just got an email from a friend's son who is staffer for one for one of the GOP committee chairs.... indicating that he thinks Boehner has the votes to pass the rewritten bill and that they are going to send it to the Senate to call Reid�s bluff. He says they think Reid will try to tweak it a bit to make it look like it was �bipartisan� and then pass it. Then Nobama, who threatened to veto it, will cave, like the little girl he is.
not real thrilled with the bill.....the only serious budget reform is big cuts now to this year's budget, because anything else is just smoke and mirrors. but tactically, it will be a defeat for Obama and until we're rid of him, and the detestable Harry Reid no longer controls the Senate, it's probably about the best that can be done. having so many states, and voters, who are idiots is a real handicap.
Thanks for the update Steve. I just hope we all realize that in my opinion we cannot possibly hold to a perfect Bill given the current makeup of the process. jorge
Thanks for the update Steve. I just hope we all realize that in my opinion we cannot possibly hold to a perfect Bill given the current makeup of the process. jorge
I was wanting to see the GOP stand firm and stick to Cut Cap and Balance. Then I started hearing from people around here that are preparing to pull all their money out of the banks if a deal is not reached. I dismissed any idea of a panic until now. More people are paying attention to what is going on than Obama thinks.
Maybe Obama will veto the bill, and then the House and Senate will override and take him out of the race in 2012. I think most dems want him gone because they know he can't win.
If they can castarate him now there is time for a Dem with a chance of winning to get the ball rolling. Obama could be under the bus by next week.
If it doesn't extend the debt limit to beyond 2012, I expect Obama to veto it. We don't need to deal with this every day of our lives. And, if this becomes law, the Repubs will pull the same sh*t next time around. We need to break the back of the Tea Tards NOW!
Dunno, but I was thinking that's the way to bet for about a week now. But then I'm pizzed at making an issue over raising the debt ceiling, I have to actually pay my bills too. Budget stuff belongs in the budget process, makes more sense, fiscally and politically, to load it on a CR if the other side won't play.
For the life of me I can not understand why it is so hard for those folks to CUT some of the crap out of the budget. If you or I had less money coming in than going out we would cut back. They need to have their ass whooped.
The only ones needing broken backs are the likes of you and the rest of the traitors who elected a marxist, hell bent on destroying the American Way Of Life..
Paddler, he ain't going to veto [bleep]. He'd been backed into a corner of his own making by not having his own plan. He's a dolt, but he knows when he's trapped.
just got an email from a friend's son who is staffer for one for one of the GOP committee chairs.... indicating that he thinks Boehner has the votes to pass the rewritten bill and that they are going to send it to the Senate to call Reid�s bluff. He says they think Reid will try to tweak it a bit to make it look like it was �bipartisan� and then pass it. Then Nobama, who threatened to veto it, will cave, like the little girl he is.
not real thrilled with the bill.....the only serious budget reform is big cuts now to this year's budget, because anything else is just smoke and mirrors.
'Big cuts'?? HAH.. That's going to be exposed as total BS - you just watch.. 'Big cuts' in gov-speak just means slightly (and I MEAN slightly) reduced growth.. So, instead of a 7-9% expansion, it may be only 6-8% expansion.. To idjits like Reid, those are 'draconian'..
Quote
but tactically, it will be a defeat for Obama and until we're rid of him, and the detestable Harry Reid no longer controls the Senate, it's probably about the best that can be done..
IMHO, no.. We can do better - by far.. Slash gov't spending by 20%, pass the bill and send it to the Magic Dick for his veto.. Then it'll be HIS FAULT the country goes bankrupt.. But none of the old-guard elitists in DC have the cajones to try..
I was wanting to see the GOP stand firm and stick to Cut Cap and Balance. Then I started hearing from people around here that are preparing to pull all their money out of the banks if a deal is not reached. I dismissed any idea of a panic until now. More people are paying attention to what is going on than Obama thinks.
Why would you want to pull all of your money out of the banks? The one great thing about nothing getting passed and our credit being downgraded is rising interest rates. Maybe we could get back to a historically normal interest rate and see some decent return on savings again.
I could even see an uptick in the U.S. bond market if our credit got downgraded because U.S. bonds would be offering better interest rates and return than others.
If it doesn't extend the debt limit to beyond 2012, I expect Obama to veto it. We don't need to deal with this every day of our lives. And, if this becomes law, the Repubs will pull the same sh*t next time around. We need to break the back of the Tea Tards NOW!
