Cantor Bets Against U.S. - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

cmac2012 · #1 07-09-2011, 02:22 AM

http://www.politicususa.com/en/unamerican-eric-cantor

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has been betting against the American people and this nation’s economy since 2009.

Jonathan Easley wrote at Salon:

According to his latest financial disclosure statement, which covers the year 2010 and has been publicly available since this spring, Cantor still has up to $15,000 in the same fund. Contacted by Salon this week, Cantor’s office gave no indication that the Virginia Republican, who has played a leading role in the debt ceiling negotiations, has divested himself of these holdings since his last filing. Unless an agreement can be reached, the U.S. could begin defaulting on its debt payments on Aug. 2. If that happens and Cantor is still invested in the fund, the value of his holdings would skyrocket.

The fund hasn’t significantly spiked yet because many investors believe Congress will eventually raise the debt ceiling. However, since Cantor abruptly called off debt ceiling negotiations last Thursday, the fund is up 3.3 percent. Even if an agreement is ultimately reached before Aug. 2, the fund could continue to benefit between now and then from the uncertainty.

toomany MBZ · #2 07-09-2011, 11:41 AM

Typical politician, covering his ass.

alamostation · #3 07-09-2011, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has been betting against the American people and this nation’s economy since 2009.

Wow! I don't know where to begin.

Like Eric Cantor, I have a moderate position in ProShares Trust Ultrashort 20+ Year Treasury ETF. I never thought of it as betting against the nation's economy or the American people.

If this is a bet, it is a bet that neither side of the of the aisle in Washington has the cajones to balance the budget. Let's say the budget deficit for 2011 without action by Congress will be $1.4 trillion, resulting in a total Federal debt of $14 trillion.

Do any of you foresee the Republicans agreeing to $700 billion in new taxes to balance budget and another $700 billion a year to eliminate the Federal debt in ten years? Do any of you foresee the Democrats agreeing to $700 billion in actual spending reductions to balance the budget and another $700 billion a year to balance the budget? Me neither.

Unless the above miracle happens, the Federal Reserve policy of quantative easing will eventually collapse like any other Ponzi scheme, inflation will rear its ugly head, bond yields will increase and the value of a leveraged inverse 20 year Treasury fund will go up.

I don't think it is anti-American to be a realist. Unrealistic policies got America into its current situation.

engatwork · #4 07-10-2011, 07:38 AM

^2

Could not agree more.

t walgamuth · #5 07-10-2011, 07:46 AM

They will have to come to some agreement.

The alternative is just too destructive to contemplate.

Honus · #6 07-10-2011, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alamostation

Wow! I don't know where to begin.

Like Eric Cantor, I have a moderate position in ProShares Trust Ultrashort 20+ Year Treasury ETF. I never thought of it as betting against the nation's economy or the American people.

If this is a bet, it is a bet that neither side of the of the aisle in Washington has the cajones to balance the budget. Let's say the budget deficit for 2011 without action by Congress will be $1.4 trillion, resulting in a total Federal debt of $14 trillion.

Do any of you foresee the Republicans agreeing to $700 billion in new taxes to balance budget and another $700 billion a year to eliminate the Federal debt in ten years? Do any of you foresee the Democrats agreeing to $700 billion in actual spending reductions to balance the budget and another $700 billion a year to balance the budget? Me neither.

Unless the above miracle happens, the Federal Reserve policy of quantative easing will eventually collapse like any other Ponzi scheme, inflation will rear its ugly head, bond yields will increase and the value of a leveraged inverse 20 year Treasury fund will go up.

I don't think it is anti-American to be a realist. Unrealistic policies got America into its current situation.

If the economy suffers the ills mentioned in your post, then your investment will pay off. How is that not a bet against the nation's economy?

I have no problem with your making such an investment. I just don't understand why you claim that it is not betting against our economy.

People are saying that Cantor has a conflict of interest because he is in a position to affect public policy. I think that is true, but Cantor doesn't appear to be that smart, so I think he would be proposing destructive policies regardless of his investment portfolio.

MS Fowler · #7 07-10-2011, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

They will have to come to some agreement.

The alternative is just too destructive to contemplate.

Are they, or is that more democrat hysteria?
Defaulting on the debt is bad, I will agree with that.
However, defaulting is not the only, or even the sure result of a failure to raise the debt limit. Perhaps Congress could then prioritize their spending, and continue to pay the interest on the existing debt. I know, that grown-up behavior is also unlikely, but it points out that there are alternatives to defaulting. I fear the dems actually desire the impasse and their friends in the major propaganda outlets will help them blame the repubs--who are not entirely free of blame.

Dems want repubs to compromise on their "no taxes" stance, but where are the dems compromising? Still seems as if they are governed by that old saw, " From each.....to each....."

retmil46 · #8 07-10-2011, 01:21 PM

Oh come on. 15 grand? My POS Chrysler Jeep is worth more than that. As much as that guy's probably worth, if he were really trying to make a killing off the possibility this would happen, he'd have something like a couple million in that fund.

Must have been a slow news day at Salon, to take this molehill and try to blow it into a political mountain.

Betting against the economy? Dddduuuuuuhhhhh!!! Given the economy we've had the last 4 years, tell me who with any sense HASN"T been betting against it? It's called diversification and covering your "assets".

Just more political BS.

MTUpower · #9 07-10-2011, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

They will have to come to some agreement.

The alternative is just too destructive to contemplate.

Sounds like an extremely negative claim with far too little information to truly be able to chart the consequences.

Honus · #10 07-10-2011, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Are they, or is that more democrat hysteria?...

So far, what I have seen is a whole bunch of economists saying that a first-ever default by the United States will have disastrous effects. I haven't seen any economists who disagree with that view, but there are a growing number of GOP politicians saying that maybe a default won't be so bad. I know that you have an aversion to experts, but I would have thought that you would want to have some idea about whether a default would cause another depression. Do you have any arguments or historical precedents or anything to support you on this? Or are we just going to try it out and see what happens?

Quote:

Defaulting on the debt is bad, I will agree with that.
However, defaulting is not the only, or even the sure result of a failure to raise the debt limit. Perhaps Congress could then prioritize their spending, and continue to pay the interest on the existing debt. I know, that grown-up behavior is also unlikely, but it points out that there are alternatives to defaulting...

Actually, if we had grownups in Washington, they wouldn't be reducing spending now. IMHO, the current bipartisan desire to cut spending is repeating the mistakes that deepened and prolonged the Great Depression. This guy explains it much better than I: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/want-to-avoid-another-depression-try-understanding-the-first-one/2011/07/07/gIQAbKlx6H_story.html

Quote:

...Dems want repubs to compromise on their "no taxes" stance, but where are the dems compromising?

The democrats have offered all sorts of compromises. Obama's latest position, as I understand it, would cut the deficit by $4 trillion. They even proposed cutting social security even though it has nothing to do with the deficit. In return, the GOP offers nothing. Here's the knucklehead Cantor:

Quote:

...But Cantor added that while Republicans were unwilling to consider direct tax rate increases, closing certain loopholes was not out of the question.

“If the president wants to talk loopholes, we’ll be glad to talk loopholes,” he said, adding that, “we’re not for any proposal that increases taxes, and any type of discussion should be coupled with offsetting tax cuts somewhere else.”...

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2011/jul/06/cantor-rejects-increasing-revenues-ar-1155487/

Translation: I offer nothing. Take it or leave it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Still seems as if they are governed by that old saw, " From each.....to each....."

Really? Our taxes are at historic lows. We are in at least three wars. We have an economy that could use some stimulation, yet the Democrats are going along with this phony deficit crisis mentality. And you call them Marxists? Really?

retmil46 · #11 07-10-2011, 03:42 PM

Despite Obama's offer to put SS, Medicare, and Medicaid on the table, yesterday Nancy Pelosi once again got astride her broom (nothing against her politically, I just feel she's a rich arrogant old bat that's suffering from Inhofe Syndrome - "I'm the ruling class").

She flat-out declared that the Holy Trinity of entitlement programs would NOT be on the table for cuts, and she would do her damnedest to shoot down and block any budget deal that attempted such, regardless of any statements coming from the WH.

SS does need to be discussed. For five decades they've been raiding SS and adding that money in with the general fund, and writing some pretty large IOU's to the SSA. Well, guess what - now that SS is taking in less than it's paying out, they've started calling in those IOU's - and that money has to be paid back out of the general fund.

So they can either borrow from Peter (the Chinese) to pay Paul (the SSA) - and get even further into debt - or they do some major tinkering with SS such that it stays solvent for a few more decades without having to pay back any of their IOU's - or (and about a snowballs's chance in hell of this one) they finally deal with the 800 lb gorilla in the room and engineer a permanent fix such that SS stays solvent and all the IOU's are gradually paid back without screwing over the general public too badly.

If they do nothing, then SS will become another drain on the general fund and add to the deficit as well.

Medicare and Medicaid will need to be dealt with as well. Aside from the defense budget and our 3 wars, the above three programs are the biggest expenditures out of the federal budget, and they're just going to keep getting more expensive unless something is done to address costs. Obamacare - or as I like to call it, the Insurance Company Subsidy Act - didn't do squat to address medical care costs or MC and MA.

MS Fowler · #12 07-10-2011, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

So far, what I have seen is a whole bunch of economists saying that a first-ever default by the United States will have disastrous effects. I haven't seen any economists who disagree with that view, but there are a growing number of GOP politicians saying that maybe a default won't be so bad. I know that you have an aversion to experts, but I would have thought that you would want to have some idea about whether a default would cause another depression. Do you have any arguments or historical precedents or anything to support you on this? Or are we just going to try it out and see what happens?Actually, if we had grownups in Washington, they wouldn't be reducing spending now. IMHO, the current bipartisan desire to cut spending is repeating the mistakes that deepened and prolonged the Great Depression. This guy explains it much better than I: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/want-to-avoid-another-depression-try-understanding-the-first-one/2011/07/07/gIQAbKlx6H_story.htmlThe democrats have offered all sorts of compromises. Obama's latest position, as I understand it, would cut the deficit by $4 trillion. They even proposed cutting social security even though it has nothing to do with the deficit. In return, the GOP offers nothing. Here's the knucklehead Cantor:Translation: I offer nothing. Take it or leave it.Really? Our taxes are at historic lows. We are in at least three wars. We have an economy that could use some stimulation, yet the Democrats are going along with this phony deficit crisis mentality. And you call them Marxists? Really?

I guess I failed to be clear enough.
I was not saying that default wouldn't be so bad. In fact, as you quoted, i said, "default would be bad".
What I was saying is that failing to raise the credit limit does not automatically mean we default on the loans. There are other options--we can continue to pay the interest.
Its about time we understand that we cannot spend 140% of our income.

raymr · #13 07-10-2011, 11:32 PM

A few days ago I heard various Republicans were still against tax increases, but were starting to look at 'spending cuts' in the tax code. So glad we got smart people in charge.

Honus · #14 07-11-2011, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I guess I failed to be clear enough.
I was not saying that default wouldn't be so bad. In fact, as you quoted, i said, "default would be bad".
What I was saying is that failing to raise the credit limit does not automatically mean we default on the loans. There are other options--we can continue to pay the interest.
Its about time we understand that we cannot spend 140% of our income.

I did misread your previous post. I think I got thrown off by the reference to "democrat hysteria."

That said, I disagree with your priorities. The debt and deficit are problematic, but are not a crisis. Unemployment is the crisis. We should be investing, not cutting. Like this guy says: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/want-to-avoid-another-depression-try-understanding-the-first-one/2011/07/07/gIQAbKlx6H_story_1.html

MS Fowler · #15 07-11-2011, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

I did misread your previous post. I think I got thrown off by the reference to "democrat hysteria."

That said, I disagree with your priorities. The debt and deficit are problematic, but are not a crisis. Unemployment is the crisis. We should be investing, not cutting. Like this guy says: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/want-to-avoid-another-depression-try-understanding-the-first-one/2011/07/07/gIQAbKlx6H_story_1.html

I might even agree with you. The question then becomes, How do you "invest"?
The private economy is the only long-term solution. Government "jobs" do not grow the economy. Growth happens in the private sector. So how does government encourage growth and hiring in the private sector?