Once the worries of default pass

[ugonow]

will they be replaced with worries of how much will the spending cuts hurt the fragile economy?

[privateinvestor]

Jul 31, 2011 8:53:37 GMT -5 ugonow said:

will they be replaced with worries of how much will the spending cuts hurt the fragile economy?

Or will the Treasury Bonds and Notes still be AAA rated?? Will we have higher interest rates??? Will the markets do down the toilet again??

[ugonow]

We are never happy,are we

[ameiko]

Jul 31, 2011 8:53:37 GMT -5 ugonow said:

will they be replaced with worries of how much will the spending cuts hurt the fragile economy?

Whatever damage spending cuts may inflict will be more than made up by the relief that corporations will undertake if the federal government shows that it can be fiscally responsible and sound.

The economy trucked along pretty well for centuries without big government and will continue to do so once we get our house in order and shrink government. Sure, there will be pain but it will only worsen with delays.

[mtntigger]

The unemployment numbers are going to come out on Friday.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...define "worry" and "default" because I'm not sure what you mean...

[Deleted]

will they be replaced with worries of how much will the spending cuts hurt the fragile economy?

Not by me.

[ugonow]

Whatever damage spending cuts may inflict will be more than made up by the relief that corporations will undertake

Now if only Obama would extend those Bush tax cuts,,there will be a boom like never before seen.......

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

We were never in danger of defaulting on debt payments.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 31, 2011 8:53:37 GMT -5 ugonow said:

will they be replaced with worries of how much will the spending cuts hurt the fragile economy?

for anyone who understands that relationship, yes.

but given that this has barely even been mentioned in the debate, people probably won't worry until they lose their jobs.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 1, 2011 9:34:46 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

We were never in danger of defaulting on debt payments.

then how come the Republicans kept saying that we were?

[Deleted]

I view this deal as prolonging the pain. Another committee, more suggestions, and more debate before a vote at the end of the year. No concrete steps towards dealing with structural problems. Not to mention the damage our reputation as a financial safe haven took.

[Deleted]

Now if only Obama would extend those Bush tax cuts,,there will be a boom like never before seen.......

Naw ugonow, the tax cuts don't really amount to much money. Actually they are nothing at all compared to what congress spends in a week.

They're only real importance is if your running for office & want to hurt what you consider is the main support for the other party.
I would put them in the class of social programs, except social programs (of course) cost the country a LOT more.
(Sorry ugonow, such an open ended question & then a followup statement....Well I just couldn't resist).

[ugonow]

Lol, no need to be sorry,The inference of business waiting to hire until the government does this or that just sounded like what many said of the tax cuts extension.

[floridayankee]

Aug 1, 2011 10:39:43 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

then how come the Republicans kept saying that we were?

Because they are politicians and don't want to ruin their chances of holding the blank check should Obama lose the election in 2012.

(D), (R), makes no difference. They're all assholes.

[privateinvestor]

A sugar-coated Satan sandwich, with a side of peas, please

[ugonow]

Well, that didn't take long,just as I suspected. We're all gonna die----- "The Economic Policy Institute, a top nonpartisan think tank, estimates that the deal struck this weekend to raise the nation’s debt limit will end up costing the economy 1.8 million jobs by 2012. Today the Senate is expected to approve the package passed yesterday by the House and send it to President Obama. But while the unemployment rate remains above 9 percent, the deal does nothing to address chronic joblessness.

The agreement would reduce spending by at least $1 trillion over 10 years, but even the near-term cuts could shrink already sluggish GDP growth by 0.3% in 2012. According to EPI, the plan “not only erodes funding for public investments and safety-net spending, but also misses an important opportunity to address the lack of jobs.” In particular, the immediate spending cuts and the “failure to continue two key supports to the economy (the payroll tax holiday and emergency unemployment benefits for the long term unemployed) could lead to roughly 1.8 million fewer jobs in 2012.”



Top economists and CEO’s have also weighed in against the deal and said that GOP concessions to the Tea Party will cost our economy dearly. Pimco CEO Mohamed El-Erian warned that the deal will lead to less growth, more unemployment, and more inequality. Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman called the plan “a disaster” and “an abject surrender” that will “depress the economy even further.”

The Center for American Progress’s Michael Ettlinger and Michael Linden argue that while the deal “goes straight in the wrong direction,” Congress can redeem itself by using the so-called “super committee” mandated by the bill to focus on job creation. The committee, made up of six Republicans and six Democrats, is tasked with finding an additional $1.5 trillion of deficit reduction over the next 10 years, and must report a plan by Thanksgiving.

Linden and Ettlinger write, “It’s especially important for the committee to produce a plan that creates jobs and spurs growth because the committee’s proposals will come on top of a set of already-dramatic spending cuts that will have adverse economic consequences.”

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Well the prez signed the bill and all the equities markets are down nearly 2%.

Wonder how this will affect pension plans and retirement accounts.

[safeharbor37]

Most of the tea party voted against the bill. The bill was a "compromise" between Democrats and Republicans. There aren't enough "tea party" in Congress to pass or prevent the passage of anything. Of course those who want someone to blame will choose the tea party since the tea party made it uncomfortable for the usual suspects to continue business as usual. It's the same old government except they've found a new scapegoat. Of course the far left in the Democratic party balked also, but will they get any blame? ~ Of course not.

[Virgil Showlion]

Wonder how this will affect pension plans and retirement accounts.

If you're talking about public ones, they're still 50 trillion in the red. Same as last year.

[skweet]

Aug 2, 2011 16:36:11 GMT -5 safeharbor37 said:

Most of the tea party voted against the bill. The bill was a "compromise" between Democrats and Republicans. There aren't enough "tea party" in Congress to pass or prevent the passage of anything. Of course those who want someone to blame will choose the tea party since the tea party made it uncomfortable for the usual suspects to continue business as usual. It's the same old government except they've found a new scapegoat. Of course the far left in the Democratic party balked also, but will they get any blame? ~ Of course not.

When this bill finally is filtered and analyzed by the pundits and wags, we may realize that forcing Obama to chose who gets paid (creditors, workers, entitlements, etc) may have been the healthiest choice for the country. I am not a Tea Partier, but have infinite respect for those that voted against this political balloon of a sham. The down side of this, is that Obama said that he would chose to default on debt, instead of making tough choices of cutting spending, if the debt ceiling was not raised. I don't know when the US will get it's credibility back, after such a ridiculous statement. Even if the deal was wasn't passed, he couldn't truly be dumb enough to default could he? Don't answer that, I need a good night's sleep tonight.