26
   

Tick, tick. August 2nd is the Debt Limit Armageddon. Or Not.

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2011 07:54 am
@Thomas,
Too many big players out there that are going to hedge their bets before the deadline to allow the market to be blissfully unaware until the end.

If no deal by July 15th I expect the market will be down about 800 points from where it is now. Come August, real panic could set in and we could lose a few thousand more.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2011 09:36 am
@Thomas,
How many bonds will 20 bucks buy?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2011 09:46 am
@Thomas,
I'm with Parados. The GOP has very solid ties with the business industry, and they have pretty much been universally signaling that they really would like a debt limit raise passed as soon as possible. That pressure will push the GOP to make some sort of compromise... they need these guys money, badly, for the upcoming election.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2011 09:58 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
If no deal by July 15th I expect the market will be down about 800 points from where it is now.

I'm not following. May I ask what mean by the word "the"? Which market are you talking about?
realjohnboy
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2011 09:59 am
This is kind of interesting. The Senate voted on raising the debt limit 7 times during the administrations of Bush and Obama thus far.
Bush:
2002 (Dems held the Senate); 37 Dems and 31 Repubs voted yes = 68.
2003 (Repubs); 3 Dems and 50 Repubs voted yes = 53.
2004 (Repubs); 2 Dems and 50 Repubs voted yes = 52.
2006 (Repubs); 0 Dems and 52 Repubs voted yes = 52.
2007 (Dems); 26 Dems and 27 Repubs voted yes = 53.
Obama:
2009 (Dems); 59 Dems and 1 Repubs voted yes = 60.
2010 (Dems); 60 Dems and 0 Repubs voted yes = 60
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2011 10:01 am
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:
How many bonds will 20 bucks buy?

None, I'm afraid. US treasuries usually come in chunks of $1000. Perhaps there are index funds tied to treasury bonds that accept chunks as small as $20, but I don't know for sure. I haven't researched the matter.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2011 10:05 am
@realjohnboy,
Any info on filibusters? When it comes to a party-line vote, Obama's budget still carries with the votes of 51 Democrats and 2 Independents against 47 Republicans. But with 60 votes needed for cloture, it may not come to a vote for a while. It would be interesting to hear about precedents on this kind of scenario.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2011 10:16 am
@Thomas,
I can't see the Republicans filibustering any bill that comes forth. That opens them up to too much criticism that they are 'purposely wrecking the economy.' And it opens up McConnell and the Senate Republicans to that criticism.

Instead, they'll let the House be the driver of whatever happens, and just refuse to vote for it in the Senate.

I haven't heard them threaten to filibuster this bill, and I have heard McConnell say that they simply won't vote for one that they don't agree with.

---

In other news,

Multiple reports this morning confirm that Senate Dems are considering simply ignoring the debt limit altogether, claiming that it's unconstitutional. And there may be some validity to that argument, thanks to the 14th amendment.

Cycloptichorn
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2011 10:21 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I can't see the Republicans filibustering any bill that comes forth.

Then I don't understand the need for a deal on the budget ceiling. The tally is 53 to 47 for the Democrats. If filibusters aren't a problem, why can't they just put up the issue for a vote, and win by 53 to 47 (or 52 to 48, if Lieberman has one of his independent moments)?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2011 10:22 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I can't see the Republicans filibustering any bill that comes forth.

Then I don't understand the need for a deal on the budget ceiling. The tally is 53 to 47 for the Democrats. If filibusters aren't a problem, why can't they just put up the issue for a vote, and win by 53 to 47 (or 52 to 48, if Lieberman has one of his independent moments)?


Dude, the Senate isn't the problem, it's the House that's the problem.

Cycloptichorn
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2011 10:23 am
@Cycloptichorn,
OK, that makes sense.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2011 10:33 am
@realjohnboy,
very.
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2011 11:20 am
@ossobuco,
Eons ago (June 8th actually) Tea Party supported Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) proposed an amendment requiring a straight up or down vote in the Senate on increasing the debt ceiling by $2.4Tn (adding to the current ceiling of $14.3Tn - or perhaps raising the ceiling to $14.3Tn - I can't remember which). The House had done the same thing earlier on and the increase was defeated with some Dems supporting all of the Repubs.
Some moderate Repubs supported Paul's amendment and the Dem leadership called it a "gotcha" ploy to embarrass them with the public because of all those 0000000000000000000's.
Sen Jim Demint (R-SC), who still fancies himself as a possible presidential candidate by the way, did threaten to mount a filibuster to require a 60 vote threshold, Thomas.
The amendment disappeared. I suspect that was because Repubs are less sure of who will get the blame if the government defaults (most likely everyone will get the blame).
In his press conference today Obama raised the specter of the government continuing to pay interest on bonds owned by China while stopping food assistance to sick children and checks to retirees. He also noted that between now and August 2nd the House and Senate will only be in D.C. together for a total of 9 days. He seemed to threatened to cut short their holidays.
While talks continue and the clock keeps ticking, there may be some sort of breakthrough on the deficit and the debt ceiling, or all sides may decide to go along with the debt ceiling and move the budget (for the fiscal year starting October 1st, 2011) to become a stand alone issue.
And yes, Cyclo, the House is probably where the fight will take place.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2011 04:21 pm
@Thomas,
DOW..

Sorry, I should have been more specific.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2011 05:02 pm
@parados,
Whether the panic is quiet or not, I wouldn't want to be involved with bonds. Nearly everyone (individual) with bonds in their portfolio are actually invested in bond funds. If large numbers begin selling the shares, the only way the fund can pay is by selling bonds, at whatever the market is paying. Holding to maturity is not an option, and if they are forced to sell in a down market, there will at least be paper losses to investors.

Note that I said "if large numbers begin selling".
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2011 05:15 pm
Perhaps I missed something. Today, according to Politico, at least 5 of the 11 Repub candidates for president are hopping on a new to me bandwagon: Cap, Cut and Bal.
Cap the budget to 18% of GDP
Cut government spending
Pass an amendment to the constitution requiring a balanced budget.

I wonder, again, if there is a move on to avoid a fight over the deficit ceiling.
The Bal portion would, of course, kick the ball way down the field. Amending the constitution is a long process.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2011 05:19 pm
@realjohnboy,
A balanced budget amendment would be incredibly foolish for a variety of reasons.

I chuckle a bit when I see the plan you mentioned above, as it would have specifically disallowed the very Ryan budget that Republicans in both houses voted for so enthusiastically just a few weeks ago.

Cycloptichorn
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2011 05:36 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
But "Cap, Cut and Bal" makes for a good soundbite and might give the Repubs room to get away from the deficit limit thing.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2011 05:41 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

But "Cap, Cut and Bal" makes for a good soundbite and might give the Repubs room to get away from the deficit limit thing.


Oh, I dunno. They have really painted themselves into a corner with their base, and that worries me more than anything else.

If they agree to tax increases, the Tea Party will flip out and work to split their caucus next year, at least forcing them to face primary challenges in places they don't want to and don't have money to defend.

If they DON'T agree to tax increases, they won't be able to pass a Debt Limit increase that has cuts in it. The Dems in the Senate simply won't pass it and Obama won't sign it.

They're stuck in between a rock and a hard place. This is why Cantor 'pulled out' of the negotiations; there's no clear path out for Boehner at this point, he's going to be blamed by some group no matter what.

This is what happens when you resort to using extreme and false rhetoric on a regular basis - your base actually thinks you're serious.

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2011 12:37 pm
Quote:
Boehner's Economic Terrorism

http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e201538f8bc1b7970b-320wi
(Photo: Speaker of the House John Boehner participates in his weekly press briefing on Capitol Hill, June 23, 2011 in Washington, DC. By Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

We have a potential catastrophe of national default, an event whose consequences are unknowable but which could quite easily wreck the US and global economies, profoundly damage people's savings, raise interest rates and destroy jobs for a very long time. In most countries, the goal of the entire political class is to avoid such a thing if at all possible. Greece is currently facing down riots in order to slash its deficit. Britain is entering a period of profound austerity. All of this pain is to prevent the worst possible crisis to hit a country: default. All responsible politicians understand this is something to be avoided at all costs. Conservatives especially see any weakening of the full faith and credit of sovereign governments or the EU as very destabilizing to growth and democratic stability.

So here we are in the USA, with our own awful debt crisis, and the possibility of default and one of 117136823 the two major parties is saying effectively: bring it on. Even more amazing, it is the conservative party that seeks the collapse of the global economy if they do not get their way on every single thing.

Some sane Republicans (Coburn) are absolutely right in my view that spending needs to be cut deeply, broadly and permanently to get us back on track, that Medicare is at the center of the problem and that corporate welfare is at obscenely high levels. I favor a plan along Bowles-Simpson lines that would truly transform the long-term fiscal outlook, while treading a little gingerly in the next year or so.

But I am also an adult and understand that in the American political system, this kind of package has to win support from House, Senate and president to pass. There will have to be compromise. At a time, moreover, of extreme economic pain in many parts of the country, after a period in which the successful have become relatively richer than everyone else than at any point in recent decades, the sacrifice should surely be shared. You can do this by emphasizing many more spending cuts than tax increases - something I'd favor and something that the British Tories have put into effect. But it is simply insane to believe that the deal can be only tax hikes or only spending cuts and make it through the political process.

For the GOP to use the debt ceiling to put a gun to the head of the US and global economy until they get only massive spending cuts and no revenue enhancement is therefore the clearest sign yet of their abandonment of the last shreds of a conservative disposition. A conservative does not risk the entire economic system to score an ideological victory.
That is what a fanatic does. And when that fanatical faction was responsible for huge spending binges in the recent past, for two off-budget wars costing $4.4 trillion, a new Medicare benefit, and tax revenues at a 50-year low relative to GDP and tax rates below the levels of Ronald Reagan, this insistence is lunacy, when it isn't gob-smackingly hypocritical. I say this as someone who was railing against too much spending when these people were throwing money away like it was confetti. "Deficits don't matter," remember?

It seems to me there are two options the president can take. The first is what you are told to do when a criminal or terrorist holds a gun to your head. You surrender.

The point of economic blackmail is that it works. If you have a scintilla of public responsibility and you hold public office, you cannot allow default. And so you give them everything they want. You announce this while declaring you abhor the package but have to back it for the sake of the national interest in preventing catastrophe. You detail and expose the Republican priorities far more aggressively than in the past. You blame the performance of the economy entirely on them from now on out. And you run on a platform of shared sacrifice - of revenue-enhancing tax reform and tax hikes for millionaires. Then you run against the Republicans as hard as you can.

The second option is to bypass them, invoke the 14th Amendment, and order the Treasury to keep paying its debts because an extraordinarily reckless faction wants to destroy the American economy in order to save it (and pin the subsequent double-dip recession on Obama). Bruce Bartlett outlines the mechanism here. He has some other ideas for coping here.

What you probably cannot do is negotiate with economic equivalent of terrorists. What Cantor and Boehner are doing is essentially letting the world know they have an economic WMD in their possession. And it will go off if you do not give them everything they want, with no negotiation possible. That's the nature of today's GOP. It needs to be destroyed before it can recover.


http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/06/boehners-economic-terrorism.html

Cycloptichorn
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.06 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 08:38:26