Stocks tumble as U.S. budget deal remains elusive

“U.S. stocks tumbled Tuesday on signs of any progress toward a budget deal unraveling, two days before the nation is expected to hit its debt limit,” Kate Gibson reports for MarketWatch.

“At a news conference held after a closed-door session, House Republican leaders said they were still working to find a way to end the partial government shutdown and raise the debt limit,” Gibson reports. “House Speaker John Boehner said lawmakers were trying to find a bipartisan way forward. As House Republicans worked on an alternative to a bipartisan measure expected from the Senate, NBC News reported Senate budget negotiations had been postponed as senators wait to first see the House GOP plan before proceeding.”

“The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 133.25 points, or 0.9%, to 15,168.01, with Home Depot Inc. [HD +0.15%] pacing losses that included 28 of its 30 components,” Gibson reports. “A day after closing at a three-week high, the S&P 500 index fell 12.08 points, or 0.7%, to 1,698.06. The Nasdaq Composite declined 21.26 points, or 0.6%, to 3,794.01. Shares of Apple Inc. gained 0.5% after the iPhone maker said it hired Angela Ahrendts, currently chief executive of Burberry Group PLC, to be its new retail chief.”

Read more in the full article here.


      1. … nor has the federal government tried to, as taxes have been significantly cut under the last two presidents. Of course, one has to look at the legislature to see how the budgets are created (or how “continuing budget resolutions”, effectively the same thing, are renewed,

        What the US legislature has done in the last 50 years is ramp up spending to constant-war status while systematically whittling loopholes into the tax code to protect its partisan funders. Essentially this merely loads up the federal credit card, with no plan by either corrupt political party to every pay it off.

        … but that won’t stop the extreme partisans on this board to personally attack individuals that they see (wrongly) as the sudden source of all national ills.

    1. Time to take the vote away from those that created this 50+ year travesty of budget deficits and social engineering.

      As long as those that benefit from government largesse outnumber fiscally responsible voters, the US deficit will continue to grow until the only answer is governmental bankruptcy. That isn’t so far off into the future.

      You can identify who those people are by their responses to this post.

    2. I would settle for a conservative party run by adults that are not in denial of the enlightenment.

      That one thing would improve things more than one could imagine.

      The Democrats are a highly dysfunctional association of interests, but on a relative crime scale are guilty of jaywalking as the Republicans are guilty of mass murder.

  1. So when does the “debt” go in reverse? Where we begin voting to “LOWER” the debt limit? At what point do we not have worry about this BS? At what point we we say, umm yes we have a balanced budget for the next 10 years and pay back our debt?


    1. “At what point we we say, umm yes we have a balanced budget for the next 10 years and pay back our debt?
      WHEN WHEN WHEN???”

      That would probably be at the point you start taxing the super rich at a decent rate, like 50%, instead of the current situation where they pay like 10%.

        1. I’ll play your game.

          For the sake of discussion, let’s declare the following:

          “poor” are those who earn less than half of the median household earnings.

          “middle class” earns from 50% of median household earnings to 200% of median household earnings.

          “rich” would earn more than 200% of median US household earnings.

          “super rich” would be the top 10% of earners of the rich group.


          I will wager you that the population of the “rich” in the USA is less than 20% of the populace, but they control at least 80% of accumulated wealth, and pay a total federal tax rate far closer to 15% than 30%.

          Furthermore, I will bet you that there are less than 10,000 households in a nation of ~ 260 million people that can be classified as “super rich”.

          Prove me wrong using referenced federal statistics published by your big bad government.

      1. Another idiot heard from that spouts Part dogma without a shred of understanding.

        You could tax “the rich” at 100%, but only generate enough revenue to pay national deficit spending for 1 day.

        1. Nobody is asking that the “super rich” pay off 50 years of accumulated national debt overnight.

          However, you can’t get blood from a stone. The accumulated wealth of the nation is hoarded by corporations and the extreme rich, much of it self-rewarded due to cozy incestuous corporate compensation schemes. When the “earnings” of the top few percent of the population increases by double or triple digits every year REGARDLESS of corporate performance, while real working wages have stagnated in the past 40 years, there is something fundamentally wrong. Federal tax policy MUST incentivize the rich to re-invest their wealth into domestic production and labor creation. If we cannot do that together, then the USA will fall faster than Rome.

          Money is fertilizer. It does no good until you spread it. The idealogues who preach greed and class warfare are killing the nation. Of course, they don’t care, they have no national loyalty. The elite rich of the world play wherever they want to go. National prosperity doesn’t even register on their list of concerns. It would if they saw the havoc that extreme differences in wealth have created amongst the “little people”.

          1. Corporations and top tier individual tax payers are now paying about one third what they paid in 1970 in taxes. That, and our Trillion dollar wars are the reason for the debt.

          1. Absolutely sure, right. Congress refused to ratify Clinton’s 1994/1995 budget and shutdown government. All of Clinton’s budgets thereafter were much smaller.

            While we’re on the subject of 1998, it was CRA (Community Reinvest Act) 1998 that led directly to the bank failure of 2008.That legislation required community lending based on deposits, and not the credit worthiness of the borrowers. It changed banking rules that led to loans being made to those unable to borrow under the old rules. Its authors were Christopher Dodd (D) and Barney Frank (D).

            1. It’s funny and predictable that you toss in the whole CRA spiel for good measure. You parrots never like to miss an opportunity to mindlessly blame Democrats for everything bad and laud Republicans for everything good.

              It’s stupid.

              Clinton was certainly complicit in the eventual financial meltdown due to his willingness to go along with the trend of financial deregulation. However, trying to pin the whole collapse on the CRA is simplistic at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. It absolves all of the institutional and individual greed that was necessary to drive things to the level they got.

            2. At least if you are going to place blame do it properly. The bill was Dodd Frank but the part of the bill you are referring to was inserted at the last minute by Republicans. It then went to Clinton and he signed it. I do blame Clinton for not vetoing the bill, but the other parts of Dodd Frank were good. The problem with you righties is that every time a Democrat becomes President you start screaming debt debt debt. But when Clinton left office the country was running a surplus. Did you righties scream about using that surplus to pay down the debt? Hell no, the mantra was tax cuts for the rich. My guess is most of you have no idea the difference between deficit and debt. So please don’t come crying about the debt only when Dems are in charge and suddenly scream tax cuts when Republicans are.

  2. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin believes President Barack Obama should be impeached if he raises the debt ceiling without the backing of Congress.

    In a Facebook post, Palin said Obama is “scaremongering the markets” on the prospect of default if the nation’s borrowing limit doesn’t rise by Oct. 17.

    “Defaulting on our national debt is an impeachable offense, and any attempt by President Obama to unilaterally raise the debt limit without Congress is also an impeachable offense,” Palin said. “A default would also be a shameful lack of leadership, just as mindlessly increasing our debt without trying to rein in spending is a betrayal of our children and grandchildren who will be stuck with the bill.”

    Palin says there is no way the U.S. can default if the Fourteenth Amendment — which states “the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned” — is followed.

    “We currently collect more than enough tax revenue to service our debt if we do that first. However, we don’t have enough money to continue to finance our ever-growing federal government (with our $17 trillion dollar national debt that has increased over 50% since Obama took office),” Palin stated. “That’s why President Obama wants to increase the debt limit.”

    Read more at CBS News, Washington D.C.

        1. Boris: please identify where the executive can be impeached due to the inability of the speaker of the House to bring a budget bill to vote.

          The executive, by the way, has little or no power to deny repayment to investors. He can, and probably should, start furloughing essential federal employees. That is, deemed “essential” by laws approved by the legislature long before he took office.

