Jump to content
G0ldfinger

--- SYSTEMIC MELTDOWN ALERT ---

Recommended Posts

Eh? so they are raising the debt limit by 2.1 trillion and have agreed to 1 trillion in cuts over 10 years....I don't see that having any affect on this chart which has gone up by 2 trillion last year and 2 trillion the year before....Its all a show to appear they have financial displine.

 

US_National_Debt_Chart_2010.gif

 

70% of the US government debt is the savings of Americans

 

80% of the UK government debt is the savings of Brits

 

The main problem therefore is how to manage the coming economic boom if people decide they want to

spend their savings but it is hard to see an economic boom coming in the next few months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever happened to the 'Puritans' who were supposed to stick to their guns and not allow printing to infinity?

 

 

I'd be willing to bet that when the voting records are made public the tea partiers will indeed have stuck to their guns. Boehner only needed all the traditional GOP votes in his favour, along with a slim democrat vote. Obama folded, some democrats went with him, and the GOP felt sufficiently smug to vote a 'victory' through, that's why this will probably pass. The tea party member votes were not required, what was required for those traditional GOP members with marginal seats was the appearance of meeting tea party ideals.

 

Considering their footprint in the house (roughly 60 core, with up to 100 affiliated out of 435 seats) and senate (4 core, roughly 15 affiliated out of 100 seats), the tea party candidates have made a hell of an impact. For a party founded on belligerence that is a vote winner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be willing to bet that when the voting records are made public the tea partiers will indeed have stuck to their guns. Boehner only needed all the traditional GOP votes in his favour, along with a slim democrat vote. Obama folded, some democrats went with him, and the GOP felt sufficiently smug to vote a 'victory' through, that's why this will probably pass. The tea party member votes were not required, what was required for those traditional GOP members with marginal seats was the appearance of meeting tea party ideals.

 

Considering their footprint in the house (roughly 60 core, with up to 100 affiliated out of 435 seats) and senate (4 core, roughly 15 affiliated out of 100 seats), the tea party candidates have made a hell of an impact. For a party founded on belligerence that is a vote winner.

 

Thanks for that clarification. When is the voting record made public?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are not republicans, they are tea partiers who were specifically elected on their government shrinking credentials - and that is exactly what they're doing. You may not like it, but this is actual democracy working for a change.

 

If Boehner had been dealing with the standard bunch of GOP exploiters this would have been over by now. The debt ceiling would have been raised and the US would have ticked along, until the next raise and the next one and the next one. The only reason there's a debate going on at all is because those tea party candidates are delivering on their election promises. Principles in politics eh, how dare they.

 

Oh and how do you know their support is limited? They won the election didn't they? Without representation of truly different views in government (some of which you may not like) no meaningful change will ever come about. Your posting history suggests you believe political struggle (or indeed any kind of struggle) is futile and I'd agree most of the time. Consensus often rules to the point of insanity.

 

The course of nations, political thought, in fact history itself, is often only changed by small groups of highly motivated people. For better or worse, times like these will bring those people to the forefront and I seriously doubt consensus will be the objective.

 

Heh, I'm all for decent people with proper motives trying to change things for the better. I just think people are portraying these activists as heroes fighting the big machine, when in fact they seem to be a mix of fundamentalists and opportunists.

 

For example, contrary to many reports, it is a relatively small number of Tea Party candidates and they are in the republican camp.

 

They were voted in to reduce size of state etc (in the process tipping the balance of congress to the republicans), but they are not the majority themselves. Far from it, they didn't win the elections, just added enough to the republicans.

 

If it were all about their principles, a deal would not have been done. But heh, look now, there is a deal.

 

Like many before them, the republicans (on the most part, maybe not including the fundamentalists, we will see in the voting record) were trying to gain political advantage, but they now appear to have lost some support in doing so in such an irresponsible way.

 

Did not recent US poles show that many that voted for the tea party indeed wanted to reduce government spending, but NOT at the expense of sending the US back into recession?

 

None of the US politians have come out of this looking good.

 

Political struggle is useless, most of the time, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think people should try, if they can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that clarification. When is the voting record made public?

