H
HannahBroussard
Guest
Where can someone find all of the details about this new debt plan? Would like to know where the spending cuts are coming from.
Thanks.
Thanks.
- Status
A
agnes_therese
Guest
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
$2.4 Trillion in new spending.
The stock market is down because there are NO spending cuts.
More biggie government.
We really need to repeal the “Base-Line Budgeting” fiasco contained in the 1974 budget “reform” act.
In base line budgeting, a spending cut is when the increase in spending is less than the “planned increase” in spending.
Perverse.
That’s why they refuse to tell us the ACTUAL spending. Instead they use percents, as in a percent cut … or a percent shortfall. But it’s a percent difference between the proposed budget and the approved budget.
How on earth can these people keep a straight face … with a $2.4 Trillion increase?
Well, I was going to buy a corporate jet for $100 million, but I’m cutting the budget by $50 million, so I guess I’m going to have to go cheap.
The stock market is down because there are NO spending cuts.
More biggie government.
We really need to repeal the “Base-Line Budgeting” fiasco contained in the 1974 budget “reform” act.
In base line budgeting, a spending cut is when the increase in spending is less than the “planned increase” in spending.
Perverse.
That’s why they refuse to tell us the ACTUAL spending. Instead they use percents, as in a percent cut … or a percent shortfall. But it’s a percent difference between the proposed budget and the approved budget.
How on earth can these people keep a straight face … with a $2.4 Trillion increase?
Well, I was going to buy a corporate jet for $100 million, but I’m cutting the budget by $50 million, so I guess I’m going to have to go cheap.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
74 pages.
I didn’t see any cuts.
There were some instructions that went on for a page on how to calculate what a cut is.
I didn’t see any cuts.
There were some instructions that went on for a page on how to calculate what a cut is.
Suudy
Active member
Well, sorta. Subsidized Stafford loans for graduate and professional students were eliminated. That is a cut.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Are you sure?
I read it and you really can’t tell what’s in and what’s out because they use changing of words in something else, and then they use the word “notwithstanding” all over the place.
The other thing is that they would have us believe that the Senate wrote this bill overnight. 74 pages of bafflegab written in mere moments.
That is clearly impossible.
So, this whole alleged crisis was cooked up.
The whole bill/law was prepared ahead of time and then the House and the Senate and the WH went through this three act play, and then SHAZAM, VOILA, they pull this 74 page bill out of a hat and ta-da! done deal.
A total absolute complete head fake.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
According to the text, student “financing” [look it up] went from $3 Billion to $13 Billion.
Read it.
Read it.
M
mary_bobo
Guest
When you find out, please let me know. I have been asking the same question. It is all a hoax. The only thing accomplished is that the mess will push forward beyond the 2012 election
Suudy
Active member
That’s true for Pell grants. But how much is being spent each year subsidizing interest graduate and professional students? I’m wondering if the elimination of Stafford loans for graduate and professional students offsets the $10B increase.
E
estesbob
Guest
well the Bishop of Albany issued a detailed report showing all the cuts to social programs so I am somewhat surprised we can’t find any of these in the report itself. . But then he also didn’t notice the pro-abortion governor of New York walking hand-in-hand with his live-in mistress in the communion line.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
There really is no way of knowing because of the way it’s written.
But the law adds $2.4 Trillion in new spending.
$2400 Billion.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Is it “new” or enough to pay off the current obligations, interest, full payments when bonds come due, etc.? There’s already over $2 Trillion already “spent” sitting on corporate ledgers doing nothing for the economy, thanks to the Federal Reserve. (Ron Paul, incidentally, introduced a bill which should cancel $1.6 Trillion of the phony bonds the Fed, through printing more money, purchased.)
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
As previously stated, the interest on the debt is $1Billion per day. Normal tax collections are $5 Billion per day.
Absolutely no reason for the $2.4 Trillion … no need for it at all.
In terms of paying off the bonds, you do NOT borrow money to pay off debt. That $2.4 Billion is borrowed money that will only create the need for higher interest payments. And further stress the economy … to be paid off further down the road.
What you do is grow the economy and that will generate additional tax revenues.
For now, you can rollover the debt, as long as you pay the interest.
Anything over $5 Billion in daily tax collections can be used to pay down the debt.
