This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Meet David Rosenberg: Tea Partier
That David Rosenberg - the skeptic - threw up all over the Q2 (and revised Q1) GDP in his note to clients yesterday is no surprise. Even Joe Lavorgna did it (which makes us quietly wonder if America is not poised to discover cold fusion, perpetual motion, nirvana, a truly edible iPad, and peace on earth). That David Rosenberg - the deflationist - makes light fare ("ceiling will be raised") of the ongoing debt debacle is also no surprise: after all should the US default, the long bond strategy the Gluskin Sheff strategist has long been espousing will go up in a puff of smoke. What, however, is surprising, is the fact that as of yesterday's Breakfast with Rosie we get to put a political face to the financial man, and it very well may be... David Rosenberg - Tea Partier.
While it is a rare event for a reputable financial commentator to interject political observations into a client note, that is precisely what Rosie did last night, by essentially espousing the (correct) Tea Party advocacy of a balanced budget. To wit: "You know what — I am sick and tired of all the so-called mainstream pundits out there lambasting the Tea Party. Those who know me, and know me well, know that I am not some right-wing nutbar but come on. Why is everyone so scared about committing to a balanced budget amendment? Why is there so much fear about admitting that living within your means is not a terrible thing? Government spending, in the United States, is simply out of control." Hear, hear. We hope more bond commentators step up and say the same thing (except for Jim Caron of course: we expect him to say the opposite, just as we keep expecting him to admit after 3 years of wrong calls that he may have been in fact a little off in his expectations of an economic recovery and the whole bull steepener thing). What we are confused by is that according to some of the more virulent(ly amusing) neo-Keynesian theories, the more debt issued by the monetary reserve authority, the lower the prevailing interest (in a nutshell) due to more demand, or some such perversion of supply and demand. By advocating a balanced budget approach Rosie is basically saying cut the debt issuance. Could it be that, gasp, lim ? infinity debt does not equal lim ? zero interest rates? And could Rosenberg be saying that, gasp, infinite debt supply does not mean infinite +1 demand? We sure hope to find out.
In the meantime, here is the relevant section from Rosenberg on the topic of the Tea Party and the Balanced Budget:
You know what — I am sick and tired of all the so-called mainstream pundits out there lambasting the Tea Party. Those who know me, and know me well, know that I am not some right-wing nutbar but come on. Why is everyone so scared about committing to a balanced budget amendment? Why is there so much fear about admitting that living within your means is not a terrible thing? Government spending, in the United States, is simply out of control.
Over the past decade, federal expenditures rose at an average annual rate of 6% while the growth rate in the number of households has risen at a 0.8% annual rate. At around 25% of GDP, spending is higher now than at any other time since 1946. That is an outlier. Admittedly, revenues at 15% of GDP are abnormally low as well, and while a partial by-product of the recession and sluggish recovery, loopholes galore and endless tax gimmicks are also at play — in the 1991 economic downturn that ratio was around 18% and in the severe economic decline in the early 1980s, it was 19%. Revenues have to go up and there's a cool trillion sittin' right there in loopholes — oh, sorry, deductions and "tax expenditures", we don't want to offend anybody — that could be eliminated without sacrificing growth while reducing the ridiculous complexity of the tax code. A few less lawyers and IRS staff would be just fine by us.
But to think that the U.S. government cannot manage to deliver effective and essential services with a $2.5 trillion revenue base is absurd. If that is what spending has to ultimately equal, so be it. Isn't 21 grand per household of government benefits enough? Before 2005, such a level of government expenditure per household was unheard of (in Bill Clinton's final days as President, that ratio was barely above $16,000). At the height of LBJ's "Great Society" glory, government spending per household didn't even approach $3000.
So indeed, the problem is more with this massive spending infrastructure. Even the word "entitlement" is so grotesque. Entitled to what? Taxpayer funds? Come on, man! Tighten the belt and make the move towards fiscal integrity. After all, the shift towards austerity is already occurring at the state and local government levels. Households have been paring debt and raising their savings rates for two years. And Congress and the President should actually start behaving more like children (that's right) because the Denver Post just ran a story titled Tooth Fairy Gets Frugal in Shaky Economy. Indeed, the "going rate" for that loose tooth that made it under the pillow has declined from $3 on average a year ago to $2.60 today. And guess what? The kids are all right.
Time for the guys in Washington to follow on the heels of that generation. All it takes is for the President to sign on to a balanced budget amendment, and this whole fiasco is over.
Then again, and we hope we're not too harsh, but if Mr. Obama thought they actually did have a spending mismatch, he would have offered up some restraint on that score when he unveiled his budget six months ago.
Source: Gluskin Sheff
»
- 10891 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
China has already labeled the "debt ceiling debate" for what it is: a fraud.
Fasten your seatbelts.
Is Rosenberg talking up his deflation book?
http://www.planbeconomics.com/2011/07/28/a-deflationists-nightmare/
No, he's simply being logical. No entity can have expenses that are 50% higher than revenues into perpetuity.
We've had three consecutive years of $1.5 trillion deficits.
MarkMotive - the link to your article lays out a simplistic 'Black or White?' argument that inflationists are right and deflationists are wrong. I'm not trying to argue for a gray in-between as i dislike smudge and sitting on the fence. The fact is we have a complex and confusing mix of both black and white, both inflation and deflation is on the rampage something economists and academics have never discribed before
Inflation: your US Dollar buys 50% less petrol, 60% less Gold, 30% less carrots and beans, 40% less red meat, 50% less stocks in the Dow, Nasdaq and S&P since the March 2009 bottom etc etc
Deflation: GDP is contracting, credit is contracting (despite Bernanks tripling of the Fed balance sheet), Govt tax revenues are contracting, your US Dollar buys 30% more real estate than 2006 etc etc
So there you have it, all the tell-tale signs of BOTH inflation AND deflation at work in the economy. Why is it so hard to deal with facts (the economic reality) rather than stupid Black or White arguments trying to fit our economy into 2 slots, err it's gotta be inflation or deflation?
Regards the articles other simplistic proposition that in a deflationary enviroment Govt Bonds, like cash, should be increasing in value that's unless of course Govt revenues are declining and debt levels increasing that they aren't worth jack shit!
Welcome to the complex real world of in-de-stag-flation, not described in any simplistic Handbook for Academic Economic Dummies 101 (is there aything real or useful in all the ivory tower discriptions of waffling academia? I've yet to find to find it)
You missed the point.
The article highlights one of the grey areas that many deflationists are unaware of.
Anyone who talks about living within means in a system of DEBT money exposes themselves as a fool.
there is NO ROOM for living within means in this monetary system. If credit does not grow, the system will implode. It is a matter of basic mathematics, ok?
China has no debt ceiling...all their bad debts are buried behind the opacity of local and regional governments and the PBoC. Who gives a fuck what a nation with empty cities and ponzi fraud says?
I think it's important to note that there are two different Tea Parties:
There's the one that's primarily Libertarian, and believes in small government, responsible financing, civil liberties and an end to the government "dole".
And there's the newer, corrupted version, which gets money from the Koch brothers and has tried to abandon it's early "anti bank" stance while shrieking loudly about "God, Gays and Guns"
Rosenberg as a member of the former, is completely believable. And if the Tea Party as a whole can ignore the uneducated idiocy of the latter -- I think many here at ZH would probably align themselves as well...
Put another way I think it would be safe to say that in the House of representatives there are only 22 members who could truly be called members of the Tea Party as in those who voted against Boener's bill
and here's the list of the 22 no votes
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/173745-whip-list-on-boehners-new-plan-...
Yes, those evil blue collar people clinging to their religion and guns. Let's just do away with the 1st and 2nd amendments to spite them. We all know that the flyover states like Tennessee and Oklahoma caused this economic mess
First, they are the ones attempting to pervert the establishment clause...so you can take their assault on the 1st up with them.
Second, maybe they've earned a humble after having elected the shitbag neocons that all but did away with the 4th and 5th.
I'm glad 0bozo reversed all of Bush's policies with his hope and change. Oh no, he killed off the 4th and 5th amendments, but you have no problem with that since the shitbag liberals voted for him
But the former already had a label before the Tea Party ever existed. Ron Paul supporters. And he has my vote.
+10
My experience with the 'tea-party' is that a lot of the people are middle-class, generally pro-business; and they know what is at stake here. There are fiscal conservatives and fiscal + social conservatives; libertarians and working-class folks.
They are genuinely concerned about the country's fiscal problems because they know what will happen if they are not resolved in a timely manner.
Frankly, as long as we agree on the fiscal policies/issues, we're good. I don't have to agree with the social conservatism. In fact, the latter won't matter if the socialist/marxist push toward collapse occurs via uncontrolled spending... (something I wish some of the social conservatives would understand better).
GWBush was a fiscal disaster. Obama is a fiscal disaster. The latter has much to account for on his watch: starting the largest or 2nd-largest Socialist push (Obamacare) in the country's history; exploding federal hiring; over-regulating; ignoring the law and the courts. (Could say much the same of Bush).
Hell, Lincoln turned on the printing press as did our revolutionary forefathers in time of war; as did Roosevelt via gold confiscation; as did Johnson when he decided to raid SS for funds to pay for Vietnam and his New Society. Roosevelt had actuarial information and he knew full well SS would blow up.
Wars and social programs will be the end of this country. We need to dial them back.
The Federal Reserve is an arch-contributor/player in the overspending binge - and they must be targeted as much as the political class. If we don't clear that nest of vipers and their associates in Treasury. We are kidding ourselves if we think we can get back to sound money until we reform both institutions.
speaking of Federal hiring...the employee rolls at FNM and FRE are roughly half blacks. In a nation where blacks are 12% of the population, I can tick down the federal agencies who have hired vastly disproportionate amounts of one type of people.
Does this sound like real "diversity" to you? Does it look like America? The hiring push was not for everybody and diversity isn't really diversity.
Rosie will find out there will never be deflation in the USSA...
USSA? Didn't you mean USE? United States of Enron? Their fudge figures showed that they were doing great also, until it all collapsed.
USE? Don't you mean USM? United States of Madoff. A couple percentage points decrease in annual revenue and a corporation the size of the United States can't pay its bills.
USFM = United States of Fannie Mae
USFM = United States of Freddie Mac
USBS = United States of Bear Stearns
USLB = United States of Lehman Bros
The list goes on and all roads lead to Wall Street and DC
Well... we'll have inflation until gas closes in on $5/gal again ... at which point we implode
And it's not just inflation which is going to take gas to $5/gal. Or $6/gal.
Deflation is the ultimate result. Maybe Rosenberg holds too much faith in Capital Markets to control the value of fiat but ultimately everyone ends up with zero purchasing power and ultimately thereafter is a deflationary collapse.
Stocks and cookie cutter houses will not do well however we get there. The only assets that will hold purchasing power will be precious metals and direct control over industry providing food and energy , ie , you own the company or the land and directly recieve cash flow from labour .I wouldnt bank on being safe as a minority stock holder in anything - plenty of black swans to come and rape paper investors.
People are afraid of a balanced budget because it means they will lose their goodies. How many government employees will be fired if we have a balanced budget? How much will Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security be cut if we have a balanced budget? How much will foodstamps/School lunches/Section 8 housing be cut if we have a balanced budget?
Now add up all of those people and tell me what % they are of the total voter pool. That is why nothing is getting reformed.
Precisely. Once a critical mass of the voting public have become dependent on the Federal Beast, elections are officially meaningless. Hmmm, almost as if by design. Serfdom Bitchez!
-->China and Iran benefit if the U.S defaults
-->A balanced budget will elevate the U.S. back to the military and moral superpower it once was.
China holds over $1 trillion of US debt. Over 30% of their exports ship to the US. How will they benefit?
yes..they REQUIRE more debt here to fund more bullshit growth there. More idle factories, more "high speed crash rail" and more empty cities.
Look at the homebuilders and what THEY did with easy credit...multiply that times ten and you have China
Except what all of those programs depend on a productive middle class to pay the bills. Current Fed/Government policies are systematically killing off the middle class. That is why, balanced budget or not, the U.S. welfare state will fail just like it did in the Soviet Union.
Indeed. The top 1% do well. The 9% after that get by. And the 90% below them live in the wars.
Sadly, as much as I would like the .gov to live by their means, most of us forget they are really living within our means. If a balanced budget amendment passes (it wont, the States will not ratify) the only recourse left to politicians would be a massive increase in Income tax, SS tax and Medicare tax to cover the cost of the transfer payments to their voter blocks.
Lets not forget that they have been plundering our production via direct taxation and indirect taxation (inflation) and that a balanced budget amendment would force them into direct taxation only since they could not issue bonds to create new money.
No my friends, the beast will not stop the plunder. Too profitable.
A massive increase in taxes will collapse the economy. How many middle class families are barely treading water now? Increase their taxes by $5000 and the mortgage or electric doesn't get paid. Increase taxes on business owners and you end up with more layoffs and more people on unemployment and welfare, further burdening the taxpayers. You can't get blood out of stone.
Just start by making sure GE, Apple and the oil majors pay their fair share of taxes eh?
"You can't get blood out of stone. "
Well they seem very good at getting IRS refunds out of Uncle Sam.
There are quite a few industries making record profits due to market distortion created by government. No reason to target the middle class at all ... just target anything big and making supra-normal profits, it's just like shooting ducks in a barrel at the moment.
1. Roll spending back to 1999 levels adjusted for inflation
2. Let the Bush tax cuts expire
3. End the wars and get rid of foreign aid and homeland security. We are borrowing money to give to others. That would be like you taking a loan out to donate to the needy. It makes no sense.
There's your balanced budget.
There are a few other things that can be done like getting rid of trusts. The blueblood families escape paying taxes on investments because they keep putting their investments into trusts and passing it down the familiy line. When a person dies, taxes must be paid on any investment gains within 5 years. Small businesses and partnerships would be exempt.
Tax investment income at marginal levels like we do to ordinary income. John and Jane Doe investor who make $10,000 on an investment via capital gains or dividends would face a 15% rate. Lloyd Whittaker who makes $10,000,000 on an investment would face a 38% rate.
I have a much better idea. Let's roll spending back to 1799 levels and dump the income tax. fica tax, medicare, medicaid, SSI, welfare and all other government sponsored charity and simply provide at the federal level the basic services that the Constitution allows the Feds to perform.
Then let's dump the Fed and require that Congress coin money and regulate the value thereof. That simple act would end so much of the abuse our government reigns on us.
The power to control the value of money is far to great to be left to unelected Fed totalitarians.
Free the people. Kill the Federal govt beast.
Great idea -I could probably live live 1829 levels -might have needed a little more federal money when the Brits sacked and burned the White House in 1811- Thank God Dolly madison saved all our national treasures. Clinton , Bush and Obama would have been scurying around looking for their coocaine, rather than GW's portrait. But the again maybe t would be good for a foreign army to sck Washington- you know to clean up things a bit. Maybe the Tea party can align with a few State militias to do the job -maybe the french will help us out again- Let's start talking to the Quebec-ians
Fine, remove the ability to own land as well ... then we can call it even.
Somehow the top 0.1% owning the majority of the land isn't going to just replace the state by feudal land lords which will still take all my money because ... magic?
In a time of opportunity and land to homestead your proposal make sense, in a time of stagnating growth opportunity (peak fucking everything) and vast concentration of land ownership ... not so much. Ultimately there is little difference to the state and a landlord for a serf.
