Extreme Left is suggesting with regards to guns!

Storm wrote:
The democrats are not in power.

Please.  Obama has already done a number of things via unconstitutional "executive" power e.g. no more work for welfare or EPA regs.

IF you ignore what everyone says and look at what has happened over the last 4 years and what will continue to happen...

Storm wrote: I disagree that they were willing to throw 99% of us under the bus to attack the rich.

Do you have even a shred of evidence to support this assertion, or is this just your feeling?  Because I can dig up quotes from Obama promising no deal unless the wealthy pay more.

RuralEngineer wrote:

Storm wrote: I disagree that they were willing to throw 99% of us under the bus to attack the rich.

Do you have even a shred of evidence to support this assertion, or is this just your feeling?  Because I can dig up quotes from Obama promising no deal unless the wealthy pay more.

Right, Obama said he wouldn't sign a bill that didn't include some tax increases for the wealthy.  He basically said he's not going to balance the budget on cutting spending alone.  That's a far cry from throwing us all under the bus.  Look, he knew he had leverage and he'd be a fool not to use it.

It looks to me from watching a CNN live stream that the house just voted on the senate bill and it passed.  Looks like the market won't go over the cliff tomorrow.

In my opinion, I think Obama is stupid for pushing the real deal out 2 months.  He should have held firm and said "give me a deal with the spending cuts that I want, that raises the debt ceiling, or I don't sign it."  He just lost any leverage he had and we'll be back in the political theatre in February with the debt ceiling idiocy again.

My prediction - a couple weeks of nice market gains due to the tax relief but then you better hope you have treasuries in your portfolio because we're doing a rerun on last August...

Ah, Obama had leverage and he'd be a fool not to use it.  Those dastardly Republicans were holding us all hostage....got it.  Well, at least you're objective. 

Storm wrote: Right, Obama said he wouldn't sign a bill that didn't include some tax increases for the wealthy.  He basically said he's not going to balance the budget on cutting spending alone.  That's a far cry from throwing us all under the bus.  Look, he knew he had leverage and he'd be a fool not to use it.

[…]

In my opinion, I think Obama is stupid for pushing the real deal out 2 months.  He should have held firm and said "give me a deal with the spending cuts that I want, that raises the debt ceiling, or I don't sign it."  He just lost any leverage he had and we'll be back in the political theatre in February with the debt ceiling idiocy again.

Hold up, didn't you acknowledge earlier that both tax increases and spending cuts would be bad for the economy? So why were you hoping that Obama pushed harder for a bill that raised taxes and cut spending--both things you acknowledge are bad? Shouldn't you have been happy with the deal we got, in that it avoided (at least temporarily) the spending cuts and only substantially raised taxes on a tiny tiny sliver of the population?

Pointedstick wrote: Hold up, didn't you acknowledge earlier that both tax increases and spending cuts would be bad for the economy? So why were you hoping that Obama pushed harder for a bill that raised taxes and cut spending--both things you acknowledge are bad? Shouldn't you have been happy with the deal we got, in that it avoided (at least temporarily) the spending cuts and only substantially raised taxes on a tiny tiny sliver of the population?

I'm just hoping for a bill that's "less bad" than what we could get.  If I could choose, I'd take the bill we got yesterday, a new payroll tax cut (back to 2012 levels) and zero new spending cuts.

But, that's not likely to happen, so what I'm hoping for as a "not quite as bad" alternative is that they don't cut SS/Medicare or other programs that target low income/middle class, and instead target any cuts towards things that are not as likely to directly impact our domestic economy - such as winding down foreign military bases and things like that.  Although even foreign military cuts are likely to impact us in a negative way.

For all the rhetoric, the bill we got yesterday is not that bad, other than the payroll tax hike.

CBO: ADDS $3.9 TRILLION MORE TO DEFICIT...

Benko wrote: CBO: ADDS $3.9 TRILLION MORE TO DEFICIT...

Yes, but to be fair, extending any of the Bush tax cuts would have done the same.  The spending cuts were sequestered so if you're looking at it in isolation it sounds bad...

I still think we should sequester all spending cuts for at least a couple years until the economy is in better shape.  Austerity in the face of recession never works.

Storm wrote:   Austerity in the face of recession never works.

But increasing taxes and increasing spending does?