turtlespeed 219
Recommended Posts
Skyrad 0
I completely agree with your post.
When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
rushmc 23
kelpdiver***
Look into how ACA was voted into law. It was done via gamesmanship and during a very short period when the Democrats had the majority in both the House and the Senate. If it were voted on today it would not pass. There are plenty of polls showing that a majority of those polled do not want it.
You're either slightly mistaken in your recollection, or telling a big fib right now.
It was voted into law 60-39 in the Senate. It occurred during a short period of time when the Democrats had not a majority, but a supermajority in the Senate, an extremely rare circumstance. And of course a necessary one in an environment where the GOP has been willing to indefinitely fillibuster even minor Senate confirmations of ambassadors to minor nations.
And how did they get to have such a majority? Because the GOP was so unpopular in the second term of Bush. Mired by the crash, the wars, they already had lost the House back in 2007, and got destroyed in the 2008 elections.
Go back and look at the process used
Not normally how laws are passed
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/14/shutdown-republicans-government-spending-delusions
The reality is that the story of exploding interest burdens is utter nonsense since there is zero precedent for the country ever allowing the debt to expand in this way. This makes as much sense as arguing that someone driving west in New Jersey risks falling into the Pacific Ocean. People driving west in New Jersey invariably turn or park their cars before ending up in the Pacific Ocean and the United States has always taken measures to reduce deficits long before they posed a fundamental threat to the economy.
The real question is why the primary (ie non-interest) deficit rises and this is the story of the broken US healthcare system. We pay twice as much per person for our health care as the average for other rich countries, with nothing to show for this money in terms of outcomes. We pay 2.5 times as much as the UK. If our costs were at all in line with those in other wealthy countries, we would be looking at explosive budget surpluses running into the trillions of dollars annually.
This fact raises the obvious question, why are projections of deficits based on unaffordable healthcare costs always treated in the media as a basis for cutting benefits to seniors rather than a reason for cutting payments to providers like doctors, drug companies, and medical device companies?
There is no explanation except the bias of the media. Obviously they identify much more with rich doctors and the people who profit from the bloated prices charged in the United States by drug companies and medical equipment providers than with the seniors who are dependent on Social Security and Medicare.
The reality is that the story of exploding interest burdens is utter nonsense since there is zero precedent for the country ever allowing the debt to expand in this way. This makes as much sense as arguing that someone driving west in New Jersey risks falling into the Pacific Ocean. People driving west in New Jersey invariably turn or park their cars before ending up in the Pacific Ocean and the United States has always taken measures to reduce deficits long before they posed a fundamental threat to the economy.
The real question is why the primary (ie non-interest) deficit rises and this is the story of the broken US healthcare system. We pay twice as much per person for our health care as the average for other rich countries, with nothing to show for this money in terms of outcomes. We pay 2.5 times as much as the UK. If our costs were at all in line with those in other wealthy countries, we would be looking at explosive budget surpluses running into the trillions of dollars annually.
This fact raises the obvious question, why are projections of deficits based on unaffordable healthcare costs always treated in the media as a basis for cutting benefits to seniors rather than a reason for cutting payments to providers like doctors, drug companies, and medical device companies?
There is no explanation except the bias of the media. Obviously they identify much more with rich doctors and the people who profit from the bloated prices charged in the United States by drug companies and medical equipment providers than with the seniors who are dependent on Social Security and Medicare.
wmw999 2,439
I agree with your point about the disproportionate effect of healthcare on the deficit (and, therefore, the debt). However, while we're not in the ocean yet, we're closer than we've ever been, and the people directly driving the car (congress) are fighting over the steering wheel.
The trend toward the tight quantification of analysis, which has led to very, very, short-term quantified goals (just look at corporate and bank reports as an example) has led to a conceit that we know exactly what success looks like, and that we can shoot exactly towards that.
However, large-system success is in part relative to its environment, and that environment is changing.
Wendy P.
The trend toward the tight quantification of analysis, which has led to very, very, short-term quantified goals (just look at corporate and bank reports as an example) has led to a conceit that we know exactly what success looks like, and that we can shoot exactly towards that.
However, large-system success is in part relative to its environment, and that environment is changing.
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
Skyrad 0
Quotewhile we're not in the ocean yet, we're closer than we've ever been
You are standing on the beach Wendy
When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
davjohns 1
Hijack alert....
I thought the debt limit was a number. How does it run out at midnight?
It just flashed into my mind that this is being broadcast everywhere, but makes no sense. I've been so repulsed by the lies about default that I missed this non-sequitur.
A little help. Is the debt limit a number with a specified time period of authority to use it? If so, we are not talking about raising the limit, but extending the authority. Nobody is saying that.
With no current budget, what is the authority to spend anyhow? We still have money flowing in. The only bills that are being paid should be those that were obligated under a previous budget.
Too many lies for me to keep track of.
I thought the debt limit was a number. How does it run out at midnight?
It just flashed into my mind that this is being broadcast everywhere, but makes no sense. I've been so repulsed by the lies about default that I missed this non-sequitur.
A little help. Is the debt limit a number with a specified time period of authority to use it? If so, we are not talking about raising the limit, but extending the authority. Nobody is saying that.
With no current budget, what is the authority to spend anyhow? We still have money flowing in. The only bills that are being paid should be those that were obligated under a previous budget.
Too many lies for me to keep track of.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
[Reply]e pay twice as much per person for our health care as the average for other rich countries, with nothing to show for this money in terms of outcomes. We pay 2.5 times as much as the UK. If our costs were at all in line with those in other wealthy countries, we would be looking at explosive budget surpluses running into the trillions of dollars annually.
The federal/state/local government spends more than half of all healthcare spending in the US. But you want to get costs in line.
Here's a suggestion - get government out of the healthcare business.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
wmw999 2,439
I understand your point, but am not sure I agree with it. While basic medical care was somewhat affordable even 50-60 years ago, it's really not any more, unless you just stick with the internet, bandaids and bacitracin (which are admittedly better than much of what we had 100 years ago).
Is an increasing wealth-based stratification of society, with access to much of what can increase mobility being driven by wealth, really a desirable goal? Those same 100 years ago there was space for development out -- now much of the space for development (whether it's business, building, or just moving) requires understanding a whole lot more infrastructure, because it's a more crowded country.
This is a discussion question -- I'm not trying to lead you by the nose to some predetermined conclusion (but you know I don't tend to do that anyway).
Or are you figuring that by withdrawing government-sponsored medical care (including things like county hospitals) the market will change so as to be unrecognizable from what it is today?
Wendy P.
Is an increasing wealth-based stratification of society, with access to much of what can increase mobility being driven by wealth, really a desirable goal? Those same 100 years ago there was space for development out -- now much of the space for development (whether it's business, building, or just moving) requires understanding a whole lot more infrastructure, because it's a more crowded country.
This is a discussion question -- I'm not trying to lead you by the nose to some predetermined conclusion (but you know I don't tend to do that anyway).
Or are you figuring that by withdrawing government-sponsored medical care (including things like county hospitals) the market will change so as to be unrecognizable from what it is today?
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
Skyrad 0
The USA was founded as a socialist republic, where along the way did it become a capitalist nation divided between the haves and the majority have nots?
When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
wmw999 2,439
Where do you get that it was founded as a socialist republic? I haven't heard it described that way before.
Wendy P.
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
SkyDekker 1,465
lawrocket
Here's a suggestion - get government out of the healthcare business.
I think there might be some who would argue that basic health care should not be a business.
turtlespeed 219
wmw999Where do you get that it was founded as a socialist republic? I haven't heard it described that way before.
Wendy P.
Evidently their history books are not accurate.
I believe the description should be Democratic Republic.
There was no welfare, or socialist programs.
. . . but that doesn't fit his argument.
Unless he is talking Pre United States, when we were colonies.
Still - I doubt the colonies were socialist republics.
As there was taxation without representation . . . hence the whole Boston Tea Party.
Holy Uninformed Batman.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
'General Welfare of the United States' - Sounds a bit socialist.
http://consortiumnews.com/2013/10/03/americas-government-by-extortion/
With all the Tea Partiers’ talk about their “originalist” interpretation of the Constitution, they ignore the reality that the Founding document was written primarily by Federalists, such as George Washington, James Madison (who was then Washington’s protégé), Alexander Hamilton and Gouverneur Morris (the chief author of the Preamble).
The Federalists despised the concept of states’ rights (as enshrined in the Articles of Confederation) and believed in centralizing power in the federal government, albeit with a system of checks and balances to restrain ill-advised decision-making, but with few other limits on what elected representatives could do for the nation’s well-being.
