A bit of equal time for the Democrats, as they join forces with the Republicans to hike unemployment and lower GDP, with all forecasters in agreement.

But I do thinks markets and the economy have already discounted at least most of it:

Whitney Tilson: ‘I Love the Fiscal Cliff’

By Bruno J. Navarro

November 9 (CNBC) — The so-called “fiscal cliff” is a good thing for Washington because it will force both Democrats and Republicans to cede ground on core issues, Whitney Tilson of T2 Partners said Friday on CNBC.

Tilson, a supporter of President Barack Obama and fundraiser for his re-election campaign, said that he expected resolution of the “fiscal cliff” would involve increasing taxes and eliminating deductions, as well as one important area: “Democrats are going to have to touch the third rail for them, which is entitlements, and Obama, I think, is willing to do that,” he said on “Fast Money.”

“Every Democrat I talked to is willing to do that, but only in the context of Republicans giving on the tax and deductions side aimed more at wealthiest folks in this country who are the ones that can afford to give more.”

18 Responses

  1. Oh goodie. The idiots are running the government. Oh wait. They always did. Can anyone, ever break through to these guys?

    1. @Dave Begotka,

      No, it’s utter nonsense.

      Also, it would take a smart person with a degree in a hard science like chemistry about 1 month of study to understand finance at a level sufficient to be a commentator on RT or CNBC.

      1. @roger erickson,

        I don’t know. I have a couple degrees in the hard sciences (never took economics, though), read 7 deadly, follow this and other MMT blogs/sites, enjoy Ron T’s comments on Krugman, but still don’t quite understand all ot it.

        But your comment refers to the quaility of commentator not scientists.

  2. Wow, if somebody as prominent and influential as Whitney Tilson doesn’t understand MMT, then we’re really in trouble. The next shoe to drop will probably be Paris Hilton coming out in support of the theory that deficits crowd out private lending.

    1. @ESM,
      To not understand MMT is to not understand simple arithmetic…within the context of closed system bounds.

      But then there lies the problem…so simple it repels the mind.

  3. “The next shoe to drop will probably be Paris Hilton coming out in support of the theory that deficits crowd out private lending.”

    I think she was talking about private LANDING. Increased deficit spending would probably result in increased air traffic and she would have to circle the airport a few more times before she could touch down.

  4. OK, some Obama supporters/skeptics are all in a dither because of this supposedly leaked memo giving away the store in a deal to increase the debt cap
    My take is that, since the deal was rejected by Boehner, it proved that the deficit gambit was not sincere. Our punitive Congress critters don’t want to reduce the deficit or increase revenues. What they want is to scare the electorate that doesn’t support the incumbents and pretend to reward those who do. Rewards and punishments, or the promises thereof, is what the lords and ladies in our legislative bodies have been relying on for decades to keep themselves in power. Groups that can be targeted with punitive policies have become increasingly scarce since the advent of universal suffrage and increased access to the ballot box. Which likely accounts for the fumbling assaults on illegals, transients, students, elderly, sexually active, pregnant women and foreign language speakers.
    It’s all sort of pathetic, when you come to think of it. Poor Willard tried to be positive with his catch-all “Believe in America” an amorphous entity that could not compete with his punitive pronouncements on women, workers and welfare.
    The latter, of course, is what the Congress was set up to provide. Instead, the members have long preferred to deprive whoever couldn’t effectively object of their rights and Willard made the mistake of hitching his wagon to that train.

  5. @Vincent, You mistake the agent. The President has no control over the money. That’s the purview of Congress, whose delegation of the purse strings to Wall Street is a charade. The Capitol Hill Gang have been really successful at pretending that someone else (President, courts, lobbyists, bankers, private corps, contractors, pundits, consultants, unions) is responsible for the messes they legislate, the time they waste, and the penalties they impose. One reason they get away with it is because most entities are loath to admit they are powerless.
    The President does have one power. He can refuse to do what the Congress orders — like refusing to deport children deprived of citizenship status through no fault of their own.

    1. @Monica Smith,
      For 2 years the White House and Capitol Hill were one. Even now, Reid lets little get through his Senate. The President has another power you didn’t mention: the attorney general. Interesting how he’s pretty much given Wall Street a pass.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *