patrick.net

Got it.

This is why we need a land tax very badly. And I think, a "Tobin" Transaction tax, that will make them howl with rage. Nevermind Wall Street's commission charges are far in excess of what the Tobin tax would likely impose.

He can cave all he wants but it's the Dems that have to give the votes to get this passed.

I'm not sure how much of the TP's "Ни шагу назад!" position is kabuki vs. commitment to their loony-tunes base, but they control what gets through the House if the Dems just vote No.

The House is 60-180-192 (Bachmann/Boehner/Pelosi). The Blue Dogs got slaughtered last year -- they're down to 26 and maybe a bit more willing to stay in the boat this time.

He won't cave. A default will give him free reign to ramrod left wing policies down the Republican's throats. Do they think he's going to negotiate with them after tanking the economy?

You will see a flurry of activity against Republican interests. A party that controls only one half of Congress is not going to benefit from all out war with the Democrats.

The Military Industrial Oil Complex will find Uncle Sam's checks arriving late in a couple weeks. Wall Street is in for a world of hurt. They better lube up their cornhole hole because the Democrats are strapping one on!

"he's in violation of the Vesting Clause of the Constitution which requires him to comply"

So if the Congress passes a law requiring Obama to stand on his head he's constitutionally required to do so?

Obama is not Constitutionally required to submit a budget to Congress. No such language is in the Constitution, so you're just lying about that.

But I agree that he is required as Executive to submit a budget as directed by the Congress.

Shrek's original statement:

"Refusing to execute his constitutional duty to propose a budget to Congress for two years running qualifies."

is odd; Obama submitted his first budget:

http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/01/news/economy/Obama_budget/index.htm

and his second:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/14/us-usa-budget-transport-idUSTRE71D3WI20110214

Not sure what planet Shrek has been on these past few years.

edvard2 says

The bigger question is what will this do to the cities they leave? Younger people tend to bring innovation. Cities that have a lot of them tend to grow faster economically. As seen in recent data that's whats happening in these smaller 2nd tier cities.

Cities have too much distraction to foster innovation as such you dont see much economic growth. Hip and Cool want the glamor life, clubs, dates, brews with their friends... not the date-less nerd geek life who is still at the office. Praise the geek, they at least did something with their career in the burbs.

"Nor are Chinese and other holders of T-bills, who (Chinese, specifically) have INCREASED their holdings last month, despite decreasing yield. Would you care to explain these facts?"

Nobody's been able to increase any debt holdings since May since that's when Timmy hit the limit. Maybe they bought from someone else, but I think your data is older than your think.

China's position went up in May but is still below their peak holdings of 2010.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt

Troy says

China's position went up in May but is still below their peak holdings of 2010

OK, but that's a minor detail as you sure appreciate.
The point is that they (and others) certainly are not dumping the T-bills, but actually adding in some months. Nor investors are dumping stocks.

The "1/2 of the public" would probably be the 1/2 who pay no taxes, and have no savings. The status quo of government borrowing 40cents of every dollar it spends would surely be reasonable for them, they have no 1. investments 2. savings 3. etc. to become worthless as the dollar keeps falling as the debt keeps rising. What would the losers of the USA care?
The election last November is having a consequence. Don't like it? Wait and vote again.
Obama lied outright saying he doubted that social security checks would go out, what a bunch of total bullshit.
Even my uber liberal ex uc professor phd Harvard Econ friend said borrowing 40cents of every dollar spent is not sustainable.

I just love the single data point crowd. So how does this compare to 1990-2000 census, 1980-1990, 1970-1980? Without comparing to what happened in previous censuses (censi?) the article is meaningless.

All the man has is data that people who in their 20's in 2000 then in their 30's in 2010 moved out of cities. Duh, people move into cities when they are young, single, and hungry. Been going on a long time. Where is the same data for people who were teenagers in 2000 and 20 something in 2010? People get married, start a family and move to the burbs. What, is this something new? Did the author also discover the sun rises in the east?

I have lived in a large city, LA and a small city in CO. These is no comparison. I do not miss one day of the hell and expense of a large city. With the the cost of fuel and housing the trend will be telecommuting as that grows cities will be obsolete and just filled with scum and gang bangers

I'm still pulling for good old West Oakland.

ppexx says

I have lived in a large city, LA and a small city in CO. These is no comparison. I do not miss one day of the hell and expense of a large city. With the the cost of fuel and housing the trend will be telecommuting as that grows cities will be obsolete and just filled with scum and gang bangers

doth protest mucheth

And until there are concrete facts and proposals this whole discussion is kind of pointless. I got an email from Senator Boxer asking me to sign a letter telling Republicans something.... emotional appeal. Listen to a talk station I get exact opposite, but yet another emotional appeal. And without facts its just hog wash.

