It remains about the debt

[PhDeac]

That's stabilization. The economy is not unstable right now. It's just burdened by a lot of debt. Just because unemployment is high that doesn't mean the economy isn't stable.

Well said. We've got an unrealistic idea of what unemployment should be in a stable economy.

 

[TuffaloDeac10]

That's stabilization. The economy is not unstable right now. It's just burdened by a lot of debt. Just because unemployment is high that doesn't mean the economy isn't stable.

How does that have anything to do with choosing which instrument should be used for stabilization?

My point was pretty narrow ("But discourse generally stays on the level of asking if the medicine itself is intrinsically good or bad, and not on diagnosing the patient... And that is also an argument for letting the Fed take the lead on stabilization, but to do that I think we'd need to change its mandate to NGDP targeting instead of its fake dual mandate on inflation and unemployment."). Politicians have ends other than economic management, and pursuit of those ends can clash with sound economic management. The Fed doesn't need to have any jobs that clash with sound economic management. That's an argument for putting that particular job on the Fed's plate. It's not a definitive argument for it or even an endorsement of the idea.

 

[Baconwfu]

Well said. We've got an unrealistic idea of what unemployment should be in a stable economy.

Stable doesn't mean healthy....it just means stable

 

[DeacMan]

Fixing them and gutting them are 2 different things. You want to narrow the deficit you have to do three things

Health spending down
Military spending down
Taxes up

Your boy only wants to do one, and he then relies on magic beans to grow federal revenue. It is, at it's very core, intellectually dishonest.

First of all he isn't "my boy". I said earlier that given the options that have been put on the table he's the only one with a plan. Obama is way more dishonest intellectually than Ryan. He has NO plan. His plan is to soak the rich for 50 billion and otherwise change NOTHING other than the corporate tax code in a manner similar to Ryan. In short, he's done nothing more than play a populist card. He, quite frankly, SUCKS. Clinton would have had the balls to deal with this - and I was not a huge fan of him. But at least he would have faced the problem.

 

[RJKarl]

First of all he isn't "my boy". I said earlier that given the options that have been put on the table he's the only one with a plan. Obama is way more dishonest intellectually than Ryan. He has NO plan. His plan is to soak the rich for 50 billion and otherwise change NOTHING other than the corporate tax code in a manner similar to Ryan. In short, he's done nothing more than play a populist card. He, quite frankly, SUCKS. Clinton would have had the balls to deal with this - and I was not a huge fan of him. But at least he would have faced the problem.

You're totally FOS and totally dishonest.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2011/07/big_is_the_new_black.html

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/91697/boehner-obama-grand-bargain-debt-negotiation-taxes-cuts

"To achieve this deal, Democrats had indicated a significant and serious willingness to sacrifice their own goals and their own constituencies. Reductions in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security were all on the table – not to mention reductions in discretionary spending that would have seriously weakened, if not crippled, government programs on which poor people, in particular, depend. President Obama had made it clear he was willing to accept such cuts, if it meant putting together a far-reaching package. More liberal Democrats were more skeptical, but rhetoric from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, among others, made it clear they were willing to entertain most of these ideas, depending on their structure and what Republicans were offering in return. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...urity-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_story_1.html

Another source showing Obama offered cuts to Medicare and Social Security.

The facts are NEVER of consequence to DeacMan and I doubt they ever will be.

 

[DeaconSig]

Is it not pretty well understood right now that deacman is a hack when it comes to political stuff? How is this shocking to anyone? He's been posting the same nonsense since this board started.

 

[Spot the Wonder]

First of all he isn't "my boy". I said earlier that given the options that have been put on the table he's the only one with a plan.

I've linked to more than one CBO report that state "There were no specifications of particular revenue provisions", how on earth can you refer to that as a plan? He's totally ignoring half of the equation, and addressing it with made up numbers. Where's the plan?

 

[RJKarl]

Spot, don't waste your time. DeacMan thinks if he screams enough t will make his BS true.

What he's really pissed about is that he ban the three of us for daring to stand up to him like he would have on the old board.

 

[PhDeac]

First of all he isn't "my boy". I said earlier that given the options that have been put on the table he's the only one with a plan. Obama is way more dishonest intellectually than Ryan. He has NO plan. His plan is to soak the rich for 50 billion and otherwise change NOTHING other than the corporate tax code in a manner similar to Ryan. In short, he's done nothing more than play a populist card. He, quite frankly, SUCKS. Clinton would have had the balls to deal with this - and I was not a huge fan of him. But at least he would have faced the problem.

Cutting the deficit by $50B by raising taxes is soaking the rich.

Cutting the deficit by cutting Medicare benefits for the poor is courageous.

Yes. DeacMan is a political hack. Republicans talk about how we're passing debt on to our kids, but they refuse to be the kids who pay it. Their children will be no different.

 

[DeacMan]

You're totally FOS and totally dishonest.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2011/07/big_is_the_new_black.html

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/91697/boehner-obama-grand-bargain-debt-negotiation-taxes-cuts

"To achieve this deal, Democrats had indicated a significant and serious willingness to sacrifice their own goals and their own constituencies. Reductions in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security were all on the table – not to mention reductions in discretionary spending that would have seriously weakened, if not crippled, government programs on which poor people, in particular, depend. President Obama had made it clear he was willing to accept such cuts, if it meant putting together a far-reaching package. More liberal Democrats were more skeptical, but rhetoric from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, among others, made it clear they were willing to entertain most of these ideas, depending on their structure and what Republicans were offering in return. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...urity-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_story_1.html

Another source showing Obama offered cuts to Medicare and Social Security.

The facts are NEVER of consequence to DeacMan and I doubt they ever will be.

I love it when you go all hyperbolic and portray your view of what happened - especially when it happened behind closed doors.

There is a fantastic account of what supposedly happened. It goes like this. Obama publicly endorsed a plan that provided for more revenue than and Boehner had secretly agreed. The Dems claim he did it in error. The GOP doesn't know. As the story goes he was trying to assure Boehner would stand behind the bargain they had struck. So in a press conference (or some other public forum) Obama stood up and endorsed the gang of six plan. The problem was the gang of six plan added about 1.2 trillion more in revenue than Boehner was willing to agree to do (i.e. - read he was capable of delivering) and had ever promised to deliver. And Obama did this in a public statement. He went on record endorsing a plan Boehner could not deliver. And in doing so he also put himself in a horrible position with his own party. Because if he then turned around and agreed to a smaller deal on revenues he'd look like a big time putz within his own party. That is, in a nutshell, supposedly what happened. Boehner was selling a much smaller revenue increase. Obama had agreed to a much smaller revenue increase. And now both were stripped naked because Obama either made a mistake or made a massive negotiating miscalculation. Hence the "goal posts were moved" line from the GOP the night the big deal fell apart They were moved. Naturally Boehner played it up for all he could - being a politician. Naturally Obama claims the GOP wouldn't give him any revenues. But Boehner was ready to provide revenues. And Obama was on board with what was offered. And then either by mistake or through bad judgement he blew the deal.

And less we all think this account is totally bogus, look no further than these two videos. When you are getting schooled by a journalist months before the debt ceiling debate on what is going to happen to you - well, I don't even know where to begin.





The 30 minute video is just rich. Minute 16, have you not just given the Republicans a blue print for how to get you to concede. No. This was unique. People were going to get hurt. In short, we played chicken and I blinked eventhough the polls were massively in my favor. Minute 20, do you plan to seek a comprehensive tax deal. Yes. OK. We're still waiting. Minute 22, I don't know how they'll argue to make the tax cuts permanent. Well, that's all they've continued to do. Minute 23.05. Don't the Republicans now have a lot of leverage in negotiations about raising the debt ceiling? Uh, no. I'll just take John Boehner at his word. That no one is willing to see the full faith and credit of the U.S. collapse. Translation - they'll play chicken with me again and I'll end up looking weak yet again. It's a 30 minute press conference where time and time again he's asked if he has any backbone. What will be different in 2012 - we'll have 2 years to talk about the budget. You mean the one you don't really push for with any fervency and that ultimately gets voted down with no votes in the House?

 

[TuffaloDeac10]

BUMP for record low ten year yields

 

[ImTheCaptain]

BUMP for record low ten year yields