And how much more unemployment we are going to see? Pushing other people under the bus, while remaining attached to a tit is what inbred ignoramuses do best!
please tell me i'm not the only one who saw the dem. rep. cohen, compare the big o to cleavon little in blazing saddles....that made this entire embarrassment priceless...wtf
Blazing Saddles was a hoot!
Gosh, just what I posted yesterday,what get's PREACHED here daily, FISCAL SANITY,is not(contrary to Dems view) Tea Party Crazy Rednecks.
When men prefer unsound fiscal,mores, and values, that used to mean you were immoral, and a crook.
Somehow Evil has become the New good.
Article on the Politburo(Politico) by Martin Frost(Agent Provacatuer par excellance), and big spending Dem his entire politcal career, calling the Tea Party, Taliban.
If memory serves, a Tailban," Founding Father" said "Government is a neccessary Evil'.
Living within your means is considered extremist, terroristic, and racist.
It's an Orwellian world.
Well the moonbats in this "Theater of the absurd" are now filibustering their own bill...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/jul/30/democrat...
Tyler, Did you see that nonsense penned by that idiot Joey LaVorgna... “Growth recession” is a term that means the economy actually is growing but not at a fast enough pace to head off rising unemployment, which is at 9.2 percent and trending higher. “The disappointing Q2 GDP results and downward revisions to the prior three quarters lead us to believe that this (growth recession) indeed is the case,” LaVorgna wrote in an analysis.
Seriously, how much does this guy get paid?
No real surprise here. Many financial fucknuts who have benefitted from the corrupt system know that paper-pushing does not add real value to the economy. Energy and REAL VALUE are quickly becoming all that matters, why else would we see the rapid appreciation of gold, silver, copper, or anything physical that can be traded or that is of real value to your survival? The writing is on the wall and I would be very nervous too if I could not create anything of real value and the system that made me rich was collapsing around me.
Rosy proves himself the typical Tea Partier in being ignorant of the Constitution.The President does not sign an amendment to the Constitution. First, 2/3 of Congress agree and then 3/4 of the States approve. There is no veto.
Having said that, the balanced budget amendment (as written) is a horrible piece of legislation that would delegate the power of the purse to unelected judges or the President. It's already occurring in the States where they have a balanced budget requirement in their constitutions. Someone sues and a judge orders to raise taxes to pay for promises that were not funded.
The bottom line is that Congress can not delegate its power of purse, but the judges and the President will be more than happy to take that power if given a chance.
Holy Poop! Someone who mentioned the Constitution and actually knows what they're talking about...the end truly is nigh. ;)
You have obviously adopted the MSNBC created vision of a Tea Party member.
Too bad.
each time I read abnormal revenues/gdp ratio I scream..
is mr roserberg so fat so his brains dont work anymore?
#
Admittedly, revenues at 15% of GDP are abnormally low as well, and while a partial by-product of the recession and sluggish recovery, loopholes galore and endless tax gimmicks are also at play
##
listen idiot, heres GDP formula
GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports ? imports),
it does include debt aka federal budget deficit.. US goverment runs 1.7/8 trln deficit .. real GDP (excl debt) is around 10-11 trln... revenues are around 2.2 trln , so ratio is around 20%... its been for last 50 years..
no wonder Merrill Lynch got cooked.. his economist yet dont have a clue..
what a sucker
alx
Sorry to question your math but what part of the numbers were confusing?
2011 $3.82T est. spending (25% of GDP vs. about 20% average)*
2011 $2.17T est. revenue (14% of GDP vs. about 18% average*)
2011 $1.65T est. deficit (11% of GDP vs less than 5% average)
2011 $15.1 est. GDP
*since 1950, estimated by "eyeball" from charts at "usgovernmentspending.com"
1. The deficit (as a percentage of GDP) is extremely high and only seen before during WWI and WWII.
2. It is easier to overspend when you have a small debt (<10% of GDP in 1917, <45% of GDP in 1940) compared to our current debt of about 100% of GDP.
The Obama administration wants to keep deficits about at this level indefinitely. It can't be done.
A balanced budget is not good enough. The budget needs to be in surplus indefinitely to get the debt back under control. We are all Greece now. The US's problem is who is our Germany? If we don't balance our budget, reality will balance it for us (the hard way).
you're not being sharp , pal..
did you catch 'reveneu/debt' phrase ? did you understand why?
here's the deal..
in last decade gov revenues have been basically flat.. around 2-2.2 trln.. bit more in 2004-2007, less in ressesions..
but gdp grew artificially , cause gdp is being computed to include debt.
so rosie make argument that 'BECAUSE OF GOV TRICKS REVENUES ARE artificially low compared to economy' so its easy to fix deficit thing, just raise taxes..
by the way, mr rosenberg dont metion real revenues in blns, but use gdp ratio to make argument..
so point OF MR ROSENBERG IS ... revens/gdp is low , and
gdp is high .. there's nothing to worry about deficit, just raise taxes.. SO DONT WORRY ABOUT BOND MARKETS/BOND FUNDS MR ROSENBERG RUN..
my point that gpd is artificially high (cause how its constructed), and revenues are pretty much fair, so deficit is structual .. nothing can be done on taxes side.
you have to understand subtleness of his arguments.. he still talks his book..
good luck
alx
US revenues > $240 bln /month. When they stop cutting checks/handouts/promises (not a default), coupon payments will be easy.
Perhaps you can explain to the rest of us what the difference is between: 1) not paying promised interest to the investor who lends you money; and 2) not paying promised retirement benefits to citizens who lent you money (which is exactly what the SS payroll taxes are --- a loan evidenced by non-marketable treasury securities)? You say that defaulting on the latter is not a default, and that defaulting on the latter wlll make it very easy to avoid defaulting on the former.
To cut operating expenses is not a default on a bond. Creditors get first dibs. What's is left goes to the rest.
By the way, the promised oceanfront property in Arizona isn't real.
Section 1104 of the Social Security Act of 1935 stipulates that: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress."
In Flemming v. Nestor (1960) the Supreme Court "established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right." In delivering the Court's opinion, Justice Harlan wrote:
to engraft upon the social security system a concept of "accrued property rights" would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands. [...] we must conclude that a person covered by the act has not such a right in benefit payments...
So a bond holder has a contractual property right in the interest and principle repayments. An SSI beneficiary has a worthless hope of receiving anything in return. That's cut and dry.
Usual US story, big banks and fat investors get the life boats first, men women and children can drown.
Move on, nothing to see here.
Why would the US default? Tax revenues are $2.3 trillion. Interest on the debt is $170 billion. There is more than enough money to service the debt. Perhaps this will force us to end the wars, foreign aid, and stupid government programs. All federal government salaries should be cut back to $120K/yr maximum below the director level. Whoever doesn't like it can go work somewhere else. There can be a few exceptions like VA doctors, but each case would have to be reviewed and approved by Congress on an individual basis. That will keep the numbers low enough.
We may look askance at the brute ignorace of the Obama Adiministration and the Democrats on debt and its consequences but we have this consolation - reality will tell in the end and when it hits the effect will be devasting, on them, their Party and their ideology.
They are losers, not by small degree but in spades.
The Event Horizon has already been crossed. The Decepticrats, Obamatron & the Republicons are in DeNile, fighting against the gravitational pull of a massive singularity.
It's only a matter of time; meanwhile, we have gridlock, just as I predicted BEFORE the 2010 elections:
...(which makes us quietly wonder if America is not poised to discover cold fusion, perpetual motion, nirvana, a truly edible iPad, and peace on earth)...
Don't know about the other items, but Andrea Rossi, Francesco Piantelli, Robert E. Godes, and maybe others are nearly ready to offer commercial cold fusion reactors for home and industrial use. Rossi seems furthest along and claims to be on schedule to deliver a 1MW plant this October.
Catch my handle for a clue to what I do for a living other than trade. All of us who know diddly are quite skeptical. Their patent was denied for being too vague. Their papers are too vague to dupe their work, and only published by themselves. They finally got another scientist to publish a paper on how it might work that's utterly outlandish and no way can be right. And if it was, the entire theory of Bose-Einstein condensates is wrong, except....it isn't wrong. Here's a place you can read the BS paper (which also mostly references only its own author for anything of substance). They are almost certainly a fraud or deluded -- we can hope, but till that first plant is actually delivered and shown to work by other than them (they won't let anyone audit their runs for some strange reason)....I'd short that one.
Link to where you can get the paper.
http://www.coultersmithing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=410
Link to see a real fusor run (in my lab).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyZ2clZTKYk
There are a couple other ZH'ers on my forum, for the trading section here:
http://www.coultersmithing.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=51
Where I tell the truth and shame the devil myself.
The lab's a fake, no aluminum foil anywhere...
and if that doesn't work, Tesla coils plugged into themselves certainly will!
/big time sarc
Senator Barack Obama explaining his 2006 vote against raising debt limit
"It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Gee, I can't think of anything important to current context that occurred between 2006 and now...
Bammer got elected?!
Everybody in the west has gotten used to raise their own debt ceiling to the max.
It's... normal...
everybody does it...
that's why everybody finds it as normal as getting another credit card to solve all the others which are maxed out.
If you're going to set the rules and play the game, at least play to win.
folding, will simply empower the other players, namely China and Iran. The ideological/moralistic payoff will be fleeting.
at least play to win...
GOOD ONE!
LET'S CHANGE THE "DEBT CEILING" into "THE DEBT TARGET"!
Obama's next political campaign speech:
COME ON GUYS WE CAN DO THIS! LET'S ALL SPEND IT AND MEET OUR TARGET SO WE CAN RAISE IT AGAIN FAST!
SD-You're on to something here.
If Our Dear President proclaims that we have a spending target, why, if experience is any guide, things will go the other way! I'm reminded that "If we pass this, unemployment will not exceed 8%".
I like it.
- Ned
This is insane. All spending bills start in the House. If the Tea Party wants to stop spending, all they have to do is stop spending bills from originating in their House. No need for fancy mechanisms to stop spending in the future, no need for Constitutional Amendments. Just say no to more spending. In the meantime, though, raise the debt ceiling so that the nation doesn't default on the spending that the House already approved.
But of course, these are basic observations. Read below to understand what is going on.
Insane is the right word. It is not scaring, it is insane.
Hey David Rosenberg.. Let's stop the bullshit. Parties are a division of separation.
Most of us are protecting the US Constitution. We all know who is in power to make Change & Hope. It will not happen! When the marxist plan fails, everyone will evacute your camp. Who will look after you?
Will you have a R. Budd Dwyer moment in your life?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Budd_Dwyer
http://12160.info/video/budd-dwyer-suicide
Holy cow...what a video!
There won't be a Balanced Budget Amendment because the balance would have to come from the little people not bankers or oil companies or military conquest or the miriad large vested interests and once the little people realised this they would rebel en masse.
Here's the mood I'm in - fukk david rosenberg.
Yeah, it's a good idea to find a partner before you take the viagra.
Scared?No. But some people can see the stupidity of it.
Designing and passing a budget is part of the work by the elected. It is fully part of their mission and their prerogative and one can not argue on limitation of their power in this regard. It is their prerogative.
Now people calling for a balanced budget amendment simply avow that the government personal are unfit for the job.
So we have people who depict themselves as responsible, put forward their responsibility to be elected in positions that require responsibility (all this in their words) and when they are elected, demand to be put under guardianship because they can not self govern.
This is an extremely revealing point but yet not uncommon and it is classical in expansion scheme: expansionist can not limit themselves.
For example, in the famous manga " Hokuto No Ken", one character Raoh is your typical US citizen, manipulates rhetorics in a similar way to US citizens and is an expansionist.
In one scene, he reveals to his brother Kenshiro he is unable to limit himself and therefore asks his brother to limit him.
Raoh to Kenshiro" if I go this way, you'll have to stop me because I could not stop myself"
This is exactly what is going on and why it is stupid. US citizens can not limit themselves. Is there a Kenshiro able to limit them? No.
So they are left alone, face to face with themselves.
And they want a promise written on a paper to do the job for them. They want to be limited by a piece of paper.
Of course, as the US citizen nature is eternal, it wont work. Promises made on the paper have never stopped US citizens.
This is why it is stupid and funny. Who prevents US elected personal to vote a balanced budget but themselves? These guys are elected to govern but they are not even able to govern themselves.
How can this stuff work?
It is profondly stupid.
But such is the US world order.
After the balanced budget amendment is passed, their work will be to pass a budget that has no deficit.
Is that supposed to be a joke? Why do you think we have a $14 trillion deficit? BECAUSE THEY'RE UNFIT FOR THE JOB!
Why do you think we have the US Constitution? It is to constrain the government and keep them from destroying the republic, as they're doing now.
Once again, this is why we have a constitution. Who prevents the elected personal from passing a law to give us freedom of speech? Why should we risk leaving it up to a 51% majority to give us freedom of speech when we can put it in the constitution and make it nearly impossible for them to overturn?
The real stupidity would be trusting congress to balance the budget after they've run up $14 trillion in debt.
Lovely US citizens. Even when announced, they can not resist their eternal nature.
One here to argue over limitation of power.
How can they expect a piece of paper to limit themselves? Extremelly cheap propaganda.
you are categorically correct.
Take a look at the Maastricht limits and see what all the EU sovereigns did to cheat on that paper. And here we are with nations in clear violation of the plain language limits of the treaty...and life goes on.
If we put a balanced budget amendment onto the Constitution, they would just lie, cheat, and steal their way around it. The debt is $14T? The ELECTORATE kept sending these same people back over and over again, didn't they?
Why is there even this debate about a balanced budget amendment going on right now? Easy, it's a good talking point for politicians. What they need to do is cut the crap, raise the ceiling, cut spending and fix the tax code. Quit fucking stalling with this balanced budget crap right now, pass a damn bill and then really get to work fixing this madness. Can you assholes in DC stop the partisan garbage? We get it, you need to speak to your base but let's face it your base are mindless fools. Do the right thing for once instead of spoon feeding your idiot followers a bunch of crap.
The right thing as in running $1.6 trillion deficits for the next 10 years?
If you can get away with it? Hell yes!
Peak oil is coming ... at that time everyone will default, so if everyone is lining up to give you stuff for free till then why would you want to say no? Gives you more resources to prepare.
The problem is you probably can't get away with it.
Exit Rosenberg who fails Econ 101.
The government cannot make a profit like a business, it cannot live within its means. A government profit means its counterparties -- private citizens and businesses -- must take a loss.
Why does Rosenberg think US private interests have done so well since the beginning of the World War Two?
When the government runs a surplus, the private sector runs a defiicit as was the case after 1996.
We have an energy problem not a finance or money-cost problem. Analysts who do not centralize energy and energy costs within their analytic frameworks fail their customers' interests.
The only trade that matters on Planet Earth now and in the forseeable future is the trade of crude oil for dollars ... period.
Nothing else matters!
Having said this, I appreciate the Tea Party. Bachmann and Cantor are updates of flag-burning Yippies Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin. Tea Partiers are shaking up the ossified establishment, somethiing that is long past due and necessary.
Also necessary is the defunding of the nature-raping USA waste-based economy which the Tea Party is accomplishing by its intransigence. The Tea Party will impose energy conservation on America and help save the environment ... whether Amrica likes it or not!
Bravo! for the Tea Party.
US Government was never set up to make a profit. We are now expected to pay for the Government losses that are unconstitutional.
This is not rocket science.
Best laugh today. Thanks.
I don't listen to anyone who talks about balanced budgets that doesn't tell us which programs they will cut and which taxes they will raise.
That's why a balanced budget amendment will force them to cut spending.
Roll spending back to 1999 levels adjusted for inflation. Repeal the Bush tax cuts. End the wars and foreign aid. Pass a balanced budget amendment. Problem solved.
Attacking the Truth Seekers. Now where have I heard that before? Oh yea, a few posts earlier in the Essentials of Tyrany post ;)
Aside from this coming from someone who has clearly benefitted from a corrupt system, can anyone provide facts in regard to how much of the "21 grand per household" is actually military, defense, or CIA spending?
This is a great diversionary tactic often used by paper-pushing financial fucknuts. The solution is simple, people should be payed based on the REAL VALUE that they bring to the erconomy. In the meantime, the financial fucknuts (like David Rosenberg) continue to extract real wealth from the system while bringing NO REAL VALUE to the table. If those in charge won't prosecute the fraud (at all levels) is it any wonder that silver, gold, copper, or ANYTHING physical of REAL VALUE continues to appreciate? Of course not, people who actually know how to make things of real value are fucking tired of being robbed. We are over it, crash the fucking system already, only then will compensation find its way back to people who are actually worth a shit.
Even worse than the inefficient spending by the government is the fact that the government continues to reward irresponsible behavior, most of which (in terms of dollars and real capital) is occuring at the major banks, brokerage houses, wall street, and the same country clubs assholes like David Rosenberg. The good news for all us vets is that these pricks will soon be paying through the nose for security. Keep talking smack Dave as if you really know what the average tea partier is experiencing, you are just another crack whore and we all know it.
"military, defense, or CIA spending"
honest question here: what do the above 3 categories have anything to do with making things of REAL VALUE?
Exactly my point, especially if the spending there is massive (as we all know it is). That is precisely the information I am looking for. There is value in security, but as an investor I always consider cost versus the return on the investment. I would say that there is value in preventing a real terror threat, it just seems like a lot fewer resources were used before, with considerably better results. FYI- things like GPS technology came out of military as well as numerous medical treaments and vaccines. Academic and private research is nice, but only in the military can you do it at the bleeding edge. Yeah, there is some value there.
yeah, bucky fuller said the same thing. and i just reread an article about the military funding studies of how to use jatropha oil as rocket fuel. (to me, jatropha is one of the 1/2 dozen plants that can "save the world").
you're right though, it all comes down to cost vs. return. cost being real costs, including those phantom, shadow costs everyone is afraid to discuss. and i wonder how many of those investments that could provide REAL VALUE have been buried in some warehouse in VA b/c it would upset the current power paradigm.
personally, i am willing to take responsibility for my own defense and security and let the chips fall where they may. there are no guarantees in this life, not even when you have a 'rich' Uncle. and i'm sick & tired of living under his Big Ass Thumb.
A theoretical question for you to ponder: what would the price of energy be in the US (where 5% of the world uses 25% of the energy) without hegemony?
Bullshit stats again. Of course the US will use more oil than the Congo or Mongolia . They live in mud huts and tents. Maybe you should try living in a mud hut in order to reduce your oil consumption. Why not compare the US to other first world nations?
i've been in some 'mud huts' that blow away any McMansion in aesthetic quality and architectural integrity.
don't look down now, your codpiece is shrinking.
21 grand?
Have to wait a while until I raise that many coin in gold.
It's easier to farm a game like WoW and sell it on Ebay for cash resources.
The purpose of a system is what it does!
To Steve from Virginia;
When the government runs a deficit the Privite Banking Cartel run a surplus.
Brgds;
At some point in the future the alarm clock is going to ring to wake up the US government and the idiot stooges it governs. That alarm clock will be when no one except the fed steps up to buy any more worthless Treasury paper. It may not go off this year or even next year but in this decade the US is going to face the consequences of their actions. And that will be the end of the last empire, the USSA - let the world give thanks when it happens.
Let's see how much Africa and the Middle East give thanks when they no longer get shipments of food and medicine.
maybe they will make the evolutionary leap to sustainable society? Like get to the wheel or a multistory building?
As things stand now, they let their kids die. They figure fuckit we ain't short on niglets, we'll just have another dozen.
The white man would have already made Africa on par with Australia, but we just can't have that, now can we? Better to have incessant civil wars and famine.
and, if the con-gross does not pass a ceiling increase, rosie (and all of us crazies) will get to see prez0 limited to spending what he takes in = balance, BiChez!
aka balanced budget amendment
if there is no "new & higher" debt ceiling, the goobermint cannot borrow any more money
so, without changing the constitution, or passing any new law whatsoever, at this point = no new deficit spending and = no further increase in indebtedness for the nation
nice, huh?
prez0 wants a "compromise" to borrow almost $2.5-3.0 tril, depending on how you "interpret" the "legislative overtures"
there is so much obscuration and presentation of false dichotomies and false choices as to boggle even a pretty little avatar like yours
L0L
Gee the banks have things exactly where they want them:
What's not to like for a central banker and non-central banker alike?
Hmm, maybe those non-central banks aren't seeing any new business for new debt, so that could suck for them. What can we do to help them, there must be some way to throw some biz their way? Hmm, how about squelching the spigot from the public sector to the private sector. That should get the private sector scrambling and generate some biz. [Edit: and if not, the non-central banks can always collect on the assets from the increased defaults. Heads they win, tails they win.]
If we just froze the budget in place, it would balance itself.
Maybe we could put up a tea party poster in the Deflationist's Lounge. Its kinda quiet in there lately and a good shouting match would liven things up a bit.
A CLUE FOR THE DEMENTED IGNORAMUS DAVID ROSENBERG, IN THE LANGUAGE THE IMBECILE M-I-G-H-T UNDERSTAND----->
"Why is everyone so scared about committing to a balanced budget amendment? Why is there so much fear about admitting that living within your means is not a terrible thing? "
HOG-TYING AMERICA DURING THE WORST ECONOMIC COLLAPSE IN RECENT MEMORY IS TREASON, LOUD AND CLEAR. NOTHING A PROLONGED TRIP TO GUANTANAMO WOULDN'T CURE, IF IT WERE UP TO ME...
The budget deficit is clearly a huge problem and unlikely to be addressed in the near future. The politicians in Washington are not really interested in solving the deficit problem. We can argue to death if they are bad, which party is to blame, etc. I am going to point out that finally they are elected and the most likely reason for not making changes is that the population doesn't want to change the status quo. Such change would clearly invlove more pain and unemployment NOW. Everybody thinks that is is better to postpone this to TOMORROW. The thought is also that the problem will go away by itself somehow (not likely but hope dies last). That is why I am of the opinion that the issues will not be addressed untill we see a real crisis and let's be fair, we haven't seen a real crisis yet.
Once the crisis hits, nobody knows what will happen. The outcome can be anything but some things are clear - the entitlements will be cut drastically and the dollar is likely to lose its status of a reserve currency. I happen to think that the US may choose to restructure its debt as well. Of course, a country can always print money to pay but plenty of countries prefer not to because a default maybe better than hyperinflation, especially when large chunks of the debt are held in foreign hands. This is usually done while some currency controls are put in place to cause less pain locally and more abroad.
The timing of any of that is uncertain but I can't imagine that we can continue this beyond 2015.
While I realize the propaganda of the budget debate, defict limit stuff. a trading site like ZH should note that as this debate has moved on tlt has made gains. so the market isn't "moving" due to this. it may be further ecnomic weakness, etc. but my treasury shorts got killed yesterday, and the 10 years is to year low yeild I belive. therefore, this appears to be a false debate. at least in europe as the financials get worse the bonds of those countries drop in value. the opposite is happening here.
My only take on this is the house passed their bill without the Tea Party. Yet the press is blaming them for this mess. This is mind boggling.
The states will never pass the amendment. I guess that is too placated some repubs.
I'd hate to be tea party now. The debt resolution has painted them as terrorists no better than Al Qaeda.
America is a fundamentally unbalanced society. The capitalist system is extraordinarily efficient at creating innovation and technical brilliance, but in any complex system their needs to be balance.
I just watched a show about the newest US Coast Guard vessel running drug interdiction. This is basically a billion dollar piece of kit, with a permanent on-board helo and three tactical fast boats with their own separate launch on the back of the ship. Never mind operating costs (mtce and crew). The sophistication on all elements of this thing (hardware, electronics, training) was ledgendary--could have been a floating, fighting space shuttle.
So, what was it doing to add value to the US state? It's stated purpose was (trying to) catch fast boats moving barrels of cocaine. It's the US Coast Guard, right, so you would expect them to be operating off the US coast. Nope. Trying to catch speedboats running between Colombia and Panama. Yes, Americans are paying for these services! It's all very cool, and yes it provides good mid-paying jobs, but it's sadly, pointless.
Back to balance. This boat is one example of many hundreds of similar security state programs. These are structural. Imagine how much nicer your home would be if you dismantled some of the unnecessary, over-the-top technically sophisticated (when it's military, that's code for EXPENSIVE) web that's been weaved around the world, and spend it in ways that sustain jobs and deal with social ills. It's about balance. You cannot drop the security ball, but you cannot drop the domestic social cohesion ball either.
Wholesale Stapler
Wholesale Calculator
Medicine Instrument
Wholesale Scissors
Wholesale Wallet
Wholesale Vuvuzela
Audio Video Equipment
Wholesale Compressed Products
Wholesale Kitchenware
Reflective Safety Vest
Patient Care Products
Inflatable Products
Wholesale Clocks
Wholesale Memory Card
Wholesale Clocks
Photo Frame
Garden Decorations
Gift Box
Patient Care Products
Money Bank
Sport Support Products
Wholesale Clap Hands
Wholesale Radio
Wholesale Calculator
Coca Cola Gifts
Sport Items
Coin Bank
Heating Products
Wholesale Ruler
Lady Beauty Care
Wholesale Umbrella
Wholesale Towel
Wholesale Clothing
Water Bottle
Beauty Equipment
Voice Recorder
Wholesale iPod iPhone
Wholesale Earphone
Wholesale T-Shirts
Wholesale Wallet
Wholesale Keychain
Wholesale Pom Poms
Wholesale Binoculars
Business Gift
China Wholesale