• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

makingmusic476

Member
I just don't get that mentality. "I care for my country!"

...but I won't take into account any information at all that could be useful in determining the best policy to guide the future of this country if it conflicts with what I already want to happen. Nor will I provide such information to others that care about this country even though I claim to have it.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
CyclopsRock said:
It's worth noting, though, that by far the single largest holder (and increasing, not decreasing, as a share of debt - up almost 3x in the last decade) of US bonds is the US government itself. This has the benefit of pushing down the interest rates of the other, foreign holders (as well as domesticate ones like pension funds which, obviously, suffer from negative interest rates), but also means that those arms of the US governments that buy its own bonds will lose out when they get them repaid at negative interest rates. Given this is such a large portion of the debt, the perceived gains from this negative interest rate is significantly lower than it appears on the surface.
Click to expand...

I wanted to respond to this, because I think it's a curious argument. If the government is financing its spending through bonds*, it should be immediately obvious that it cannot lower the yields on its bonds by buying them -- because in order to buy X dollars worth of US bonds, it must issue at least X dollars worth of US bonds! So this whole argument makes no sense. Any federal purchases of government bonds cancel right out of the market and can be completely ignored. At most, they will raise yields by replacing old, nearly expired debt with brand new interest-bearing debt.


* Or, for MMTers, if the government is obligated through law or custom to issue bonds in 1:1 correspondence with its spending.
 
R

Rocket Scientist

Member
RustyNails said:
I don't know about you guys but I'm ready

1331747380_jumping_off_a_roof_into_the_snow.gif
Click to expand...
Bookmarked as ''fiscal cliff''.
RDreamer said:
I doubt it. Posts like that are usually codewords for "I have no idea what I'm talking about so let's end this conversation here before I demonstrate that fact in full."
Click to expand...
God damn I spit out my drink. So true.
 
M

makingmusic476

Member
Link said:
Ah, the standard "The media is lying to you! Good thing I watch the beacon of truth known as Fox News. They're not afraid to tell me what's really going on."
Click to expand...

What's weird is that the whole "omg we're running out of money!" meme is perpetuated by all the major news networks. They just use it to push for their own different pet policies. Spending cuts here, tax hikes there.

If I'm being "lied to" about the structural foundations of our monetary system, it isn't coming from the media.
 
H

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
"I can explain my case from the ground up and allow my chain of logic to be contested on its merits, while you have party-approved pundits telling you you've been lied to and you accept that without question or understanding because it makes you feel better. Which one of us is being blinded?"
 
C

Cloudy

Banned
Dax01 said:
McCain says Senate GOP will take chained-CPI off the table.
Click to expand...

Really interesting that Obama almost gave in to this trying to get a deal. They'd just have used it against the Dems in 2014

Or was it just a cover with the media since they knew Boehner couldn't get votes for any tax hike?
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Dax01 said:
Whether or not it can pass the Senate isn't really the issue here. If the bill is brought up and passed without any respectable Republican support, there's no pressure on Boehner to move on it.

Anyway...
Click to expand...

I would think that the public pressure would be enough at this point. If the Senate gets something through then all the blame falls to the House and that can't be good of Boehner's future. Then again passing a Dem only bill wouldn't be good either. He's pretty much stuck in a lose-lose here.
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
B-Dubs said:
I would think that the public pressure would be enough at this point. If the Senate gets something through then all the blame falls to the House and that can't be good of Boehner's future. Then again passing a Dem only bill wouldn't be good either. He's pretty much stuck in a lose-lose here.
Click to expand...

I don't think public pressure is at that point. The whole reason why this moved to the Senate is because Boehner, at this point, refuses to (well, can't) act. The Democrats passing a partisan bill won't make it easier for Boehner to pass anything.

On the other hand, if Reid brings his back-up bill to the floor and forces McConnell to filibuster, then you might seem some movement later on.

Re: Rubio tweet: What a lying jerk.
 
C

Cloudy

Banned
Marco RubioVerified ‏@marcorubio

Report that #GOP insisting on changes to social security as part of #fiscalcliff false.BTW those changes are supported by @barackobama.
Click to expand...

You see this bullshit?
 
C

Chichikov

Member
Cloudy said:
You see this bullshit?
Click to expand...
LOL, this is like the OBAMA CUT MEDICARE!!!! histrionics from the general election.
And once again, they might be winning some minor points (doubtful though) but they're conceding the big one - that cuts to social security is a bad thing.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
I don't believe a congressman of any kind is capable of responding with that pic. They barely know how to use their computers.

Must have been an aide!


Also, there might be a midnight deal for just tax cuts and UE coming. Who knows. lol @ Rubio's tweet.

Also, I was right. I said the GOP doesn't really support cutting of SS benefits and other things. They just want to get Obama on the record on supporting certain cuts. The GOP doesn't truly want to cut spending in any significant way, it's all politics.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
Black Republican said:
alot of the senators from red states woulda been in trouble explaining the CPI deal anyways, no?
Click to expand...

In any state. Imagine telling people who are 52 years old you just cut their retirement benefits to come 15 years. They're not gonna come out to vote for you.

Cutting something like food stamps has a much lesser effect. Everyone eventually expects to become old and old people tend to be republicans (right now).
 
G

Giant Panda

Member
What were Democrats getting in exchange for chained CPI before the deal fell apart? That is definitely a good cut to make but only with Republican concessions.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
pigeon said:
I wanted to respond to this, because I think it's a curious argument. If the government is financing its spending through bonds*, it should be immediately obvious that it cannot lower the yields on its bonds by buying them -- because in order to buy X dollars worth of US bonds, it must issue at least X dollars worth of US bonds! So this whole argument makes no sense. Any federal purchases of government bonds cancel right out of the market and can be completely ignored. At most, they will raise yields by replacing old, nearly expired debt with brand new interest-bearing debt.

* Or, for MMTers, if the government is obligated through law or custom to issue bonds in 1:1 correspondence with its spending.
Click to expand...

This is where the artificial legal distinctions between the Fed and Treasury comes into play. In fact, the government can lower the yield on its bonds by buying them and does precisely that. The short term interest rate is entirely dictated by the government. It is not subject to market forces at all (the point missed by CyclopsRock). This is directly a result of its monetary sovereignty. The government sets the short term interest rate on its bonds by buying and selling them through open market operations. These operations are conducted by the Fed (which is part of the government). Unlike the Treasury, the Fed does not have to issue bonds before it can create and spend notes. So it can buy bonds with keystrokes that credit bank accounts. (The Treasury is prohibited from keystroking notes; it is legally required to issue a bond--or mint coins--to spend more dollars than tax revenue.) The Fed's purchasing and selling of bonds is used to set the short term interest rate. However, the Fed's purchase of bonds does not net create any financial assets because all it is doing is replacing bonds with dollars. There is no net asset injection. It is only the Treasury's spending that can net create financial assets for the private sector's use.

This post illuminates how the government uses (and pays) middle men (bond purchasers) to accomplish what is effectively simple and needless intergovernmental accounting between two parts of it (Treasury and Fed).
 
E

el retorno

Member
So the republicans are trying to get the dems to propose cuts in the name of bipartisanship and They withdraw support so it looks like the big mean democrats cut daddies social security and they just wanted to cut the mythical bloated government?
 
F

fallagin

Member
Fuck it, lets just eliminate social security and medicare. If old people are gonna vote for the GOP then let them reap what they sew.
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
Black Mamba said:
Really? fucking republicans.
Click to expand...

Well, even my reply was a bit dishonest. It looks like McConnell was proposing chained-CPI because the current offer wasn't looking palatable to the Senate GOP. It's not clear whether Harry Reid considered trading it for the debt ceiling, but as a short term deal, and not in extension for UI, it was off the table.

But, anyway, it doesn't make any sense to agree to chained-CPI when they're just going to ask for more when it comes to raising the debt ceiling.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
fallagin said:
Fuck it, lets just eliminate social security and medicare. If old people are gonna vote for the GOP then let them reap what they sew.
Click to expand...

The planned changes are for people under 55, not those already old. That age group, I believe, leans Dem in the last 2 elections.

In fairness, and I'm speaking anecdotally here, it's that elderly people are scared of Dems ruining social security and medicare, not GOP. The GOP have brainwashed them into thinking they are the protectors of their money but want to "reform" the future of it so all their kids will be able enjoy it too.

And it's hard to teach older people new things.

Question: will u be upset if we don't go over the cliff?
Click to expand...

depends on the deal. As long as there is no cut to benefits and most of the tax cuts that are needed happen, no.


Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., expressed bewilderment at the breakdown, suggesting that there were more than enough votes for a compromise measure that didn't include chained CPI.
"I don't know what caused this but there's a critical mass of 80 senators who would vote to fix the [alternative minimum tax], the doc fix, extend unemployment insurance, protect everybody 500 thousand and below from a tax increase," he told reporters at the Capitol. "There's 80 senators who will do that without CPI."
Click to expand...

So just put up your own vote that includes these things, Reid.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
The senate isn't the issue. That very may get 80 senators, but it wouldn't pass the House, assuming Boehner even brought it to the floor.

The funniest thing about all this is that republicans could have gotten the chained CPI, 400k-500k tax threshold, and perhaps some interest cuts on Medicare. Instead they'll get nothing but the absolute worse tax threshold from their position, and no entitlement cuts at least not until the debt ceiling debate.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
B-Dubs said:
What a lying sack of....
Click to expand...

That's what Obama was willing to give up, I'm sure we'll hear about it in two years. And the reason why democrats should not have named ANY entitlement cuts. If republicans want them, they should have named them. Especially after the 716b fiasco this should have been obvious
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

How is it that I own a bunch of Xbox 360 games I never bought digitally?
9
943
dragonyeuw replied
The Drunk GAF Containment Thread
Social Community 7 8 9 10 11
517
11K
Artoris replied
What are you thankful for this turkey day?
17
842
MaestroMike replied
Bad games with redeeming qualities
2 3
116
5K
Koenigssee replied
Next Generation is going to be really strange because of A.I
2
58
2K
midnightAI replied
Top Bottom