Financial fuckery thread

[Jenne]

The GOP are a bunch of fuckin' liars.  They don't want to raise taxes on the big corps...this has nothing to do with small business owners.  Because that's ONE loophole they can make that folks would agree with.  But their corporate sponsors and their campaign money won't let them.

"You can't tax the job creators."  They're not even CORPORATIONS anymore--they're fucking "Job Creators." 

All this when we have a hugeass unemployment rate.  So we're supposed to believe that not taxing them leads to more jobs, just like bailing out all those banks meant more people would get loans.

So much for the emperor and his invisible clothes, assholes!

Did you see his speech?  What I took from it wasn't that he was talking about tax increases (or the lack of them) on small businesses, but that he was trying to say that his experience as a small business owner informed his decision, as a politician to cut expenses.  That any sane small business owner would choose to cut expenses if they were larger than revenue.  Basically using a small business as a metaphor for government.  It's a flawed metaphor anyway, but even remaining within it his solution makes no sense.

Also, Boehner looks like a cartoon to me.

I try not to listen to the Orange Boner if I can help it--I get an instantaneous Tourrett's syndrome effect that doesn't wear off for hours when I do.

It's all just so much bullshit, brochure and rhetoric to excuse him and his posse from not doing what they were *sob, sniff, sob* SENT TO WASHINGTON TO DO *sob, sniff, sob*.  Which is WHAT exactly?  Oh yeah...work in bipartisan fashion to compromise and fix shit.

Great job, America.

[BabylonHoruv]

I don't usually watch political speeches, but watching Obama selling us a rack of shit with a smile, and then Boehner sprinkle a bunch of powdered smallpox on top and pick all the corn out and act like that improved things gave me an excellent rage fix.

[Jenne]

I really just listen to half an ear to Obama...his rhetoric is just too thick when it comes to the signal to noise ratio anymore.

[Doktor Howl]

...it's certainly close to the wire.  I mean, lookit, they have caught Mitch McConnell saying over and over that in an election year, he's not going to hand Obama his second term by rescuing the economy.

This is the best government that America is capable of producing.

Isn't that just the funniest fucking thing you've ever heard?

[whenhellfreezes]

The GOP are a bunch of fuckin' liars.  They don't want to raise taxes on the big corps...this has nothing to do with small business owners.  Because that's ONE loophole they can make that folks would agree with.  But their corporate sponsors and their campaign money won't let them.

"You can't tax the job creators."  They're not even CORPORATIONS anymore--they're fucking "Job Creators." 

All this when we have a hugeass unemployment rate.  So we're supposed to believe that not taxing them leads to more jobs, just like bailing out all those banks meant more people would get loans.

So much for the emperor and his invisible clothes, assholes!

Did you see his speech?  What I took from it wasn't that he was talking about tax increases (or the lack of them) on small businesses, but that he was trying to say that his experience as a small business owner informed his decision, as a politician to cut expenses.  That any sane small business owner would choose to cut expenses if they were larger than revenue.  Basically using a small business as a metaphor for government.  It's a flawed metaphor anyway, but even remaining within it his solution makes no sense.

Also, Boehner looks like a cartoon to me.

I really hate how the whole small business thing works. Small businesses are supposed to be some holy savior of the economy. And they are often claimed to be whats hurt by the taxes on the rich. As if your supposed to forget that there is such a thing as huge corporations. This shit combined with the whole "Job Creators" thing is some of the most horrendous yet effective spin ever.

They are trying to create as much sympathy for these corporations as possible. Next thing you know we are going to start personifying them... oh wait.

[Disco Pickle]

https://www.tsp.gov/PDF/formspubs/GAO-AIMD-96-130.pdf

The GAO report on the same god damn thing from 1995-96. (remember that?)

We didn't default and there was no reason to think we WOULD because Treasury has authority to pay obligations by other means until an agreement on raising the ceiling can be reached.  The obligations are to publicly held debt (held mostly by private US citizens and trust funds)

All obligations (interest on the debt owed to the holders of Treasuries and Trust fund expenses) were handled through normal means for 12 of the 15 major trust funds.  The other 3 were used to provide the liquidity necessary to do this without exceeding the debt ceiling.  

Money that was not reinvested was used along with cash on hand.  All of those moneys were repaid to the funds after the debt ceiling was raised and the only loss in interest from funds not reinvested was the Exchange Stabilization Fund, approximately $1.2 million in interest from not reinvesting the treasuries used to fund our obligations.

Both of the other funds were compensated once the ceiling was raised.  The Exchange Stabilization Fund could not be because there was no legislation authorizing Treasury to do so.

Certain government employees had to go without a paycheck for a few weeks during the shutdown but those wages were eventually paid.

At 44 pages it's a pretty dry read but everyone should read it.  

"Not knowing what the fuck you're talking about" is running rampant in both parties on this.

[Jenne]

I remember that--but I don't remember the GLOBAL securities issue being so forefront at the time, either. 

[Cain]

The overall economic situation was a lot rosier in 1995, though.  And markets are lot more anxious now, and a lot more likely to respond in a dramatic manner to any refusal to raise the debt ceiling.

Deutche Bank did the analysis, and suggests that the US government could not hold on anywhere near as long this time around

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2009/10/12/77181/debt-and-the-dollars-demise-a-compendium-of-concerns/

One concern is that these same accounting maneuvers, when applied today, will not be able to stave off a government shutdown (or possible suspension of bond payments) for long. Today, the financing needs of the government are so much higher, that diversion of these funds would not last more than a couple of months, and probably far less. Total debt raised, marketable and nonmarketable, including intra-government issuance, has been running at about $130 bn/month for the last 6 months. Most of this amount, $125 bn, has been for marketable issuance to the public. In this context, the traditional measures are only brief delaying actions. For example, SLGS gross issuance was only $53 bn for all of FY2009, and in fact there was a net paydown in SLGS of some $44 bn; thus stopping the issuance of SLGS would have little impact in the larger picture. About $200 bn of non-marketable Government Account Series bonds are rolled over daily, but it's unclear to us how much of these issues the Treasury Secretary could suspend from rolling over.

There would also likely be a run on US Treasury bonds, making the overall debt situation even worse.  Interest payments would spike, and this would have massive international repurcussions.

The Financial Times paints a far less rosy picture than your analysis, as well http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/19ec4688-2015-11e0-a6fb-00144feab49a.html

Back in late 1995 and early 1996 the federal government faced a partial shutdown as congressional Republicans, emboldened by a sweeping midterm election victory, refused to back down until the Democratic occupant of the White House changed his profligate ways. Sound familiar?

Pledges of fiscal prudence were made and disaster averted, but not before Treasury investors were spooked and rating agencies mulled a US debt downgrade. The deficit in 1995 was a positively quaint $104bn, around 2010's monthly average, and the debt ceiling just a third of today's $14,300bn

[Jenne]

...that's what I thought.  Also, isn't there just MOAR MONEY in the system now, than there was before (meaning, countries in the mix are slightly richer, but that's also due to borrowing more...)?  That means there's MORE TO LOSE than ever before, as well.

It's all a clusterfuck.

[Disco Pickle]

I should have mentioned the difference in the actual SIZE from then till now.  Pretty damn ridiculous to do that in only 15 years.

All the more reason for both sides to stop holding onto their "untouchables" and get the god damn thing under control.  It's unsustainable to keep it increasing like that.

[Cain]

Oh, it definitely needs to be dealt with.  However, now is definitely not the time for it.  All it achieves is capping the available economic resources the US can draw on to help promote growth-creating, job making economic activity.

Not that this seems to be a big priority for either party, but in an ideal world, it would be a major concern.

[Cain]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14303325

The White House has warned that President Obama could veto a debt limit plan proposed by top House Republicans.

Meanwhile, Speaker John Boehner's plan to trim public spending and raise the limit met with resistance from rank-and-file members of his own party.

A House of Representatives vote on the plan was delayed from Wednesday after doubts arose over the cuts it proposed.

Washington remains deadlocked as a deadline to increase the government's borrowing authority looms on 2 August.

The US runs a budget deficit that topped $1.5tn (£920bn) this year, and has amassed a national debt of $14.3tn.

The government's authority to borrow more money has expired, and the US risks a first-ever default on its debt obligations if congressional and White House negotiators are unable to agree on a plan to increase the debt limit by 2 August.

The debt limit has been raised dozens of times in recent decades, mostly without partisan debate.

This year, though, conservative Republicans refused to allow an increase unaccompanied by dramatic cuts to the US budget deficit.

You know, stupid shit like this, Washington's various international crusades, inconsistent moral lecturing and putting Palin in a position where she could have potentially been one old man's heart attack away from the presidency is why Chinese hegemony is going to be welcomed with relief in many corners of the globe.  The Chinese care about exactly two things: making money and stability.  Practically everyone can get on board that program.

[Freeky]

Well, THIS thread certainly brightened my day. 

Why did I ever wake up.   I was HAPPY when I was a stupid monkey. 

God fucking dammit. 

[Triple Zero]

The Chinese care about exactly two things: making money and stability.  Practically everyone can get on board that program.

Sounds like a plan.

CHINA FOR PRESIDENT 2012

So they don't even care about subjugating the rest of the world to their censorship programs? Except for their stubborn incapableness in combating desertification, what's the downside again?

[Cain]

Well, the censorship is mostly for internal stability.  They don't care if you want to internally censor stuff or not, so long as you pay your bills on time.

At the same time, don't expect them to sign up to any treaties about human rights or which could potentially violate their sovereignty.  Even more so than the USA.