 

 

I think it's when the bill has been passed by both houses or rejected by one or the other. The record can usually be found on zerohedge somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congress critters in the pay of lobby groups and other dark corrupt forces are not my idea of "the cream of the crop". But that's just me.

 

Hey schaublin, didn't you see the "should" ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, I'm all for decent people with proper motives trying to change things for the better. I just think people are portraying these activists as heroes fighting the big machine, when in fact they seem to be a mix of fundamentalists and opportunists.

 

For example, contrary to many reports, it is a relatively small number of Tea Party candidates and they are in the republican camp.

 

They were voted in to reduce size of state etc (in the process tipping the balance of congress to the republicans), but they are not the majority themselves. Far from it, they didn't win the elections, just added enough to the republicans.

 

If it were all about their principles, a deal would not have been done. But heh, look now, there is a deal.

 

Like many before them, they (on the most part, maybe not including the fundamentalists) were trying to gain political advantage, but they now appear to have lost some support in doing so in such an irresponsible way.

 

Recent US poles showed that many that voted for the tea party indeed wanted to reduce government spending, but NOT at the expense of sending the US back into recession.

 

None of the US politians have come out of this looking good.

 

Political struggle is useless, most of the time, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think people should try, if they can.

 

Think I've preemptively made a response in my post above, but I get the message, you don't like the tea party (nice unsubstantiated slurs btw). In truth neither do I, but they are a good example of how political consensus can be moved with popular support, despite that being supposedly impossible in the modern era.

 

On the point of winning elections please excuse the clunky phrasing, what I meant to say is they won their individual elections, not the national election. Those individual wins demonstrate popular support and legitimate authority as a minority group in both houses, and as I said above they've used that small footprint to make a very clear impact. That is surely how the democratic process is meant to work?

 

Political change is a glacial process, even at it's most dynamic. If you take the perspective that the tea party is no flash in the pan, then there's every chance that we're looking at an embryonic third party in US politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think I've preemptively made a response in my post above, but I get the message, you don't like the tea party (nice unsubstantiated slurs btw). In truth neither do I, but they are a good example of how political consensus can be moved with popular support, despite that being supposedly impossible in the modern era.

 

The thing is, I do like the small state ideals of the Tea Party. It's just I am always weary of those that are absolutists, who burst onto the scene saying they can make everything great if you ust follow them (hence the fundamentalist note). Nothing is black and white, and in politics, of all things the waters are muddied even more.

 

Political change is a glacial process, even at it's most dynamic. If you take the perspective that the tea party is no flash in the pan, then there's every chance that we're looking at an embryonic third party in US politics.

 

Except perhaps when things get so bad, the people eventually rise up (ie Arab Spring). When people have full bellies, a roof over their head and a thousand TV channels, change is likely to take a little longer. If they manage to spice things up in the next US election, who knows. They seem pretty divisive to me at the moment and could end up splitting the republican vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, I do like the small state ideals of the Tea Party. It's just I am always weary of those that are absolutists, who burst onto the scene saying they can make everything great if you ust follow them (hence the fundamentalist note).

 

All political parties operate in this manner. 'Vote for me - I'll make your life better.'

 

If they manage to spice things up in the next US election, who knows. They seem pretty divisive to me at the moment and could end up splitting the republican vote.

 

Indeed, but the strength of the tea party is that they simply don't care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All political parties operate in this manner. 'Vote for me - I'll make your life better.'

 

Yes, sadly true. :(

 

Indeed, but the strength of the tea party is that they simply don't care.

 

That's what worries me. Where does it stop. Blair’s unswerving self belief caused enough problems, imagine a whole (Tea) party of them in control of the US.

 

Really though, they just hand everything to the democrats if they split the republican vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, sadly true. :(

 

 

 

That's what worries me. Where does it stop. Blair’s unswerving self belief caused enough problems, imagine a whole (Tea) party of them in control of the US.

 

Really though, they just hand everything to the democrats if they split the republican vote.

 

Democrats might be due for a split as well. Obama is looking more and more like a centrist/right-centrist who doesn't seem to represent the views of the people who voted for him. And the congressional democrats are utterly ineffective. I don't want the country falling in the hands of crazies, and there seem to be plenty of them around these days. But shaking up our ancient two-party corrupt system I believe would be a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democrats might be due for a split as well. Obama is looking more and more like a centrist/right-centrist who doesn't seem to represent the views of the people who voted for him. And the congressional democrats are utterly ineffective. I don't want the country falling in the hands of crazies, and there seem to be plenty of them around these days. But shaking up our ancient two-party corrupt system I believe would be a good thing.

I think Obama was handed a dog (economy etc), but I still think he is a formidable politician/leader. In better times, he could have been one of the greats.

 

But you're right, a less polarised two party system could be very good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Obama was handed a dog (economy etc), but I still think he is a formidable politician/leader. In better times, he could have been one of the greats.

 

But you're right, a less polarised two party system could be very good.

 

 

He is the salesman type, similar to Blair. In good times, where simply good management is required, he probably would have been regarded as a very good president. Sadly for him, these are the sort of times that require actual leadership, conviction and courage. To Obama, as with Blair, these are not comfortable concepts, as they do not come with much middle ground to occupy.

 

He is a talented politician (which is like saying he's a talented cheat), but not leader. He'll keep compromising, and in the current heavily partisan environment that will increasingly make him look like he lacks principles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Obama was handed a dog (economy etc), but I still think he is a formidable politician/leader. In better times, he could have been one of the greats.

 

But you're right, a less polarised two party system could be very good.

 

:blink:

I see nothing but a puppet show designed to distract.

Am I missing something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:blink:

I see nothing but a puppet show designed to distract.

Am I missing something?

 

That is how it is. Those that prevent themselves from seeing the farce of the Western "Democracies" do so to preserve their (shared) model of the world from collapsing. Even overt military aggression against Serbia Iraq and Afghanistan needed only to be wrapped in a cheap bit of "humanitarian" paper to allow it to fit in with the "we are the good guys" model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is how it is. Those that prevent themselves from seeing the farce of the Western "Democracies" do so to preserve their (shared) model of the world from collapsing. Even overt military aggression against Serbia Iraq and Afghanistan needed only to be wrapped in a cheap bit of "humanitarian" paper to allow it to fit in with the "we are the good guys" model.

More and more are waking up judging by the comments so far on here link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More and more are waking up judging by the comments so far on here link

 

Yes, It does seem as if something is changing - some excellent comments there - the Mk IVs are being overwhelmed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Well, turns out the US can't just do what many thought they could... printy printy... because there are real political forces standing in the way.

...

 

 

:rolleyes:

No surprises at all. In the same post I wrote this:

 

The wishes of the first group are looking more likely to be fulfilled at the moment..... even if a compromise is found and some time bought. The question now is what will happen to the dollar. An erosion from ongoing capital flight..... or a deleveraging spike due to a period of short-covering

 

Cutting and pasteing, and selecting words that suit you just distorts communication.... and perhaps reflects a distorted mind. Don't worry, you're not the on ly one that does it. :lol:

 

 

What is meant by not being able to "printy printy" is that the authorities may not be able to "QE to infinity". This doesn't mean that they might not be able to get another round of QE out here.... but that would only ratchet up the political pressures against the independence of CBs that are already being bought to bear. Gravities of rock and hard place come to mind.... not unbearably light and infinite vacuous spaces. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No surprises at all. In the same post I wrote this:

 

 

 

Cutting and pasteing, and selecting words that suit you just distorts communication.... and perhaps reflects a distorted mind. Don't worry, you're not the on ly one that does it. :lol:

 

I haven't distorted your words.

 

the US clearly CAN printy printy and the 'political force' that you speak of is not real, it's a figment of your imagination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't distorted your words.

 

the US clearly CAN printy printy and the 'political force' that you speak of is not real, it's a figment of your imagination.

 

IRS

 

You are majorly mixed up. How can you be afraid of having your bottom examined by forces that you

say do not exist?

 

Listen to your arsehole a bit more than your thinking mind please.

 

You are afraid. You comply. Stop pretending to be a bloody hero and know it all and get real please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×