In all seriousness (no zombies or Mad Max) - is anyone concerned that we might default

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Now, it seems there are fewer and fewer "everybody wins" scenarios and bipartisan is a dirty word. Anything one side gets means the other side lost and every loss must be met with vengeance and retribution. We've turned into the Hatfields and the McCoys and even when the very future of the country is at stake, we cling to this ridiculous us-them frame. Not being an historian, I can't say if the U.S. has ever gone through periods like this before or if it's "normal" politics and the cooperation I saw as a young person was the oddity, but it is a frightening development from my perspective.

I agree. It feels like we are now two countries under one flag with completely different visions of how the world works and what matters.
McConnell in his latest little fumble has said over and over again that his no.1 political priority is "defeating Obama in 2012." In spite of the staggering problems we face and the desperate circumstances so many Americans are in, the only thing the GOP is thinking about is how to get the black guy out of office. The only reason they do not want to raise the debt ceiling is because the ensuing damage would make Obama look bad. The only reason they might agree to raise the debt ceiling is that they don't want to be blamed for the damage if it doesn't get raised--so says McConnell himself.

I think at this point we know who the "good true Americans" are, and it ain't the GOP, Grand Ornery Putz that they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think Boehner is kind of scrawed. His right flank/Tea Party hosed him after the FY2011 budget deal for not humiliating the Democrats then. If he doesn't give them a big chunk of red meat this time, I think he loses his speakership. IMHO, I also think he's the kind of decent guy who will do it for the good of the country (may be naive here). But, I'm not sure any of us would like what comes next if he gets pushed out either.

Sadly, it seems there's just some blind rage going on out there in the country and people have stopped caring if they cut off their nose to spite their face. It's all about who wins, total victory. When I started in this business 20 years ago we used to look for partnerships across the aisle all the time, especially within our region. The ideal was to be able to say something was bipartisan and the product of a regional delegation. Now, it seems there are fewer and fewer "everybody wins" scenarios and bipartisan is a dirty word. Anything one side gets means the other side lost and every loss must be met with vengeance and retribution. We've turned into the Hatfields and the McCoys and even when the very future of the country is at stake, we cling to this ridiculous us-them frame. Not being an historian, I can't say if the U.S. has ever gone through periods like this before or if it's "normal" politics and the cooperation I saw as a young person was the oddity, but it is a frightening development from my perspective.

We're not even the Hatfields and the McCoys in a policy sense. 80% of Americans believe that the debt situation should be solved by a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. 76% of Republicans say the same thing. It is only the elected officials who see their futures flashing before their eyes over this. They are the dangerous ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Boehner is kind of scrawed. His right flank/Tea Party hosed him after the FY2011 budget deal for not humiliating the Democrats then. If he doesn't give them a big chunk of red meat this time, I think he loses his speakership. IMHO, I also think he's the kind of decent guy who will do it for the good of the country (may be naive here). But, I'm not sure any of us would like what comes next if he gets pushed out either.

Sadly, it seems there's just some blind rage going on out there in the country and people have stopped caring if they cut off their nose to spite their face. It's all about who wins, total victory. When I started in this business 20 years ago we used to look for partnerships across the aisle all the time, especially within our region. The ideal was to be able to say something was bipartisan and the product of a regional delegation. Now, it seems there are fewer and fewer "everybody wins" scenarios and bipartisan is a dirty word. Anything one side gets means the other side lost and every loss must be met with vengeance and retribution. We've turned into the Hatfields and the McCoys and even when the very future of the country is at stake, we cling to this ridiculous us-them frame. Not being an historian, I can't say if the U.S. has ever gone through periods like this before or if it's "normal" politics and the cooperation I saw as a young person was the oddity, but it is a frightening development from my perspective.

We're not even the Hatfields and the McCoys in a policy sense. 80% of Americans believe that the debt situation should be solved by a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. 76% of Republicans say the same thing. It is only the elected officials who see their futures flashing before their eyes over this. They are the dangerous ones.