That is why – in both the Preamble and in Article I, Section 8 (the so-called “enumerated powers”) – the Framers included language giving Congress the authority to “provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States” and “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.”
As historian Jada Thacker has written, “The Constitution was never intended to ‘provide limited government,’ and furthermore it did not do so. … This is not a matter of opinion, but of literacy. If we want to discover the truth about the scope of power granted to the federal government by the Constitution, all we have to do is read what it says.”
Given the malleable phrase “general Welfare” and the so-called “elastic clause” for passing all “necessary and proper” laws, Thacker notes that “the type, breadth and scope of federal legislation became unchained. … Taken together, these clauses – restated in the vernacular – flatly announce that ‘Congress can make any law it feels is necessary to provide for whatever it considers the general welfare of the country.’
http://consortiumnews.com/2013/10/03/americas-government-by-extortion/
With all the Tea Partiers’ talk about their “originalist” interpretation of the Constitution, they ignore the reality that the Founding document was written primarily by Federalists, such as George Washington, James Madison (who was then Washington’s protégé), Alexander Hamilton and Gouverneur Morris (the chief author of the Preamble).
The Federalists despised the concept of states’ rights (as enshrined in the Articles of Confederation) and believed in centralizing power in the federal government, albeit with a system of checks and balances to restrain ill-advised decision-making, but with few other limits on what elected representatives could do for the nation’s well-being.
That is why – in both the Preamble and in Article I, Section 8 (the so-called “enumerated powers”) – the Framers included language giving Congress the authority to “provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States” and “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.”
As historian Jada Thacker has written, “The Constitution was never intended to ‘provide limited government,’ and furthermore it did not do so. … This is not a matter of opinion, but of literacy. If we want to discover the truth about the scope of power granted to the federal government by the Constitution, all we have to do is read what it says.”
Given the malleable phrase “general Welfare” and the so-called “elastic clause” for passing all “necessary and proper” laws, Thacker notes that “the type, breadth and scope of federal legislation became unchained. … Taken together, these clauses – restated in the vernacular – flatly announce that ‘Congress can make any law it feels is necessary to provide for whatever it considers the general welfare of the country.’
SkyDekker 1,465
turtlespeed***Where do you get that it was founded as a socialist republic? I haven't heard it described that way before.
Wendy P.
Evidently their history books are not accurate.
I believe the description should be Democratic Republic.
There was no welfare, or socialist programs.
. . . but that doesn't fit his argument.
Unless he is talking Pre United States, when we were colonies.
Still - I doubt the colonies were socialist republics.
As there was taxation without representation . . . hence the whole Boston Tea Party.
Holy Uninformed Batman.
"Creating" a country is inherently socialist. Establishing a governing body for the greater good of the people.
davjohns 1
According to this site http://www.usdebtclock.org/ midnight is way too late. We will either have a raised debt ceiling or a balanced budget in a few hours. If they can't go on credit anymore, that means they have to balance the budget, right? I'm ok with that.
You don't need a great credit rating if you stop using credit. If you balance the budget and start paying back your debts, I'm pretty sure that will go well for your credit rating.
Let's watch and see what happens. Since the sequester didn't cause the sky to fall as predicted; the government shutdown didn't cause the sky to fall as predicted; I'm guessing this notional deadline passing will not result in the sky falling either.
You don't need a great credit rating if you stop using credit. If you balance the budget and start paying back your debts, I'm pretty sure that will go well for your credit rating.
Let's watch and see what happens. Since the sequester didn't cause the sky to fall as predicted; the government shutdown didn't cause the sky to fall as predicted; I'm guessing this notional deadline passing will not result in the sky falling either.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
turtlespeed 219
davjohnsAccording to this site http://www.usdebtclock.org/ midnight is way too late. We will either have a raised debt ceiling or a balanced budget in a few hours. If they can't go on credit anymore, that means they have to balance the budget, right? I'm ok with that.
You don't need a great credit rating if you stop using credit. If you balance the budget and start paying back your debts, I'm pretty sure that will go well for your credit rating.
Let's watch and see what happens. Since the sequester didn't cause the sky to fall as predicted; the government shutdown didn't cause the sky to fall as predicted; I'm guessing this notional deadline passing will not result in the sky falling either.
You mean . . . NO . . . it can't be . . . It simply CAN NOT be a political move!
It is simply impossible that the elected officials would make this out to be so much more than it actually is.
No!
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Say it isn't so - So I can believe you and become a Democrat.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
SkyDekker 1,465
turtlespeed***According to this site http://www.usdebtclock.org/ midnight is way too late. We will either have a raised debt ceiling or a balanced budget in a few hours. If they can't go on credit anymore, that means they have to balance the budget, right? I'm ok with that.
You don't need a great credit rating if you stop using credit. If you balance the budget and start paying back your debts, I'm pretty sure that will go well for your credit rating.
Let's watch and see what happens. Since the sequester didn't cause the sky to fall as predicted; the government shutdown didn't cause the sky to fall as predicted; I'm guessing this notional deadline passing will not result in the sky falling either.
You mean . . . NO . . . it can't be . . . It simply CAN NOT be a political move!
It is simply impossible that the elected officials would make this out to be so much more than it actually is.
No!
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Say it isn't so - So I can believe you and become a Democrat.
There is just one minor little flaw in his logic. The part where he equates a balanced budget meaning that no credit is required.
turtlespeed 219
SkyDekker******According to this site http://www.usdebtclock.org/ midnight is way too late. We will either have a raised debt ceiling or a balanced budget in a few hours. If they can't go on credit anymore, that means they have to balance the budget, right? I'm ok with that.
You don't need a great credit rating if you stop using credit. If you balance the budget and start paying back your debts, I'm pretty sure that will go well for your credit rating.
Let's watch and see what happens. Since the sequester didn't cause the sky to fall as predicted; the government shutdown didn't cause the sky to fall as predicted; I'm guessing this notional deadline passing will not result in the sky falling either.
You mean . . . NO . . . it can't be . . . It simply CAN NOT be a political move!
It is simply impossible that the elected officials would make this out to be so much more than it actually is.
No!
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Say it isn't so - So I can believe you and become a Democrat.
There is just one minor little flaw in his logic. The part where he equates a balanced budget meaning that no credit is required.
Not "ANY" just not "MORE".
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
SkyDekker 1,465
turtlespeed*********According to this site http://www.usdebtclock.org/ midnight is way too late. We will either have a raised debt ceiling or a balanced budget in a few hours. If they can't go on credit anymore, that means they have to balance the budget, right? I'm ok with that.
You don't need a great credit rating if you stop using credit. If you balance the budget and start paying back your debts, I'm pretty sure that will go well for your credit rating.
Let's watch and see what happens. Since the sequester didn't cause the sky to fall as predicted; the government shutdown didn't cause the sky to fall as predicted; I'm guessing this notional deadline passing will not result in the sky falling either.
You mean . . . NO . . . it can't be . . . It simply CAN NOT be a political move!
It is simply impossible that the elected officials would make this out to be so much more than it actually is.
No!
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Say it isn't so - So I can believe you and become a Democrat.
There is just one minor little flaw in his logic. The part where he equates a balanced budget meaning that no credit is required.
Not "ANY" just not "MORE".
Right, but the credit you do need, will get significantly more expensive.
turtlespeed 219
SkyDekker************According to this site http://www.usdebtclock.org/ midnight is way too late. We will either have a raised debt ceiling or a balanced budget in a few hours. If they can't go on credit anymore, that means they have to balance the budget, right? I'm ok with that.
You don't need a great credit rating if you stop using credit. If you balance the budget and start paying back your debts, I'm pretty sure that will go well for your credit rating.
Let's watch and see what happens. Since the sequester didn't cause the sky to fall as predicted; the government shutdown didn't cause the sky to fall as predicted; I'm guessing this notional deadline passing will not result in the sky falling either.
You mean . . . NO . . . it can't be . . . It simply CAN NOT be a political move!
It is simply impossible that the elected officials would make this out to be so much more than it actually is.
No!
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Say it isn't so - So I can believe you and become a Democrat.
There is just one minor little flaw in his logic. The part where he equates a balanced budget meaning that no credit is required.
Not "ANY" just not "MORE".
Right, but the credit you do need, will get significantly more expensive.
So you drank the kool-aid too, huh?
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
OK.
Shouldn't it be cheaper, under the ACA for the federal government to have to go through the exchanges and end its output of funding?
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites