Will the US default?

[Super Dude]

They're not worried because we're not going to automatically default on Tuesday.  I think we still have some time after that to get our shit together, the reason we set that deadline is because of something to do with the East Asian markets.

[reo73]

If the US had not participated in World War II: the global financial system and international monetary system would not be based on the dollar, thereby preventing America from becoming the wealthiest country not only of the day but in the entirety of human history, and Taiwan and the Koreas would belong to Japan.  In fact, Japan might have had the monetary standard tied to the Yen instead, and they'd be the wealthiest postwar country and the wealthiest in the history of human civilization.  Germany would belong entirely to the Soviet Union and the rest of Europe would most likely be in economic shambles absent the Marshall Plan, which may have led, however unlikely, to the eventual takeover of all of Europe, even Britain, by the Soviet sphere of influence.  Also we'd still be suffering from the Great Depression unless Japan decided to bail us out, which they might've considering in this universe we didn't drop the bomb on them.

Sorry, I have to make a bit of correction on this paragraph because I believe your interpretation of the US involvement is off.  Had the US not participated in WWII and kept an isolationist world view there is a great chance Germany would not of been defeated and also a great chance that the war would of extended to our soil.  Britain could not of staged a European offensive on it's own and it is questionable they would of won out in N. Africa.  Germany would of been able to dedicated a hell of a lot more resources against Russia who probably would of eventually cracked.  After securing victory in Europe, the Germans may of staged an East Coast US offensive.  Also, Japan would of eventually staged a West Coast US offensive. 

[Super Dude]

See I give more credit to the Russian front, I think they could've done it without us, and subsequently obliterated Germany.  Like they say that if the U.S. hadn't gotten involved in the late war bombings of Germany, Russia would've raped the country and taking it as a satellite.

[reo73]

See I give more credit to the Russian front, I think they could've done it without us, and subsequently obliterated Germany.  Like they say that if the U.S. hadn't gotten involved in the late war bombings of Germany, Russia would've raped the country and taking it as a satellite.

Perhaps, but I think that is a big perhaps.  Germany was still a very strong Army even after their defeat at Stalingrad and had the US not been a threat the dynamics of their war resources would of changed dramatically.  Troop placement would of changed, the Germans might of controlled the air and diminished bombings on their industry, they would of controlled the seas, Italy might of grown stronger as an ally.   All this means at worse Germany would of greatly slowed the Russian advance giving them time to perfect some of their 'super weapons' which could of turned the war in their favor.  More than likely though, they would of been able to make another advance toward the oil fields of the Caucuses (their objective before being sidetracked by Hitler's ego with Stalingrad) as an end around through the middle east.  With all that oil resource they would of become invincible.

Sorry to sidetrack into WWII talk.

[Super Dude]

See I give more credit to the Russian front, I think they could've done it without us, and subsequently obliterated Germany.  Like they say that if the U.S. hadn't gotten involved in the late war bombings of Germany, Russia would've raped the country and taking it as a satellite.

Perhaps, but I think that is a big perhaps.  Germany was still a very strong Army even after their defeat at Stalingrad and had the US not been a threat the dynamics of their war resources would of changed dramatically.  Troop placement would of changed, the Germans might of controlled the air and diminished bombings on their industry, they would of controlled the seas, Italy might have grown stronger as an ally.   All this means at worse Germany would of greatly slowed the Russian advance giving them time to perfect some of their 'super weapons' which could of turned the war in their favor.  More than likely though, they would of been able to make another advance toward the oil fields of the Caucuses (their objective before being sidetracked by Hitler's ego with Stalingrad) as an end around through the middle east.  With all that oil resource they would of become invincible.

Sorry to sidetrack into WWII talk.

After Greece, Italy was finished.  And once Hitler was forced to go bail out Italy, he was pretty much finished too.

[reo73]

After Greece, Italy was finished.  And once Hitler was forced to go bail out Italy, he was pretty much finished too.

For the time being but without the US Italy is probably not invaded and comes back to life under more control of German command making them more dangerous.

[Scheavo]

If you take a look at how the bond market is trading it appears the big money is saying we will not default.  Money is pouring into bonds.  If the big money was afraid of default money would be leaving bonds.

I don't think following the markets is always the best idea of what is safe and sound... remember, the big money investors are the one's who went crazy with credit default swaps which almost destroyed the financial system and is a major contributor to the recession.

[Riceball]

If you take a look at how the bond market is trading it appears the big money is saying we will not default.  Money is pouring into bonds.  If the big money was afraid of default money would be leaving bonds.

I don't think following the markets is always the best idea of what is safe and sound... remember, the big money investors are the one's who went crazy with credit default swaps which almost destroyed the financial system and is a major contributor to the recession.

Yeah, and while markets normally get it right, I think this is such a freaky, one-off event that traders really just dont know what to do. That, and if you take a look at forex right now, basically every western economy that doesnt have problems with debt is rallyinf...shit even the NZ dollar and their economy is cows, sheep and apples

[Riceball]

So, the Republican bill is through the house; now to see what comes out of the Senate process...

Chances?

[Progmetty]

If the US had not participated in World War II: the global financial system and international monetary system would not be based on the dollar, thereby preventing America from becoming the wealthiest country not only of the day but in the entirety of human history, and Taiwan and the Koreas would belong to Japan.  In fact, Japan might have had the monetary standard tied to the Yen instead, and they'd be the wealthiest postwar country and the wealthiest in the history of human civilization.  Germany would belong entirely to the Soviet Union and the rest of Europe would most likely be in economic shambles absent the Marshall Plan, which may have led, however unlikely, to the eventual takeover of all of Europe, even Britain, by the Soviet sphere of influence.  Also we'd still be suffering from the Great Depression unless Japan decided to bail us out, which they might've considering in this universe we didn't drop the bomb on them.

Sorry, I have to make a bit of correction on this paragraph because I believe your interpretation of the US involvement is off.  Had the US not participated in WWII and kept an isolationist world view there is a great chance Germany would not of been defeated and also a great chance that the war would of extended to our soil.  Britain could not of staged a European offensive on it's own and it is questionable they would of won out in N. Africa.  Germany would of been able to dedicated a hell of a lot more resources against Russia who probably would of eventually cracked.  After securing victory in Europe, the Germans may of staged an East Coast US offensive.  Also, Japan would of eventually staged a West Coast US offensive. 

I agree with you about Germany's eventual victory over the Soviet Union if they had successfully secured the Western front, which I believe they totally would have if the U.S hadn't joined.
But without a direct conflict of interests Germany wouldn't have attacked the U.S. I think Germany's territorial interest has always been continental, Russia was viewed as Germany's future version of what India is to England and once that war on the Eastern Front had ended in Germany's favor they would have had enormous territories in the east to take care of and manage + maintain power over underground resistance in this huge land. It wouldn't have worked like Belgium or Holland for example.
There would have been an eventual decision point for Germany when Japan desperately asks for military aid against the U.S but an unprovoked German invasion attempt of the U.S? I don't think so. (Sorry for off-topic discussion)

[Super Dude]

“All they would do was criticize what I put out there,” Mr. Boehner said, his voice rising during a rare appearance on the floor. “I stuck my neck out a mile to get an agreement with the president of the United States. I stuck my neck out a mile. I put revenues on the table.”

He added: “A lot of people in this town can never say yes.”

I really can't believe him, what scum.

[MasterShakezula]

Um, Boner seems to have been one of the most troublesome Repubs for Obama to make a deal with, and now the guy claims to have been putting his all into making a deal?

Um, yeah, I'm not too confident in our legislative branch, as of lately. 

Not that the executive is too hot, either, but some of those legislators seem like total selfish and callous human beings. 

[Riceball]

“All they would do was criticize what I put out there,” Mr. Boehner said, his voice rising during a rare appearance on the floor. “I stuck my neck out a mile to get an agreement with the president of the United States. I stuck my neck out a mile. I put revenues on the table.”

He added: “A lot of people in this town can never say yes.”

I really can't believe him, what scum.

I agree, Reid handled his presser so much better. Boehner is going to o down in history as the one who wrecked the US and global economies because he played politics...

[Super Dude]

Yeah the thing that I find most unfortunate is how good he is at playing politics...a bit better than Obama, unfortunately.