What poll are you quoting from? Who did it and when? The idea that the GOP leadership would go against 76% of the party seems doubtful. The problem here is that the moderates in both parties have been losing elections for the last couple of years. Things are very polarized. Dems do not want entitlement reform despite the daunting demographics of the baby boom. GOP does not want to move the fiscal belt out another notch.

[Anonymous]

When John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are considered to be reasonable, good-faith actors, you've gotta wonder where we're headed.

[Anonymous]

I have been considering converting some or all of my investments in tax qualified plans to cash (or the fund equivalent - a money market acount) for the short term. If there is a default (or if we get uncomfortably close) the markets will take huge hits - if there is a default, even the bond funds will be affected - and I'd rather not absorb that (again). I'd intend on putting the asserts back into the investment funds after it all shakes out. The down side is that I likely would lose a day or two of gains if a bill is passed relatively soon, but that's an acceptable tradeoff to me for guarding against the rish of a huge hit.

I don't really consider this market timing, or rather it's a special kind of timing that makes more sense to me, at least. Any thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here - are you doing anything besides worrying? ... Is anyone else doing anything or is everyone basically hoping?

I have been worrying about what to do. I work for a government contractor and my emergency money is in an IRA in US Treasuries, which I switched to during the 2008 crash because they're supposed to be the safest. But what I'm wondering now is - maybe government contractors won't get paid and I won't be able to get to my emergency fund for the same reason. But is it any safer if I move it to money market?

Uh seriously? Why would your emergency money (by definition money you want to get your hands on fast) be in an IRA in the first place? Forget what you are invested in, you know you pay taxes and penalty to take it out of an IRA right?

Seriously meeting in the middle is where it will have to be. But the president's proposed $2B cuts is less than one day's borrowing - not a serious offer by anyone's measurement. Go ahead and reset the AMT with an index (as it should have been done in the first place), cap mortgage interest deductions, eliminate the subsidies for green energy (only rich people buy a VOLT at 45K anyway, why subsidize it like $20K anyway?), and then take an ax to federal spending. A serious ax, starting with nice to have but not vital to operations of govt agencies like education, energy... and look at means testing Medicare, changing the SS retirement age (I would be impacted here, but it needs to be done, and we have some time to plan for it), and adjusting the SS benefit increase formula so over time it is a supplement, not someone's whole income for 30 years.

[Anonymous]

The President is already putting SS and Medicare on the table.

[Anonymous]

I really am having a hard time understanding what would happen if it goes a day or two past the deadline. What was the situation when Newt and Clinton shut the govt down in the 90s? was that over a budget or over a debt limit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really am having a hard time understanding what would happen if it goes a day or two past the deadline. What was the situation when Newt and Clinton shut the govt down in the 90s? was that over a budget or over a debt limit?

that was over the budget. No one has ever played chicken with the debt limit before (at least in the last 30 years).

Of course Congress is spending all this time on the debt limit, which needs to be raised to accomodate the budget they passed a few months ago to cover us until the end of Sept., and yet isn't doing anything about passing a new budget for the year beginning Oct. 1. If they really wanted to do something about lower spending you'd think they would do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Boehner is kind of scrawed. His right flank/Tea Party hosed him after the FY2011 budget deal for not humiliating the Democrats then. If he doesn't give them a big chunk of red meat this time, I think he loses his speakership. IMHO, I also think he's the kind of decent guy who will do it for the good of the country (may be naive here). But, I'm not sure any of us would like what comes next if he gets pushed out either.

Sadly, it seems there's just some blind rage going on out there in the country and people have stopped caring if they cut off their nose to spite their face. It's all about who wins, total victory. When I started in this business 20 years ago we used to look for partnerships across the aisle all the time, especially within our region. The ideal was to be able to say something was bipartisan and the product of a regional delegation. Now, it seems there are fewer and fewer "everybody wins" scenarios and bipartisan is a dirty word. Anything one side gets means the other side lost and every loss must be met with vengeance and retribution. We've turned into the Hatfields and the McCoys and even when the very future of the country is at stake, we cling to this ridiculous us-them frame. Not being an historian, I can't say if the U.S. has ever gone through periods like this before or if it's "normal" politics and the cooperation I saw as a young person was the oddity, but it is a frightening development from my perspective.

We're not even the Hatfields and the McCoys in a policy sense. 80% of Americans believe that the debt situation should be solved by a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. 76% of Republicans say the same thing. It is only the elected officials who see their futures flashing before their eyes over this. They are the dangerous ones.

What poll are you quoting from? Who did it and when? The idea that the GOP leadership would go against 76% of the party seems doubtful. The problem here is that the moderates in both parties have been losing elections for the last couple of years. Things are very polarized. Dems do not want entitlement reform despite the daunting demographics of the baby boom. GOP does not want to move the fiscal belt out another notch.

Primary voters are usually the most unreasonable members of a party. Quadruply so for convention attendees.

When most of Congress is more at fear of getting teabagged or lattecupped than in actually losing in November, they are essentially beholden to the most extreme 20% of their party -- such as the GOP voters who think they can cut taxes, cut civil government, leave defense spending as it is, and keep government out of Medicare and Social Security.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here - are you doing anything besides worrying? ... Is anyone else doing anything or is everyone basically hoping?

I have been worrying about what to do. I work for a government contractor and my emergency money is in an IRA in US Treasuries, which I switched to during the 2008 crash because they're supposed to be the safest. But what I'm wondering now is - maybe government contractors won't get paid and I won't be able to get to my emergency fund for the same reason. But is it any safer if I move it to money market?

Uh seriously? Why would your emergency money (by definition money you want to get your hands on fast) be in an IRA in the first place? Forget what you are invested in, you know you pay taxes and penalty to take it out of an IRA right?

Because it's an inherited IRA (mom and dad put the money in) and I pay taxes on the withdrawal but not a penalty. I know it would be better to be able to get my hands on it faster but, as I'm sure you agree, there's no point in withdrawing it and paying taxes on it now unless I have an emergency.

[Anonymous]

What happened last time was we weren't teetering on the edge of financial ruin. This is classic house of cards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
What poll are you quoting from? Who did it and when? The idea that the GOP leadership would go against 76% of the party seems doubtful. The problem here is that the moderates in both parties have been losing elections for the last couple of years. Things are very polarized. Dems do not want entitlement reform despite the daunting demographics of the baby boom. GOP does not want to move the fiscal belt out another notch.

Moderates from both parties have been losing elections? I respectfully disagree. While I think the Republicans ignore/marginalize their moderates, I think the Democrats ignore their left wing base and try to stay just left of the Republicans.

I am tired of this line of reasoning about why can't both parties compromise. Democrats give up ground all day long. Eventually we get a scary right wing plan that would turn us into a Banana Republic. Then at the last minute, the silent Dems stand up and pretend to fight until we get a slightly less scary version of the plan as a compromise. The Dems then tell their liberal base that things could be worse without them and the Repubs tell their right wing base to give more money so they can claw back some more reasonable policies and programs in the next round. Watch this happen with the debt ceiling. This cycle has been going on since Reagan. Someday, when we have 20-30% unemployment, no health care for anyone making less than $250K or over 50 yrs in age; and all our hard-earned social security IOUs going to payoff more wars (think Libya, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan for the next 10 yrs), then maybe we will start to swing back to the left as these unemployed wingnuts realize they were taken for a ride as they talk to the socialists in the soup line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What happened last time was we weren't teetering on the edge of financial ruin. This is classic house of cards.

There was no last time - we have never ever ever played chicken with the debt limit. budget yes - debt limit - never.

[Anonymous]

19:50, left unsaid in your analysis is how, exactly, we will pay for the social welfare state you want. Is it working out in Europe?