I remember when Ronald Reagan tried to reform the tax code we had the exact same thing. Every special interest went out there to Washington trying to protect their beloved tax perk. RR played it smart though. I guess we will see how this turns out, I just hope it benefits America and not all the tax loopholers living off the working class.

edvard2 says

People in SV think that the East Bay might as well be Mars. People in SF seldom if ever leave or cross the bridge. Usually there's this commentary made- as in how AWFUL it must be for us- we who commute from SV to the east bay.

This is the only region, only place, I've ever lived. For lotsa decades. I've seen lotsa folks come and go, come and stay, and lotsa locals like me, go. But that kinda talk like you said, I never heard it from locals with roots here. Of course, it is true that since not born into privilege I don't know how old monied types might talk among themselves.

Troy says

If you're going to get squicked anyway, might as well choose the least worse option.

Wow your impeccable leadership skills are astounding.

Nomograph says

TRANSLATION: I'm desperately hoping that everyone will leave the BA so I can get a house for cheap.
HINT: Not gonna happen.

Has happened many times, 1950s 1970s and again in 1990s, and repeating once again.

The "1/2 of the public" surprisingly for some ConservoBots here, doesn't to me consist entirely of shiftless brown people.

Some of my relatives are lily-white Fox News addicts who have no savings and are hip-deep in houses in which they currently have little or no equity. I tried to talk some sense into them years ago to no avail. On my last trip East I had to listen to people complaining about ObamaCare and out-of-control taxes, who have serious medical conditions and have been through bankruptcy and depend on various government programs.

HydroCabron says

At $8/gallon gasoline there will be a re-think, with many young people moving to downtown outdoor non-luxury condos with open heat vents.

The city can be really disgusting, but it's hard to see how the 'burbs will do well if it's so expensive to get to a job. Rural areas, on the other hand, will see a rebirth, as young people flock to the new growth sector of the job market: manual agricultural labor.

suburbias always have all the traffic going toward the city because there are no jobs locally. I do think cities will grow more.

What's your point GAWD?!?

Can you explain your self posting on an internet forum?

Love
Ellie

Tenouncetrout says

What's your point GAWD?!?

Can you explain your self posting on an internet forum?

Love
Ellie

He likes me! Right now, he really LIKES me!

"Nobody has 'savings' in the this country"

The $2.7T in treasuries are just as real an obligation to future taxpayers as the $50B the Alaskan permanent fund holds and the ~$1T the Chinese have bought.

This money was literally taken from baby boomer and Gen X wage-earners, 1984-2010 to cover their retirements.

That's what savings is. To hand-wave it away now will be theft of $1.5T + accrued interest.

The overall structure of social security can be considered savings, too. Savings is putting something aside that you get back later. That's how social security works. To the extent future benefits exceed current contributions, the contributions should be raised so the fund is in actuarial balance (with the surplus going into Treasury bonds as they have been).

Unless you are advocating that he went on TV to confess that he'd be breaking the law in doing so?

Your cite says:

"By law the Treasury is bound to redeem any bonds presented to it by the Social Security Administration"

It's the administration's decision when to cash the bonds held by SSA. By the 14th Amendment, it would appear that any bonds SSA presents to Treasury for redemption must be paid.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/transactions.html

If possible, cashing out the bonds would be one way to get grandma out of the crossfire, but this does not solve the actual fiscal disaster that the Federal government is going to hit.

Are you?

No. Obama and Geithner are not required to present the SSA bonds for early redemption. It's up to them how they juggle the checks the Congress no longer wants to write.

"I think at least Obama realizes this despite how most on patrick.net continually refuse to acknowledge this fundamental truth of our political system."

Keep telling yourself Shrekkie, and your party will find itself so out of power you're gonna think it's the 1960s again.

shrekgrinch says

Will you two just get a room, already?

I haven't smoked for many moons, and I'm having trouble understanding him. Can anyone help translate?

Case 1: Deflation
To counter deflation Bernake will continue printing
which is positive for Gold.

Case 2: Inflation
In this case also Gold will rise.

The only case where Gold will fall back to 1200, 1000, 800 or 600 is if Governments globally try to reduce their debt which I don't see happening.
Politicians always prefer inflation to deflation.

