College Hoops, Disrespection, and More
https://goatpen.net/forums/
I went to more fixed income shortly after the quant funds blew up in 2007. I was late back into equities when QE1 came online, because the umemployment rate scared me. Then, I realized that unemployment rate be damned when the government is injecting cash into the market and forcing treasury yields so low that money will have no choice but to flow to equities.aTm wrote:But did you call the bottom?
Considering how we're positioning ourselves with regard to natgas and fracking, a removal of fossil fuel needs would hurt the US, big time, over the next decade.hedge wrote:The government is such a large part of the overall economy right now that massive spending cuts would be disastrous. Cut the military in half? Now you've got millions of unemployed ex-military people looking for work and massive layoffs at all the suppliers. Hell, if somebody somehow figured out a way to get free energy (breaking all laws of physics and thermodynamics), it would be disastrous to the economy. Every fossil fuel related industry would immediately be worthless, everybody that worked for any company that directly supplied or was related in any way to the gas/oil/coal/etc industries would immediately be unemployed. Hell, it would lead to an immediate and massive depression. You can't just say that cutting spending is automatically a great thing...
Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/c ... z2Mhddc23jAt Obama’s press conference, after he explained the negative effects of sequestration, he cast blame on the Republicans, and a reporter challenged his analysis. “It sounds like you’re saying that this is a Republican problem and not one that you bear any responsibility for,” she said to the President.
Obama seemed taken aback. “Well, Julie, give me an example of what I might do.”
Obama’s slightly testy response is worth considering. I don’t remember a President ever publicly expressing a similar sentiment. All Presidents come to appreciate the limits of the power of their office, and there are reams of quotes from Presidents privately expressing disdain for Congress’s unwillingness to bend to their will. But rarely do they ventilate such thoughts in public.
A little later, Obama, using a reference from “Star Wars” (with some “Star Trek” mixed in), went even further, giving a short lesson on the separation of powers:
PBO wrote:I know that this has been some of the conventional wisdom that’s been floating around Washington, that somehow, even though most people agree that I’m being reasonable, that most people agree I’m presenting a fair deal, the fact that they don’t take it means that I should somehow do a Jedi mind-meld with these folks and convince them to do what’s right. Well, they’re elected. We have a constitutional system of government. The Speaker of the House and the leader of the Senate and all those folks have responsibilities….
This idea that somehow there’s a secret formula or secret sauce to get Speaker Boehner or Mitch McConnell to say, You know what, Mr. President, you’re right, we should close some tax loopholes for the well-off and well-connected in exchange for some serious entitlement reform and spending cuts of programs we don’t need. I think if there was a secret way to do that, I would have tried it. I would have done it.
The tendency of many Washington pundits, especially those who cover the White House, is to invest the Presidency with far more power that the Constitution gives it. The idea that the Presidency and Congress are co-equal branches of government is the most basic fact of our system, and yet it is often absent from political coverage of standoffs between the two branches. If only Obama would lead, this fiscal mess would be solved! If only he would socialize more with legislators the way L.B.J. did, his agenda would pass!
To be fair to the reporter, she did not suggest that Obama wasn't doing enough, she was just challenging his accusation that it is solely a Republican problem. And since the article says that the branches are co-equal then the logic of the article agrees with the reporter.Bklyn wrote:Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/c ... z2Mhddc23jAt Obama’s press conference, after he explained the negative effects of sequestration, he cast blame on the Republicans, and a reporter challenged his analysis. “It sounds like you’re saying that this is a Republican problem and not one that you bear any responsibility for,” she said to the President.
Obama seemed taken aback. “Well, Julie, give me an example of what I might do.”
Obama’s slightly testy response is worth considering. I don’t remember a President ever publicly expressing a similar sentiment. All Presidents come to appreciate the limits of the power of their office, and there are reams of quotes from Presidents privately expressing disdain for Congress’s unwillingness to bend to their will. But rarely do they ventilate such thoughts in public.
A little later, Obama, using a reference from “Star Wars” (with some “Star Trek” mixed in), went even further, giving a short lesson on the separation of powers:
PBO wrote:I know that this has been some of the conventional wisdom that’s been floating around Washington, that somehow, even though most people agree that I’m being reasonable, that most people agree I’m presenting a fair deal, the fact that they don’t take it means that I should somehow do a Jedi mind-meld with these folks and convince them to do what’s right. Well, they’re elected. We have a constitutional system of government. The Speaker of the House and the leader of the Senate and all those folks have responsibilities….
This idea that somehow there’s a secret formula or secret sauce to get Speaker Boehner or Mitch McConnell to say, You know what, Mr. President, you’re right, we should close some tax loopholes for the well-off and well-connected in exchange for some serious entitlement reform and spending cuts of programs we don’t need. I think if there was a secret way to do that, I would have tried it. I would have done it.
The tendency of many Washington pundits, especially those who cover the White House, is to invest the Presidency with far more power that the Constitution gives it. The idea that the Presidency and Congress are co-equal branches of government is the most basic fact of our system, and yet it is often absent from political coverage of standoffs between the two branches. If only Obama would lead, this fiscal mess would be solved! If only he would socialize more with legislators the way L.B.J. did, his agenda would pass!
Bklyn wrote:Basically.
Although, Boehner will not leave this unscathed. The President's approval rating is still above 50% and the Hill is languishing in the 20s (and the GOP's may be lower, I can't remember).