If you seize the money that corporations have put aside as reserves, you will be destroying essential assets that are needed for growth … eating your seed corn.
That money represents money that corporations have set aside. If you seize it, the employees will never trust you again and will make strenuous efforts to keep their future assets out of your hands. Meaning: more job loss in the USA, as the corporations focus on improving overseas operations.
Absolutely no reason for the $2.4 Trillion … no need for it at all.
In terms of paying off the bonds, you do NOT borrow money to pay off debt. That $2.4 Billion is borrowed money that will only create the need for higher interest payments. And further stress the economy … to be paid off further down the road.
What you do is grow the economy and that will generate additional tax revenues.
For now, you can rollover the debt, as long as you pay the interest.
Anything over $5 Billion in daily tax collections can be used to pay down the debt.
If you seize the money that corporations have put aside as reserves, you will be destroying essential assets that are needed for growth … eating your seed corn.
That money represents money that corporations have set aside. If you seize it, the employees will never trust you again and will make strenuous efforts to keep their future assets out of your hands. Meaning: more job loss in the USA, as the corporations focus on improving overseas operations.
J
JimG
Guest
When I see the debt clock going backward, that will be evidence of actual cuts. The amount of “cuts” agreed to is negligible. It might slow down the rate of increase in the deficit but the deficit will continue to rise until real cuts are made.
P
ProVobis
Guest
But Bernanke is now talking about adding another ($600B?) to the debt through QE3, adding even more reserves to bank coffers. That puts even more stress on the taxpayer and adds to the national debt. I don’t think this is good at all and would defeat the purpose.
Don’t you think if they raise rates at least, that would spur bank looking for better ways of putting that money to work? Sitting with borrowed money at zero percent isn’t going to be moving it very quickly. And it’s not like they are totally powerless even without it. Banks have always had the power of fractional reserving, even without FED stimulus.
By the way, you’re not “seizing” that money. The taxpayers are still on the hook for it. Give it back to them if you’re not going to use it. What are they waiting for? More downgrades? Cheaper labor costs overseas?
N
Nec5
Guest
I’m just glad they passed the plan, so I can now find out what’s in it. They need to quit arguing and start passing all these bills so we can then see what’s in them.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
You need to look at the specific individuals making up the rules that the banks have to live by.
It is those rule-makers who are screwing up the banks’ abilities to make loans, for example.
And those rule-makers also come up with ridiculous rules such as “mark-to-market” which work for liquid assets such as stocks but they do not work for illiquid assets such as real estate.
From a previous post:
AND, it is even worse than that with a leftist radical in charge … because many of the destructive changes are merely rules … that can be changed in an instant.
A very brief article/ editorial from Forbes Magazine of September 27, 2010 …
[Bold emphasis, by me]
"Here’s good news for investors and the economy. To everyone’s surprise, Robert Herz stepped down as chairman of the Financial Accounting Standards Board [FASB] last month. Herz was the driver behind the disastrous 2007 FASB ruling concerning** mark-to-market accounting for banks and insurance companies.** The ruling unnecessarily destroyed some $500 billion in regulatory capital of these institutions in 2008-09, thereby triggering the financial panic. Once Congress forced FASB and the SEC to amend the ruling in April 2009, the devastated financial markets began a big rally that lasted until this summer [2010].
"Smarting from that humiliation, Herz and his minions were readying a new ruling that would have put mark-to-market accounting on steroids. Banks would have had to write down the value of virtually every small-business loan they had made. The flow of capital to small businesses – none too robust these days – would have suddenly stopped like blood in a clogged artery. The economy would have been sent into a tailspin, and another financial crisis would have erupted.
"There’s more good news: ‘Equally important [as the resignation] is that the trustees are moving back to seven FASB board members instead of five,’ notes William Isaac, the former chairman of the FDIC and the man who helped persuade Congress to force the mark-to-market change in early 2009. ‘The five member board allowed three radicals to control. It will be much harder to get four votes.’
“Thank goodness.”
I have no idea what the current FASB "mark-to-market’ rule status … and there are other destructive rules as well.
But that’s all it takes is ONE radical too many on a board like the FASB to totally transform the United States of America.
And it never makes the mainstream media and the average person has NO IDEA of what has been done to them.
P
ProVobis
Guest
What rules? If anything it was the repeal of Glass-Steagall that have allowed banks, which are lent money by the Fed at 0%, to “invest” anywhere they please, including buying and selling oil and other commodities, shorting stocks, invest in foreign affairs, etc., nothing to do with making loans. If a bank could profit more by making a loan to someone with substantial collateral, they would do it. But with declining home prices and declining long-term employment, they choose (and probably wisely for their bottom line) not to lend in most cases.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
FASB for one. We have already discussed briefly the mark-to-market rule that wrecked banks’ loan portfolios.
Then there is the uptick rule:
The uptick rule belongs to the SEC.
And by changing it … all of a sudden, it allowed the stock market to be plunged down by manipulators:
SEC votes 3-2 for a worthless short-sale curb
Posted on February 24, 2010 by Dan Butterfield|
[You can look up the changes in the uptick rule that made the stock market unstable. But here is just one commentary: http://justfixit.wordpress.com/ ]
The Wall Street Journal tells the tale – “The Securities and Exchange Commission voted 3-2 Wednesday in favor of a final rule that will curb short selling for individual securities that decline at least 10% in a single day.”
Forgive me if I don’t raise my glass in honor of the SEC. The only parties in the mood to celebrate this pathetic rule change are the very same miscreants who’ve been behind some of the most merciless short-selling raids enabled by a captured regulator (The SEC).
Rant Warning: I only hope the objecting 2 Commissioners voted “no” due to the pathetic, watered-down, virtually worthless version of short-selling curbs that were put into effect today. The CEOs of major broker-dealers and investment banks, that were under short-sellers’ siege in Sept 2008, raced into the SEC’s offices* with politicians tow …. They demanded a meeting with then SEC Chairman Cox and screamed “do something! Stop this gratuitous pound-down short selling!” Finally the Brits (who had balls) temporarily banned short-selling on financials and the SEC and other global market authorities followed the Brits’ lead. The banks and BDs soon thereafter got their bailouts (and seven-figure exec bonuses), and the merciless short-selling abated …. But these expletive deleted ] financial firms were too addicted to the massive commission revenues and margin fees generated by the two expletives deleted ] hedge funds and institutional short-sellers … so they backed-off on their insistence that the SEC do anything substantive to stop the abusive (in some cases criminal) short-selling and fails-to-deliver (FTDs).
The SEC has totally failed on their mission statement … to facilitate free/fair markets and to protect real actual “investors” …. That’s “investors” not whip-saw short selling hedge funds and not high-speed, fundamentals be damned, program trading quants.
*Secret Sept 2008 Meeting with SEC : “Citing un-named sources, the SEC is this afternoon holding a meeting to ‘determine if they need to take further steps to curtail what both Mac and [Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd] Blankfein characterize as improper short selling that is really causing damage to the share price of Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs.’ Blankfein also spoke with Cox to complain of short selling of their stock, as did New York senators Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton.” > link
Here’s another source:
Well, as always, there’s a lot of confusion over what the uptick rule is. I found three – just in the short four-minute time-out we had, I found three – different versions of the uptick rule. Basically the uptick rule is that you cannot sell short unless there’s an uptick defined as a buyer. You can’t wildly sell short unless there is a buyer. That’s the uptick. This was done to prevent or reduce down-side stampedes, and it worked well. But now there’s some information out there that says the uptick rule is not currently in place, that it was allowed to expire, or they just eliminated it. Example: One source says that the rule was removed in 2007. It says, "The uptick rule refers to a trading restriction that disallows short selling of stock except on an uptick.
“For the rule to be satisfied, the short sell must be either at a price above the last traded price of the stock or at the last traded price if that price was higher than the price of the previous trade.” Now, that’s easy to follow, Rule 201, the so-called “naked short selling rule,” but that might not be the rule that I had in mind, since this one doesn’t deal explicitly with margins. It’s more about actually identifying the stock. But there is, apparently, folks, bipartisan support to reinstall the short uptick rule. McCain even ran on it, so you know it’s bipartisan. (wild laughing) But the uptick rule is not in place right now. It went into effect in 1938, and was removed when Rule 201 Regulation SHO became effective in 2007. So we are back in a situation like 1938, and that’s what the caller was talking about. There is no uptick rule, so there’s naked short selling that’s permitted. I’m sure that helps.
- Status