The problem with Obama is he went into the White House promising to do away with the game.  The thing I've learned from his term is there's no killing the game.  You have to learn to play it if you want to get rid of it.  Once you get the prestige and respect of a powerful president, then you can get people to do what you want without wheeling and dealing.

[Riceball]

Yeah, our current Prime Minister campaigned on this thing her minders called 'The New Paradigm'...and now things are worse than ever in the house. If you ever need some night time US time entertainment, our parliamentary question time is broadcast on the internet; gets pretty hilarous from time to time.

But anyway, things are looking pretty grim now, will be interesting to hear Treasury's plan of attack come Tuesday, anyone know where PraXis lives?

[Super Dude]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/29/big-oil-profits_n_913452.html?ir=Green

Oh, well look at that...

[reo73]

I agree with you about Germany's eventual victory over the Soviet Union if they had successfully secured the Western front, which I believe they totally would have if the U.S hadn't joined.
But without a direct conflict of interests Germany wouldn't have attacked the U.S. I think Germany's territorial interest has always been continental, Russia was viewed as Germany's future version of what India is to England and once that war on the Eastern Front had ended in Germany's favor they would have had enormous territories in the east to take care of and manage + maintain power over underground resistance in this huge land. It wouldn't have worked like Belgium or Holland for example.
There would have been an eventual decision point for Germany when Japan desperately asks for military aid against the U.S but an unprovoked German invasion attempt of the U.S? I don't think so. (Sorry for off-topic discussion)

It's all speculation as to what would of happened, but Hitler was testing US defenses along the Eastern seaboard with his U-Boats, one even came into New York harbor, and he didn't think highly of the US militarily so it is not beyond reason that once he did get his house in order he might of waged war with the US on our soil.  Especially if he had control of advanced technology. 

Damn...I could talk WWII all day long.  Perhaps we need a WWII thread so I don't hi-jack this one.

[AndyDT]

Russia would've raped the country and taking it as a satellite.

They did that to Berlin.

[j]

Yeah the thing that I find most unfortunate is how good he is at playing politics...a bit better than Obama, unfortunately.

You mean that he's more ridiculously bull-headed about never diverging from his party line?  I'm not sure I'd call that being "good" at anything, as that implies some kind of admirable quality.

The problem with Obama is he went into the White House promising to do away with the game.  The thing I've learned from his term is there's no killing the game.  You have to learn to play it if you want to get rid of it.  Once you get the prestige and respect of a powerful president, then you can get people to do what you want without wheeling and dealing.

Can you think of any modern examples that lend a shred of credence to your last sentence?  Regardless, I do applaud your optimism.

-J

[Super Dude]

Yeah the thing that I find most unfortunate is how good he is at playing politics...a bit better than Obama, unfortunately.

You mean that he's more ridiculously bull-headed about never diverging from his party line?  I'm not sure I'd call that being "good" at anything, as that implies some kind of admirable quality.

I didn't mean that and certainly not as an admirable quality.  He shows he plays politics well by refusing to move an inch, and then claiming that he was the one making all the compromise.

The problem with Obama is he went into the White House promising to do away with the game.  The thing I've learned from his term is there's no killing the game.  You have to learn to play it if you want to get rid of it.  Once you get the prestige and respect of a powerful president, then you can get people to do what you want without wheeling and dealing.

Can you think of any modern examples that lend a shred of credence to your last sentence?  Regardless, I do applaud your optimism.

-J

Two words: Ronald Reagan.  He started out as every president does, having to use his negotiating and wheeling-and-dealing skills to make things happen.  Once he was able to accomplish tangible goals in his first term, the prestige he gained from having made things happen made acquisition of his policy goals easier for him, right up until the Iran-Contra scandal.

[Riceball]

So, rather than talking to eachother, the Democrats and Republicans are still sitting in their own little corners of the Whitehouse trying to second guess the other and come up with a comprimise deal. Shit guys, are you retarded?

Anyway, I'm hearing that Tea Party members aren't going to support anything that isn't what they want, this is getting scary

[Super Dude]

So, rather than talking to eachother, the Democrats and Republicans are still sitting in their own little corners of the Whitehouse trying to second guess the other and come up with a comprimise deal. Shit guys, are you retarded?

Anyway, I'm hearing that Tea Party members aren't going to support anything that isn't what they want, this is getting scary

That's been their policy on everything since they entered office.  That's why every major legislative debate this year has been resolved at the eleventh hour.

[Riceball]

Tada!

Now, for the detail.

Will be interesting to see what happens to the credit rating now, thats the next hurdle.

[pogoowner]

Anyway, I'm hearing that Tea Party members aren't going to support anything that isn't what they want, this is getting scary

That's what they were elected to do.

[Super Dude]

Tada!

Now, for the detail.

Will be interesting to see what happens to the credit rating now, thats the next hurdle.

Well I haven't heard much, but apparently Obama is letting by a deal in which national spending goes back to the Eisenhower-era levels.  Maybe I'm just ignorant, but there's something about that just doesn't sit right with me.

Mostly I'm hoping some personal favorites of mine don't get cut, i.e. EPA funding and my girlfriend's student loans.  Chop away at defense spending for all I care though; we are a full generation of air power and water power ahead of our top competitors anyway.

[emindead]

Ah, crap. Everybody knew they would get the deal in the last minute, yet I wanted the US to default...

[Riceball]

Woah thats a cool sig lol.

Wait, Eisenhower-era; as in, 1950s? Dayum, thats a bit cut. Lets think about the numbers at a broad level for a second. One trillion in cuts over ten years, so say 100 billion a year. Thats 0.7 per cent of the total economy. Now, Federal Government spending accounts for about 8 per cent of total expenditure in the US economy. Therefore, in current price terms, we are looking at a contraction of about one per cent of economic activity per year for the next ten years. Fuck. That number looks wrong, I'll take another look later this arvo if I get a chance.

Now, thats a real back-of-the-envelope calculation - but thats the kind of scale we are talking here.

[Demolition]

I would be very hesitant to believe any of the numbers coming out right now.  Most likely it is filled with gimmicks and most of the cuts will never happen.  I did read that the first year was supposed to be a $1 trillion cut in expenditures.  That is what I will be interested in hearing about.  Anything 5 to 10 years down the road never ends up happening so I don't really care about that.  I will also be curious in hearing about what number they are using as the baseline for the cuts.  Washington has a habit of saying they are cutting spending when all they are doing is reducing how much spending was going to be increased, ie instead of increasing spending $1T we will only increase it $500B so we cut $500B from the budget.  That isn't really a cut but a decrease in the increase.  It will be interesting because something has to be done about the US debt.

[Super Dude]

https://my.barackobama.com/page/content/debt-deal-info?source=20110801_BO_FB

Zero tax increases, no tax breaks eliminated...the Republicans really got everything they wanted on this one.

[El Barto]

https://my.barackobama.com/page/content/debt-deal-info?source=20110801_BO_FB

Zero tax increases, no tax breaks eliminated...the Republicans really got everything they wanted on this one.

Actually,  they're kind of working on the assumption that the expiry of the Bush tax cuts will be a component of the reductions.  They're not discussing it for obvious reasons, but I suspect Boner and his cronies know quite well that there'll be new-old taxes in 2013.

I kind of like the built in doomsday device of this solution.  If they don't come to a reasonable conclusion by the end of the year they both get hit in areas crucial to their platforms.  Interesting tactic.  Of course we're talking about politicians here, so they'll probably both find a way to circumvent it as they always do, but still a nifty notion.   

[ReaPsTA]

"Social Security, Medicare beneficiaries, and low-income programs will be protected from any cuts."

So basically, nothing of substance happened.

And also, I'm sure the spending cuts on the military will be taken well, but most likely it won't result in any cuts when it comes to evil, evil weapons, but services like the Walter Reed Army medical hospital.

[Super Dude]

I mean I don't know for certain what the implications of that are, although an article I just read reported that if they can't reach a bipartisan agreement on the second round of cuts, $600 billion (almost the entire defense budget, which for once I'm not sure how I feel about that) will be cut.

Anyway, what I originally came here for was to post this image from said article:



Now that gives you a real good look at what the crucial spending areas are.

[orcus116]

Boy that last point isn't loaded or anything.

[Super Dude]

Maybe so but it is census data for the actual Congressmen and Senators, so it's not like it's untrue.

[Riceball]

And, breath out...

161 members still voted against it...does Congress publish a list of voters?