          Take off your partisan blinders for once and stick to objective facts about laws and government operations for once. Can you even do this?

            1. I assume you mean Section 4 of the amendment. It states, “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.”

              Do please explain your interpretation of this clause. I interpret it to mean that LAWS — which originate in the legislature — determine federal expenditure. Furthermore, as this amendment was written immediately after the US Civil War, it clearly states that the Confederate states would not be honored by the federal government. It does not state ANYWHERE that the executive has powers of the purse, however, it would seem that any “spending limit” is null and void if it interferes with federal repayment of debts already incurred.

              By the way, the simple solution to the problem is for the legislature to stop whining about laws they already enacted and instead write pragmatic NEW legislation to reform and economize the federal government going forward. Neither corrupt party has chosen to do this, choosing instead to employ brinksmanship and emergency short-term funding resolutions. A pox on both sides.

      1. Can’t. John Maynard Keynes holds that title in perpetuum.

        If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand. – Milton Friedman

        1. I think you meant to say, “Spoken by a person who was making a joke to point out Pailn’s unique brand of nonsensical pretzel logic.”

          If you intended to be intellectually honest, I mean.

  3. Poor Boehner. He gets no respect. The progressive don’t like him; the faux-conservative Tea Partiers don’t like him; the moderate Republicans don’t like him. Even my dog doesn’t like him. Poor Boehner.

  4. I reckon we should all bow our heads and bend our knees to pray at the church of fiscal conservatism where making ends meet and balancing the budget means something. It means we live within our means and not accumulate debt like a drunken sailor on an alcoholic binge.

    But a thought strikes me. Can a Muslim president pray in church?

    1. Gee I’m not even American and I find that last line offensive and ridiculous.
      Let us all know what you think would happen to the US economy with the immediate withdrawal of sufficient tens of billions of dollars to tip next year’s budget into surplus.

      1. Oh, I’m not getting into the ins and outs of who spent what on which or pointing the finger at one particular party. I’m just talking about the simple macroeconomic fact that governments spend money on various things and if they reduce that overall spending level and use some of that money to pay off debt instead of within their own economy, it will have a contractionary effect on a fragile US economy that is still in recovery mode.
        It’s not something that can be done with a simple “let’s spend less money” approach, it is something that has be done carefully, gradually and responsibly.

      1. Palin has no clue how to stand straight let alone anything else. To grandstand with racists who hold the confederate flag in front of the White House was something that should have been immediately stopped by Palin and Cruz. You tea party wack jobs won’t be happy till you have destroyed the government. Then what you have 10 maybe 14% of the population. There is nothing going to be good for you, trust me on that. Instead of trying to bring the government down maybe you should try to pass solid laws to change spending habits. And that does not mean entitlements of which social security is not. SS is an insurance program, always has been. And the amount of money spent on other welfare and food stamps is a small portion of our spending. You cannot keep cutting taxes and expect to get out of a hole. That is like quitting your job and taking one for half the pay then complaining because you still can’t afford to pay your bills

  5. Charlie Gibson: “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”

    Palin: blink, blink………… blink….. “In what respect, Charlie”.

    She had NO CLUE what he was even talking about. Any particular political view aside, the woman is a Category 5 moron. Her ability extends to repeating a few Fox News / tea party talking points and winking.

  6. Anyone with half a brain already knows that warism is not sustainable. I just hope there is a default and a resulting economic Armageddon, it will do so much good the free world. It’s probably wishful thinking but I have to admit it’s been so nice knowing that no new countries will get invaded during that shutdown. I could get used to that.

  7. We have enough politics in the news. We or I come to this site for new, updates and how to’s. All I have to do is turn on the tv for what hapening in the capitol. Lets get back to topics we love. MAC, TECHNOLOGY, MAC, TECHNOLOGY, APPLE, TECHNOLOGY, IPHONE…. Come on people that’s get back on track, this not a political site….please??????

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.