Cinga Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 If it passes without amendments there will be some Republican reps who will rue the day they voted for it. I think Bohner is done as speaker if this goes through. I'm hearing he's giving his caucus a take it or leave it choice, and not allowing amendments to it. Let's be real... It doesn't have to pass with all the conservatives voting in favor. Most Dems will vote in favor, so Bohner only needs a handful from his own team. If this goes through with only a few Reps in favor, Bohner is done on Thursday... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 I think Bohner is done as speaker if this goes through. I'm hearing he's giving his caucus a take it or leave it choice, and not allowing amendments to it. Let's be real... It doesn't have to pass with all the conservatives voting in favor. Most Dems will vote in favor, so Bohner only needs a handful from his own team. If this goes through with only a few Reps in favor, Bohner is done on Thursday... My understanding is that Boehner took a straw vote to see if his membership wanted a straight up and down vote or one that would allow amendments. We'll see. I can't imagine it passing as is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 My understanding is that Boehner took a straw vote to see if his membership wanted a straight up and down vote or one that would allow amendments. We'll see. I can't imagine it passing as is. just heard issa on cspan. think it's gonna pass from what he said (he's voting against) and didn't say . seemed resigned to it passing. we'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 I think Bohner is done as speaker if this goes through. I'm hearing he's giving his caucus a take it or leave it choice, and not allowing amendments to it. Let's be real... It doesn't have to pass with all the conservatives voting in favor. Most Dems will vote in favor, so Bohner only needs a handful from his own team. If this goes through with only a few Reps in favor, Bohner is done on Thursday... My understanding is that Boehner took a straw vote to see if his membership wanted a straight up and down vote or one that would allow amendments. We'll see. I can't imagine it passing as is. It's going to be up or down and going to pass. Too messy within the time frame to attach anything new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 just heard issa on cspan. think it's gonna pass from what he said (he's voting against) and didn't say . seemed resigned to it passing. we'll see. 2014 will be 2010 all over again if that happens and a fair deal isn't worked out very soon. There will be alot more people saying "you betcha" in the voting booth in the primaries. How can a fair and responsible deal be worked out with Obama though? That charlatan was gloating as soon as the Senate passed it. If the Republicans are so oblivious to the sentiment of the "makers" in this country that they have forgotten that the lessons of 2010 were not only for the Democrats but for them then the schit will surely hit the fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 just heard issa on cspan. think it's gonna pass from what he said (he's voting against) and didn't say . seemed resigned to it passing. we'll see. I'm watching a bit of it too...it's pretty funny. Alternating from people standing up saying "we just have to" to "95% of us will vote for it and we all hate it"...Rs and Ds saying both of these (for different reasons) too not partisan on these feelings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 annnddd....done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 annnddd....done Game........................not over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 I think Bohner is done as speaker if this goes through. I'm hearing he's giving his caucus a take it or leave it choice, and not allowing amendments to it. Let's be real... It doesn't have to pass with all the conservatives voting in favor. Most Dems will vote in favor, so Bohner only needs a handful from his own team. If this goes through with only a few Reps in favor, Bohner is done on Thursday... Launch him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Launch him. lol 0% chance of that happening Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 I have a little exercise you can give your students their first week back. Plot the correlations of QE rounds to new corporate bond issuances, and see if there's a distinct pattern. Corp bond issuance has averaged about $500 bil (seasonally adjusted annual rate per quarter) since the end of 2010. There's no doubt that the Fed's buying of mortgage securities and long term T-bonds has pushed institutioinal investors into riskier assets, but it's a chicken and egg thing. Successive rounds of QE are tried because of the ongoing GFC. Rates are at historic lows because of the crisis (and Fed policy if it makes you feel better) and corporate CEOs have taken advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Corp bond issuance has averaged about $500 bil (seasonally adjusted annual rate per quarter) since the end of 2010. There's no doubt that the Fed's buying of mortgage securities and long term T-bonds has pushed institutioinal investors into riskier assets, but it's a chicken and egg thing. Successive rounds of QE are tried because of the ongoing GFC. Rates are at historic lows because of the crisis (and Fed policy if it makes you feel better) and corporate CEOs have taken advantage. That's not the exercise. Draw the exact correlations to QE and fixed income funds inflows/outflows. That will give you an answer in whether the Fed is also playing with the long term rate. Or whether it's also contributing to another another credit time bomb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 When you fail to elect a leader, you fail to get leadership. This is what America wants.This is what America voted for. you are exactly right about that, but I don't think that anyone who deserves to will actually receive any blame a few years from now. instead, it will be blamed on the republicans for not raising taxes on ALL of those top wage earners (400K & above instead of the original 250K per year)when they had the opportunity to do so, causing a revenue shortfall and driving up the debt. of course that's total BS, but that's what will happen....just wait. if I had been in charge of the house republicans, I would have mounted an aggressive campaign for LOWERING middle-class tax rates, forcing the dems to defend a pro-tax on the middle class stance. it might not have worked, but at least I'd know that I stood for something I believed in as I went down in flames. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 (edited) The irony in all this is that the reason why the "Fiscal Cliff" came about was the president's and congress failure to put together a meaningful deficit reduction package, the Fiscal Cliff was never intended to take effect because it would be too tough of a pill to swallow for both sides of the aisle, so what was originally intended to help reduce the deficit, now will be signed by the president and according to CBO projections will add $4 Trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years. Edited January 2, 2013 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 The irony in all this is that the reason why the "Fiscal Cliff" came about was the president's and congress failure to put together a meaningful deficit reduction package, the Fiscal Cliff was never intended to take effect because it would be too tough of a pill to swallow for both sides of the aisle, so what was originally intended to help reduce the deficit, now will be signed by the president and according to CBO projections will add $4 Trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years. Don't worry. Paul Krugman says Obama compromised way too much. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/perspective-on-the-deal/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 The irony in all this is that the reason why the "Fiscal Cliff" came about was the president's and congress failure to put together a meaningful deficit reduction package, the Fiscal Cliff was never intended to take effect because it would be too tough of a pill to swallow for both sides of the aisle, so what was originally intended to help reduce the deficit, now will be signed by the president and according to CBO projections will add $4 Trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years. fits right into this supposed strategy of "starving the beast".http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/fiscal-cliff-deal-redefines-means-rich-154657208.html. hate to admit it but i find it plausible and it looks like it might work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 fits right into this supposed strategy of "starving the beast".http://finance.yahoo...-154657208.html. hate to admit it but i find it plausible and it looks like it might work. "Starving the Beast" would actually have to entail a diet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 The irony in all this is that the reason why the "Fiscal Cliff" came about was the president's and congress failure to put together a meaningful deficit reduction package, the Fiscal Cliff was never intended to take effect because it would be too tough of a pill to swallow for both sides of the aisle, so what was originally intended to help reduce the deficit, now will be signed by the president and according to CBO projections will add $4 Trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years. The spending decisions will take place in a couple months, and that's when the Rs will have the upper hand. It's a silly exercise to compute the impact over the next 10 years without those changes added into the equation, and they will change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Yes they will, and I expect one of the nastiest contentious political battles take place in a very public manner. If Obama doesn't come away with a meaningful deficit reduction package his legacy as a president will be seen as an abject failure, unless somehow, miraculously his health care bill becomes a success, which I highly doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Yes they will, and I expect one of the nastiest contentious political battles take place in a very public manner. If Obama doesn't come away with a meaningful deficit reduction package his legacy as a president will be seen as an abject failure, unless somehow, miraculously his health care bill becomes a success, which I highly doubt. I almost never see any conservative on this board acknowledge that it even COULD be anything but a failure. Interesting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts