Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

The only debt I have is my mortgage. I wish I didn't have it. I've thought several times of selling my house at a loss, just to have zero debt. May not be the best move financially, but it would be very liberating.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

I said the Republicans are threatening the country with an effective tax increase, which is true.

What you find comical about Obama I find tragic. He has bought into the notion that what this recession needs is austerity. There is a huge, huge cost to the high unemployment and low growth that we have right now -- if only Spanky were here to remind us of the low-term consequences of low growth -- and cutting spending is only going to make things worse. The Republican ideology that the economy will starting growing again if only we cut taxes on rich people more is nonsense on stilts, thirty+ years out of date and completely untethered to the reality we live in, but Obama either has been convinced by the wrong people or is cynically moving to the middle to get reelected.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

Yes, that dastardly Obama just secretly loves deficits if it weren't for those meddling kids! er.. I mean voters.

I know it's hard to believe that Obama might have thought deficits were a good thing, or at least an inevitable thing, for the last two years but might think they aren't a good thing for the next two years without any electoral chicanery or hypocrisy. But that doesn't make the Rs cynicism in opposing anything and everything that might be construed as a compromise any less appalling.

Btw, to the extent that you are implying you think we should have had balanced budgets for the past two years I both don't believe you and think that implication is insane.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

How? What are rents like in your area? Can you rent it out for enough to cover the mortgage? If so, what's stopping you?

Given that you can sell your house at a loss at any point in the future and achieve that same liberation, why does having a secured debt make you feel unliberated?

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

If this is what it takes to get spending under control, so be it. Because gov't has shown no inclination to reduce spending in boom times.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

Because reducing spending is some sort of magical universal good?

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

I tend to think that Obam's right that in this political environment, there isn't any other choice. But then the environment might have been different had he spent the last two years making the case for fiscal and monetary stimulus. But he didn't, and I don't know that it would have worked because it's a lot hard to explain economics than it is to say, "deficit big!" and "socialism!"

Sadly, all our hope for help lies at the Fed, and even it's hands are tied by the hard money wackos and the R politicians who kinda don't really want a recovery just now anyway so they're pretend they are hard money wackos too.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

Let me ask you this . . . should Greece spend more money now? If so, how will they finance that? If not, why not?

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

Every time I criticize a D, the response is "but the Rs are doing it to" or the Rs are worse". I hate both parties (perhaps not equally, but now we are just quibbling). If you remember, I was the one that posted that I thought the plan to raise taxes coupled with the cuts was reasonable.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

You honestly think we are Greece? Why?

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

Maybe, but the pool of renters for my place is not exactly large, and the risk of a vacancy does not make me feel comfortable right now (just started my own business, so have increased my exposure).

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

Yup.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

If only any elected R in Congress was willing to say publicly that they agreed with you. Or enough of them were willing to vote that way to pass something.

I don't know about always, but this time, right now, it's pretty clear that the whole problem, is the Rs in Congress.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

No, but I do think if we don't get our spending/entitlements under control, we could be, and if we are, the results will be far more disasterous.

But more importantly, what makes us different than Greece to suggest they should cut, but we shouldn't?

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

Not that I think it's a good idea, mind you, but as long as the lease on your place is in sync with any lease you sign on a rental residence, how is there any greater risk? If you can't rent it, you just move back in.

I say I don't think it's a good idea, of course, in part because I don't see anything wrong with a a little tax-advantages secured leverage. Isn't California non-recourse anyway?

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

Okay, I don't disagree with that. Although I think what we really need to do to get our fiscal house in order is fix our revenue problem. That means we need growth again, and we need to reduce our spending on automatic stabilizers. Massive current budget cuts hurt on both of those fronts.

Of course getting a little additional revenue from those with high incomes would help too. As would reducing or spending on military operations abroad.

After that, yes, we have a medium term budget problem, mostly relating to health care for the elderly. It's a problem would should address, and I'd be happy to see addressed as part of a compromise today, but it isn't a problem that must be addressed today.

How about everything? First, they have a debt crisis. People won't lend to them at rates they can afford. We do not have the problem, and we have little sign of it (even if it can happen quickly).

We don't have the same level of debt to GDP. As much as sometimes seems like we don't, we have an actual economy.

Also, we have control over our own currency, giving us options that Greece doesn't have. I can't always do the best job of explaining just how importance this is, but it is. Read some Krugman (hold your nose at the shrill). More here and here. As I understand it, this is actually the kind of stuff for which he was awarded the Nobel.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

the truth is they have no idea how to get jobs going. the Rs nay be nuts but at least they think they know what to do. the Dems have given up.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

Either that, or they don't think there is a snowballs chance in hell of doing it.

I don't see a ton of virtue in being sure of yourself and wrong, but somehow I can see why you do.

Although I don't think the Rs have any idea what to do about jobs either. I think they just don't really care, and this is as good a time as any to do what they do care about, which is make sure taxes on the rich are as low as possible and once that's achieved try to scale back "the size of government." It's the prescription for whatever ails ya!

Sadly, on the economy, that seems right.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

Ummm, Ty's my friend and i won't sit here and listen to you mock him.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

Easier said than done.

California is non-recourse on the initial loan, but once you re-fi, that changes.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

If the Republicans want to stop spending, they should stop spending. Their problem is that what they really care about is cutting taxes, not spending or deficits, and that when Obama called them on it and would have done a deal with spending cuts and tax increases, they couldn't agree to it.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

He hasn't tried to change the debate at all. He is the President. Perceptions about the choices are a function of politics. He did an awesome job mobilizing voters to get him elected, and hasn't tried to do that since.

And it's led by Obama's appointee, Ben Bernanke, and it has empty seats he has left empty for far too long.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

Well that's where we differ. I don't see government spending as anything other than a short term gap filler.

Although I generally find this distasteful, I have come to accept we have no other choice. Agreed on reduction of military spending. We can cut 20% of our budget and still spend many times more on military than our nearest competitor.

I also think you are underestimating the unfunded pension liabilities at the state level. I suspect there will need to be a federal bailout of several of these. I'm sure you've seen the reports on this. It is the most scary thing to me that is out there.

We are not there yet, but if we don't get our shit together, I think it's a strong possibility that we hit the death spiral. That's the funny thing about leverage. I understand the sovereign debt arguments..

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

Their argument, which I think has merit, is that future congresses are not bound by the spending cuts, while the tax rates are far more difficult to change.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

If that's their argument, it was equally true of the Ryan budget they all voted for, which cut taxes for the rich, raised taxes for everyone else, increased the budget in the near term, and called it all "balanced" on the basis of spending "cuts" decades out which were never going to bind future Congresses.

It's much simpler if you stop pretending that Republicans give a sh*t about balancing the budget, and acknowledge that what they really care about is cutting taxes for the rich.

And don't tell me it's about cutting taxes across the board, because the Ryan budget -- which, again, they all voted for -- raised taxes on most people to cut them for the rich.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

There you go again, looking to those goddamn Europeans for guidance.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

I think what they care about is cutting government and not increasing taxes on anyone, although it's not really feasible (the latter) in our current environment.

How did the Ryan budget raise taxes?

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

I can understand the discomfort of having a mortgage when you've just started a business. But is renting really any better? If you have more than a month-to-month lease, then you've got a long-term commitment that you can't easily break, the same problem that a mortgage imposes. If you go month-to-month, then you have that uncertainty and risk if the rental market picks up. Beyond that, you've got an asset that potentially provides some additional borrowing potential if you need it.

I'm no expert in this area, just wondering -- and unable to participate in the debt ceiling discussion because the situation makes me somewhat ill.

Anyway, good luck with the new business.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

This is absolute nonsense. The bond market has figured out that Greece cannot pay its bills, which is why Greek bonds are junk and German banks keep needing a bail-out -- oops, I mean Greece keeps needing a bail-out.

The bond market loves US bonds, which is why we enjoy historically low interest rates. The bond market says that the point you are making is obtuse. Seriously, it is complete hogwash, the sort of thing you think if you base your views on agitprop instead of reality.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

QED

Hank Chinaski

459-23

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

It would have raised taxes on the bottom 90% and cut them for the top 10%:

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp...ryanplan-1.jpg

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

how can people who don't pay taxes pay more?

Hank Chinaski

460-23

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

Wow. Look at that sales tax column. He would have raised taxes on everyone.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

Wow.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

sad. I'm starting to see why the Rs in congress are calling bullshit.

461-23

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

Hey, missed this part. Good luck. I hope it rocks.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

It's much easier to downsize on the fly.

Thanks, off to a good start!

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

Gracias

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

I'm not sure why you think that is a difference.

Fair enough.

Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 

If there was any relationship between spending and taxes that might make sense.

Of course, there isn't, and they are adamant in insisting there not be.