Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
It's a bit early, isn't it? Well, maybe not. The Dow and the S&P are both up this morning.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I don't just mean the US Markets — but it appears that Shares rally on US fiscal cliff deal
: For example, the FTSE100 is up by 2.35% and rising at 13:50 GMT.
An article explaining why the reason for today's extemism isnt so much gerrymandering, but the lack of pork spending.
Edit: FIXED
edited 2nd Jan '13 10:16:45 AM by Baff
I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.Unsure; not fully aware of the effects of the cliff. But I don't think it's really any worse than going over the cliff would have been.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.If I understand correctly, this deal will raise 600 billion
in new revenue over the next 10 years. Since the target had been on the order of 4 trillion or so, that's nothing. So either the remainder has to be made up in spending cuts (disaster for the welfare state) or they have another revenue fight coming at some point. Am I right about this?
edited 2nd Jan '13 10:41:17 AM by DeMarquis
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.Not entirely. Krugman has gone on at length [1]
[2]
[3]
about how the deficit is largely transient, composed primarily of (a) falling revenues due to the output gap, (b) increased automatic social spending — Medicare, Medicaid, etc. — due to the recession, (c) income support (unemployment) and temporary tax cuts.
Remove all of those and the structural deficit — the amount that is fundamentally out of balance and not a result of economic hardships — is so tiny that it may as well not exist at all. In short, all we need to do to fix the problem is to get our economy back on track, and hey-presto!, no more deficit.
The call for additional tax revenues is mainly about reducing the debt to GDP ratio in the long run, as well as funding social programs.
As I posted in the economics thread, Krugman's main opposition
to this deal is that it doesn't go far enough in addressing revenue shortfalls while drastically weakening Obama's negotiating position on the debt ceiling
. Essentially, it punts the budget issues down the road two months, while conceding on portions of the tax deal that Obama could have achieved anyway just by letting the cliff pass.
edited 2nd Jan '13 11:23:35 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I've seen an increasing number of pundits arguing that we should play the 14th Amendment card on the debt ceiling and destroy it once and for all.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Boehner told Reid to "Go fuck himself," outside the Oval Office, according to multiple sources.
So, what the fuck is wrong with the House not voting on the Sandy relief package? Who's idea is it, and who gains?'
I mean, it's a Republican move, from what I can see, as they control the House, but we've also got republicans saying things like this.
edited 2nd Jan '13 12:49:23 PM by DrTentacles
It's not a republican idea. Republicans were as upset about it as democrats. It's all on Boehner. He was the one who ended the session despite 28 minutes of people on both sides of the aisle trying to stop him from doing it before they could vote on the Sandy Bill.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickIndeed. Only vice presidents are allowed to shot people in the face after all.
edited 2nd Jan '13 1:03:00 PM by Baff
I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.Chris Christie Tears Fellow Republicans Apart Over Sandy Relief
So today is the last day of 112th Congress.
edited 2nd Jan '13 1:14:46 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

Well, NYSX employees are putting Boehner's face on dartboards at work.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.