Interesting
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/04/29/The-Debt-Limit-Option-President-Obama-Can-Use.aspx

Quote :

"Section 4 of the 14th Amendment says, “The validity of the public debt of the United States…shall not be questioned.” This could easily justify the sort of extraordinary presidential action to avoid default that I am suggesting. "

Quote :

" potential debt default is far more than a domestic consideration; it is a matter of foreign policy. This is why Secretary of State Clinton and Navy Adm. Mike Mullen have warned that the public debt represents an important threat to national security. As attorney Thomas Geoghegan recently put it, “Where the validity of the debt is concerned, our national security is at stake.” Preventing default is no less justified than using American military power to protect against an armed invasion without a congressional declaration of war. "

4/30/2011 12:36:29 AM

So he can CUT spending? Someone tell oprah to give him the news.

4/30/2011 12:41:46 AM

Um, no. It says that he can raise the debt ceiling.

4/30/2011 12:47:35 AM

^which is easier. LEADERSHIP

4/30/2011 12:50:25 AM

Dont raise the debt ceiling vote no, make him go around congress. Obama needs to be at the helm for the United States default. A credit event now is no worse than one in the future.

4/30/2011 12:58:03 AM

^yep

4/30/2011 1:04:02 AM

...and when he rescues the economy by doing it, he can take all the credit.

4/30/2011 1:05:07 AM

the plot thickens

4/30/2011 1:05:34 AM

4/30/2011 1:15:35 AM

Quote :

"So he can CUT spending?"

You know who else can cut spending? Congress.

We'll know they're serious when they're willing to cut military spending.

Quote :

"Dont raise the debt ceiling vote no, make him go around congress. Obama needs to be at the helm for the United States default. A credit event now is no worse than one in the future."

This is partisan politics at its finest.

4/30/2011 8:14:14 AM

My favorite thing about national politics these days is how everything is about national security.

National security is WAY down the list of issues if creditors started forcing higher interest rates. It's almost as if these people don't understand we could cut force power in half and still defend our borders quite effectively. Imperial wishes? No. But defend the nation, absolutely.

4/30/2011 9:56:44 AM

Quote :

"You know who else can cut spending? Congress"

The GOP House as passed several cuts and new budgets, correct? Where do those get watered down or stopped?

4/30/2011 10:01:34 AM

You must be referring to the proposed budget that cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations.

Quote :

"We'll know they're serious when they're willing to cut military spending"

4/30/2011 10:24:25 AM

ah, the evil thought of letting people keep more of what they earn while cutting benefits to the unearned. How dare they

4/30/2011 10:30:53 AM

Quote :

"cutting benefits to the unearned."

WTF does that mean?

4/30/2011 10:37:19 AM

Just generic GOP plattitudes man. Clearly the super rich have 'earned' those subsidies and tax advantages fair and square.

4/30/2011 11:10:16 AM

Quote :

"Clearly the super rich have 'earned' those subsidies and tax advantages fair and square."

A tax cut and subsidy are two different things. By allowing you to keep more of what you earn, lower tax rate, the govt is NOT subsidizing you. If that is how you feel then you would have to say that the govt owns 100% of what you earn/own and subsidies what you get to keep. Right?

Sitting at home not working, yet getting a tax "rebate" is a true subsidy/handout.

And Im all for the fairtax, that would end those "tax advantages" and have everyone play by the same rules. You opposed to that? (I would guess so)

4/30/2011 11:19:03 AM

We have no objection to removing the healthcare exceptions granted to the unions.

4/30/2011 11:20:30 AM

Quote :

"A tax cut and subsidy are two different things"

Both lower your effective tax rate so they effectively aren't.

4/30/2011 11:30:01 AM

^^but they earned those "fair and square" and not through political favor.

^hahah, yeah one is NEGATIVE. Seriously?

[Edited on April 30, 2011 at 11:37 AM. Reason : .]

4/30/2011 11:30:42 AM

So, "cutting benefits to the unearned" refers to those "Sitting at home not working"?

Does this describe all recipients of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? Or, will the proposed GOP budget cuts only selectively affect people sitting around and not working?

4/30/2011 11:32:14 AM

^really? I was clearly saying that everyone on SS, medicare, and medicaid are sitting at home not working. geez

Yes, there are those who are in all of these that are sitting at home not working, and others that are collecting benefits they never paid in. But that isnt what we were discussing which was teh difference between a tax cut and subsidy.

However, we do have to address these entitlement programs. I, personally, like the voucher system for medicare. It at least addresses/sets the govt commitment to rising health care costs. While, gasp, having people pay some of teh services they use. What a novel concept.

Medicaid needs to be reformed and limited, not expanded. States have trouble paying for these people as is, adding millions more onto their roles isnt a solution. Limiting what is covered and allowing hospitals to turn away people is. (based on diagnosis, not ablilty to pay). I know it sounds harsh, no more free color contacts and braces.

SS, to me, seems like a much easier fix and why I dont think you hear much about it. You just have to raise the age limit and continue to raise the cap. (which it is currently doing). Also limit the COL increases. Over the long run, allowing these to go to private accounts that are able to be passed on, will limit the need for this program entirely. however, the govt doesnt want to lose that revenue stream that has funded countless other crap it wasnt intended for.

4/30/2011 11:46:08 AM

Well, of course it doesn't. But as far as your garden variety GOPer is concerned, this nation is swarming with a vast population of people who literally do absolutely nothing and we are forking over trillions to them.

4/30/2011 11:49:20 AM

The proposed GOP budget, which you described as "cutting benefits to the unearned", is largely based on expenditure reductions in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. It's not a stretch to believe (nor is it unheard of) that you think beneficiaries sit at home doing nothing.

Quote :

"While, gasp, having people pay some of teh services they use."

'They' do pay for the services being used. It's paid in the form of taxes (for some) and cheap labor (for most).

4/30/2011 11:59:02 AM

Quote :

"that you think beneficiaries sit at home doing nothing. "

and some do just that. your point?

Here is a read I think you would like.

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/12/114000_that_2011_retirees_paid.html

[Edited on April 30, 2011 at 12:17 PM. Reason : .]

4/30/2011 12:12:58 PM

Quote :

"However, we do have to address these entitlement programs. I, personally, like the voucher system for medicare. "

More insurance? The Problem is 3rd party payers, insurance will not fix that. My favorite plan is quite simple: the existing medicare payment schedule stays, but the law is changed to allow doctors to charge their patients the difference between the bill and the payment schedule. Then, the payment schedule can be pegged to inflation and not the rising price of healthcare, cost problem to the government solved AND price sensitivity is restored to the market, fixing runaway price inflation.

4/30/2011 12:23:09 PM

Quote :

"your point?"

My point is that you clearly believe Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are "benefits to the unearned".

What's your point with the article?

4/30/2011 12:27:39 PM

eyedrb is arguing for Death Panels.

4/30/2011 12:31:40 PM

actually you are, you just dont realize it.

4/30/2011 12:32:44 PM

You're the one supporting rationed healthcare for republican sponsored death panels.

4/30/2011 12:34:01 PM

I thought Obama wanted death squads

[Edited on April 30, 2011 at 12:54 PM. Reason : squads, panels, whatever]

4/30/2011 12:54:36 PM

and how do you come to that conclusion?

With our current system rationing is going to be a necessity. We are going to nearly double the amount of people on the program while the costs continue to climb. Limiting what is available and restricting access will be the only ways to contain costs.

And if you think about it, it is just common sense. If you dont have to pay, or only have to pay a small portion of what you consume you will consume more. How many people do you hear say that they are going to try to get everything done this year as they have met their deductible? vs people saying they refuse a service or test bc they have a HIGH deductible?

Most people have a list of shit they put off until they get on medicare. Which you cant blame them, it is the best cost/benefit for them. No different than waiting for something to go on sale or tax free weekend. Why people think health care is different is beyond me.

4/30/2011 1:09:12 PM

Quote :

"If you dont have to pay, or only have to pay a small portion of what you consume you will consume more."

Not necessarily true. I doubt many people use roads or parks more because any sort of free rider problem. You will consume more if some additional utility is provided by doing so. Look at the diner's dilemma, if splitting the check evenly you will order the more expensive meal GIVEN IT PROVIDES YOU SOME ADDITIONAL UTILITY. If the more expensive meal tastes worse to you, or the same, then there would be no reason to purchase it, despite the discount.

4/30/2011 3:01:38 PM

outside of party politics I hate the continual grab for power from the executive branch

I just hate it.

4/30/2011 4:14:08 PM

Quote :

"I doubt many people use roads or parks more because any sort of free rider problem."

Toll roads would beg to differ. I have intentionally gone out of my way to avoid toll roads. QFT

4/30/2011 4:24:13 PM

Quote :

"I have intentionally gone out of my way to avoid toll roads. "

DIRTY COMMMIE!

4/30/2011 6:29:07 PM

Actually, only a communist would argue people don't respond to incentives. It is the free marketeers which advocate for pricing scarce resources, such as through tolls.

4/30/2011 6:31:59 PM

Quote :

"We'll know they're serious when they're willing to cut military spending"

4/30/2011 6:44:21 PM

Quote :

"Actually, only a communist would argue people don't respond to incentives. It is the free marketeers which advocate for pricing scarce resources, such as through tolls. "

What role should government play in our society?

4/30/2011 6:59:06 PM

This quickly turned in to who is sweeter for cutting 40 billion from the budget contest. In the week they spent playing hardball they spent 50 billion. It's arguing over the bar tab on the Titanic. The United States has income of 2 spends 3.5 and owes 14. Thats the debt limit number, including our other off balance sheet liabilities its 20 plus. Thats like making 200k and owing 2 million, Think Kenny Powers has a great year and buys a lambo and a mansion. It's not going to last. Currently the Fed is buying 70% of the debt issued by the Treasury through POMO operations. It is now truly a shell game. The assholes in Washington are not going to fix it, and if you think they will you also are an asshole. Massive structural changes to the system will need to happen. There is no strong leadership in the capital. No politician has the stones to risk the fallout from radical change. They have pumped trillions to the banking cartel, and for what? A tepid economy punch drunk on newly printed federal reserve notes, being strangled by high imput prices and high unemployment. I think the only way out is radical, change the entire system. I see the economy sputtering and our central bank with few options left but to print to the very end. It always ends the same.

4/30/2011 9:14:41 PM

Quote :

"What role should government play in our society?"

Thank you for helping us help you help us all.

5/1/2011 12:03:51 AM

the cake is a lie

5/1/2011 12:29:12 AM

eyedrb, so your death panels, if the person is uninsured and they go to the hospital (shot in the arm), that person should be turned away, correct? or does it depend on how seriously wounded the person is, like shot in the neck they might treat for free? So, I guess you have some sort of criteria for when people will be turned away and when they will be treated? Then you will have litigation that will costs millions when people sue.

5/1/2011 3:30:24 PM

^I will assume that is a serious question.

Yes, the person shot will be treated. Gun wounds are typically called emergent care problems.

You see when the govt forces hospitals to see anyone for anything, it distorts the market completely, as you can now NOT buy insurance and not pay your bills.(why pay for something, when you can get it for free) You keep hearing that people are using the ERs as PCPs and it costs too much, we must "do something". Right? Im sure you have heard this. If not, you will hear it hundreds of times in 2012. So what does history teach us? The solution will be, just as it has been in the past...give them insurance. This same claim was used to pass medicaid for the poor. It will be cheaper if we just gave them insurance and they went to PCPs at 50 bucks a visit vs 500 for ER visits. Sounds good, in theory. Only the cost to the patient is still the same...0. So after Medicaid passed, ER visits WENT UP.(and are now the heaviest users of the ER) The exact same thing happened in Mass. Shocker!! There are many reasons for this, mostly it is that ERs are open 24 hrs. Also they dont require you to be ontime or reschedule if you are late, and some might not have local doctors who take their ins. (soon to be medicare too)

What I would suggest is that Hospitals be allowed to turn people away for routine stuff and be backed by law. Oh, your toe has been hurting for 2 weeks and you decided NOW to go to the ER? Im sorry, here is the number of a podiatrist. Oh you have hypertension, well lets make sure you BP isnt critical and then Ill make you an appointement with a PCP to monitor you. We have to limit the amount of people using the ERs as PCPs, simply giving them insurance hasnt and wont work, it just makes matters worse and costs rise.

Here is an article of what some hospitals are doing to limit the amount coming to the ER. Although the woman at the end is lying...or at least being dishonest to make her situation sound worse. It is likely with her income she is on medicare/medicaid, which will cover all her medical costs. Assuming she is not, Medicare WILL cover doctor visits and knee surgeries. Although it does have a 115 dollar a year deductible and covers 80% of costs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/12/AR2009071202256.html

[Edited on May 1, 2011 at 9:00 PM. Reason : .]

5/1/2011 8:56:55 PM

^you sir win an Internet

5/2/2011 12:17:09 AM

President Obama will do it because the GOP are trying to ruin the economy.

6/28/2011 10:24:36 PM

Its simple you make 2 spend 3.5 and owe somewhere between 14 and 50. No amount of games will change the outcome. Printing Money is the stuff of banana Republics and falling empires each and every time.

6/29/2011 10:45:10 PM

6/29/2011 11:00:00 PM

Yup doesn't matter what happens now, the outcome will be the same.

Stock your emergency pantry people. Have a bugout bag ready to go and have a plan to contact your family in the case of widespread riots. Have at least 30 days essential goods and some valuables on hand, including but not limited to cash, that you can barter with in the event of a currency collapse or rush on the banks and stores. Water will only last a few days before the towers drain. Two gallons per person per day is a bare minimum.



[Edited on June 29, 2011 at 11:19 PM. Reason : .]

6/29/2011 11:14:51 PM

Quote :

"Its simple you make 2 spend 3.5 and owe somewhere between 14 and 50. No amount of games will change the outcome. Printing Money is the stuff of banana Republics and falling empires each and every time."

Look, I fundamentally agree with you...but this should read

Quote :

"Its a bit complicated you make 2 with the potential to make a good bit more, spend 3.5 with the potential to spend a good bit less, and owe somewhere between 14 and 50. The outcome is dependent on a whole slew of things, many of which you can influence if not outright control. Printing Money is the stuff of banana Republics and falling empires each and every time."

6/30/2011 7:23:00 AM