With gold it is not possible to calculate a PE ratio unlike stocks and real estate.So it is very difficult to tell the correct price to pay
It is a store of value for a long long time and

e.g. In India and China for e.g. both Gold and Real estate (on the avg) has gone up 5 times starting 2002/2003 due to inflation.

http://blogs.forbes.com/greatspeculations/2011/07/23/dont-get-caught-holding-dollars-when-the-u-s-default-arrives/

Disclosure : I am long Gold based on the above arguments.If you can convince me to hold any other asset now let me know.

But then Geitner can't quit, he wants to do this deal then Ditch his post.

Organizations that act like they're on Top of the World, Top of Their Game, brash enough to take on Big Showy Initiatives like Communist China hosting the Olympics, or Apple erecting a showpiece HQ on some of the most expensive land in California, sound like they've reached their peak and so the only way to go from here is in decline.

I will never forget the broadcast I heard a decade ago on NPR, about how we had achieved a new era of Pax Americana, an Era of The American Empire.

Eerily, the date of the broadcast was September 10, 2001.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1128633

Thomas Donnelly
* Deputy Executive Director, Project for the New American Century

Joseph Nye

Victor Davis Hanson
*Author of several books most recently, Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power (Doubleday, 2001)
*Professor of Greek, California State University, Fresno

The Unites States has military forces in many countries around the world. And despite promises to cut back on military commitments, President Bush has decided to maintain the U.S. force in countries like the Balkans. Is it time to abandon euphemisms and hail the establishment of the American Empire?

these people make nuts look sane

What are you going to do with all that money you'll gain?

People always wants their money to work for them, so I'm assuming that you're not going to stash your cash between your mattresses or rest it in the bank where it earns less interest than inflation.

When the economy was doing well people placed their money in housing. When housing started to turn they cashed out and placed it into the stock market. When the stock market crashed, they placed it in gold. People always needs a sure thing to place their money in.

I'll tell you where I'll place my money if it lands on my lap... Apple.

(LOL...you know I'm joking right :-) ... the best of luck with your ventures)

pseudosea7 says

When the economy was doing well people placed their money in housing.

Thats worse than putting it under the mattress.

shrekgrinch says

Which of you have I called names on this thread?

You called Obama names. You occasionally call other people names on other threads. You constantly make statements about Democrats and liberals, as if those are unified groups or as if you know what "liberal" even means.

From my limited experience of your posts on Patrick.net, you can't even make an argument without trying to put labels on people. If you made an argument that was a good argument, rather than trying to label people, I could take you more seriously.

shrekgrinch says

So, do you have anything to contribute to that position? Anything to add? Any alternative analysis or can you find anything factually/logically weak in my points? If so, please respond.

You have never really done any analysis. You just give talking points as fact. What is there to analyze? Even in this article, you didn't analyze anything -- you just repeated someone else's (poorly written) analysis (based on conjecture). That's not independent thought.

In addition, you imply above that Obamacare will result in increased costs, yet you probably can't even tell us which provisions and how. You're just going on talking points. Explain the specific mechanism, since you understand it so well -- resting on knowing the words "individual mandate" doesn't show you know anything. What is wrong with an individual mandate and why would it raise costs?

Tenouncetrout says

Nobody does, that's the POINT!

Have you read the law? You should have been able to read it by now, even if you read at a third grade level. This is a talking point.

Go read it, instead of spewing uninformed crap. Saying "nobody knows what's in Obamacare" is what uninformed people said when it was up for a vote as a BS excuse. The fact that you're still saying it tells us you have no substantive things to say.

You couldn't possibly have been affected by Obamacare yet in terms of costs. It's a talking point to say that it has affected you.

Troy says

I called him on that recently -- the President being constitutionally required to submit budgets to Congress -- and he slinked away, only to repeat the lie the next day.

Yes, I quoted all of the appropriate Article in that thread, and still no response. Even above, the provision he quotes is not a constitutional argument for what he says.

corntrollio says

Tenouncetrout says

Nobody does, that's the POINT!

Have you read the law? You should have been able to read it by now, even if you read at a third grade level. This is a talking point.

Go read it, instead of spewing uninformed crap. Saying "nobody knows what's in Obamacare" is what uninformed people said when it was up for a vote as a BS excuse. The fact that you're still saying it tells us you have no substantive things to say.

You couldn't possibly have been affected by Obamacare yet in terms of costs. It's a talking point to say that it has affected you.

I know what brainwashed lemmings like you "THINK" is in it.
But the realty of the rubber to the road, has been session in the back alley with Skip the neighborhood molester and a jar of KY jelly.

Insurance premiums are up over 60% since the thing passed.
And you Dolts still talk about how it will control price and costs.
This thing will never be repealed because it makes investors and health executives stinkingly rich. They will be the Wall Street execs of post 2012 and beyond.

Just look the Florida Governor if you want a good Idea where this is headed.

Tenouncetrout says

Insurance premiums are up over 60% since the thing passed.

Yes, and if you think that's because of Obamacare, please give us whatever you are smoking. Quit it with this nonsense.

Insurance premiums ALWAYS go up in bad economies. Insurance companies take insurance premiums and invest them. When those investments are lower than their actuarial predictions, they have to raise rates. The fact that Obamacare passed at the same time gave insurance companies the ability to blame the new law. You would be hard pressed to PROVE that's what happened.

The Obama plan's individual mandate doesn't go into effect until 2014. If anything, it will cause more healthy people to have insurance because more young people will be required to get insurance, whereas, they don't have to right now. That should increase insurance companies' coffers, not decrease them.

Anyone arguing that recent healthcare changes raised their premiums in 2009, 2010, or 2011 is out of their gourd or lying. That's why this is a talking point -- i.e. something repeated by lemmings. Here are CBO's projections -- read for yourself:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10705/hr3962amendmentBoehner.pdf
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10781/11-30-Premiums.pdf

corntrollio says

Yes, and if you think that's because of Obamacare, please give us whatever you are smoking. Quit it with this nonsense.

You don't understand. If something happens, and then something else happens after, this is clearly cause and effect.

marcus says

You don't understand. If something happens, and then something else happens after, this is clearly cause and effect.

Oh okay. If causation is proximity in time, then this makes perfect sense. Carry on.

It doesn't matter if anything is true, SG, it only matters if its been said:

shrekgrinch says

What's the correction? Perry did say what he said, right? And if that is what they are reporting (Rick Perry said, "X"....), then its a fact that they are reporting Perry said 'X' that nobody can dispute.

Honestly man, I don't know why you even bother trying. What keeps you going?

I don't own a gun, don't feel the need to buy a gun, and I hope I'm never compelled to buy a gun, because I feel threatened enough to do so.

How ever, take away all of the guns, and some asshole will be blowing people up with a homemade bomb made from cat piss and rat shit.

radicals in the world assault people by throwing acid in ones face,
or cleaving them with machetes, and there's a whole slew of toxic agents found in nature.

Respect and tolerance is what the world needs more of. Though those that preach that the loudest expects the world to respect their beliefs while crapping on others, from a high horse yonder.

shrekgrinch says

Which is not how Social Security works. You are paying for transfer payments today (to today's retirees and, until recently, extra to the government to blow how it saw fit). It's PAYGO, not savings.

It's treated that way, yes, which was the reason for Al Gore's argument about a "lock box." But had we done that, we wouldn't have been able to afford the Bush tax cuts. Off balance sheet wars and other big Bush spending added insult to injury.

We are talking frame of reference here. The truth: It is an asset to those who are owed benefits, and a liability to future taxpayers. Some people are in both categories. Most are to varying degrees. If you are 64, then you have one more year of paying in to social security, and the rest of your life collecting benefits (mostly an asset for him). Maybe this year, they will have to use that 64 year olds FICA taxes, plus a little of his income taxes to cover payout to current SS recipients.

Make no mistake, the people who have paid in to social security are owed that money, and they are a huge voting block.

Not all of the Senators who signed it face re-election in 2012.

shrekgrinch says

Won't matter if the money isn't there. And, it isn't.

Right wing bs again. THere's a lot of dishonest propaganda out there about this. You see the US is sort of like a business. It uses accounting in much the same way that a business would. The US knows that it will have sizable revenues in the future, that it can use to pay its debts. Everyone believes that the US is still a reasonable credit risk. In fact that is at the heart of recent squabbles over budget cuts and the debt ceiling.

The US owes money to many investors in its debt. The social security trust fund is just one of these investors.

The treasury market still thinks treasury securities are valid assets, in fact so much so that the interest paid on these is at record low levels. So, let me get this straight, you think that all the entities holding treasury securities are holding valid assets, except the social security trust fund ?

DO you think that we will ultimately default on all of our debt ? Or just the debt we owe our seniors (which by the way gets cycled back in to our economy) ?