"the only serious budget reform is big cuts now to this year's budget"
Steve, you previously mentioned the "one time" bailouts, etc that have now become a permanent part of the budget. I've questioned that too and I've said this before. They're decreasing the proposed increases and voila, budget cut.
just got an email from a friend's son who is staffer for one for one of the GOP committee chairs.... indicating that he thinks Boehner has the votes to pass the rewritten bill and that they are going to send it to the Senate to call Reid�s bluff. He says they think Reid will try to tweak it a bit to make it look like it was �bipartisan� and then pass it. Then Nobama, who threatened to veto it, will cave, like the little girl he is.
not real thrilled with the bill.....the only serious budget reform is big cuts now to this year's budget, because anything else is just smoke and mirrors. but tactically, it will be a defeat for Obama and until we're rid of him, and the detestable Harry Reid no longer controls the Senate, it's probably about the best that can be done. having so many states, and voters, who are idiots is a real handicap.
I'm not thrilled whatsoever about this bill. They need to reject it and go with something real like the Rand Paul and Connie Mack proposal. Anything else is worthless imo. The talk about averting a crisis (as usual). All there doing with this is postponing the crisis. No solution here at all for me.
"the only serious budget reform is big cuts now to this year's budget"
Steve, you previously mentioned the "one time" bailouts, etc that have now become a permanent part of the budget. I've questioned that too and I've said this before. They're decreasing the proposed increases and voila, budget cut.
It's all smoke and mirrors.
Yep, at the end of the day, there ZERO cuts to spending in either bill.
you're not paying attention, neck.....BTW that second paragraph was me talking, not my source.
big cuts to current budgets are what we need....not what this deal does. this is at best a little wrist slap to the tax'n'spenders, but when you don't own the white house or the senate you don't have the power to force your view. best result is a tactical victory, implanting the idea in the public mind that the GOP will cut this crap given the chance and the democrats are for more of the same. that message carried through 2012 will get us the senate and the white house.
BTW, I really like Connie Macks plan....simple, the numbers work, no smoke and mirrors. IMHO that, or something like it, is what all Republicans should get behind as the 2012 mantra.
EXACTLY! I mean how hard is it to COMPREHEND that one part of one part of the government cannot dictate to the two parts that don't??? I mean this is like a GEICO commercial.
These fools are playing with dynamite. MOF that is too easy of a term. You have a group of individuals who are actively trying to place a blowtorch in an open vat of dynamite.
~sigh~
One good thing will come out of this at least. We can dispense with all of the pretext and guerrilla tactics of the ongoing class war. The last few years have kind of laid the corruption and fraud of our current economic system bare, this debate is serving to do the same for the motivations of our political economy. In the long run it is inevitable that we will address the underlying problems in this nation or descend into 3rd world status. I just never thought it would play out in this manner.
And as far as this talk about "we can't make it happen with the make up of congress", there's one simple solution to that. We won a landslide victory last year in the House. We control the House. Don't send the man ANY bill that is not a smaller budget than this year- period. In the House, vote down ANY other bill. Give the man NO choice whatsoever in the discussion. And if no bill passes that is an actual budget reduction, start implementing mandatory shutdowns of entire departments of the government in order to pay the bills that must be paid to avoid a default. Take the crisis away from them. Pay the debt interest, pay the SS checks, pay the military first. Then send about half the govt employees home without pay until they are serious about this.
Curious as to which is the case, three trillion in short term cuts needed to avoid the down grade, or the down grade was a political ploy (kinda like threatening seniors).
I have my hunch, since no bill offered the required cuts.
The way I hear Paul Ryan describe it, the "moderate" R's in the House have threatened to vote with the D's to pass something similar to the Reid Bill if the Tea Party R's push for "draconian" cuts.
Face it, we're F'd. We will get to deal with this yet again, with the market dictating the terms. With very few exceptions the entire DC structure is a city full of clowns. Dangerous clowns, but clowns none the less.
VA, here's my biggest beef on this. We currently have the biggest, bloated, out of control budget in the history of the country. Obama has raised the budget by around 30% in a little over two years. The EPA's budget along has grown by over 100% in two years. And we cannot even stand firm and demand they agree to a lower budget than this one??? WTF. If this was the 2008 budget, I could see them arguing over cuts, but it isn't. We are light years over that budget under one man. This is total insanity. Imagine going to the car dealer and expecting the normal sticker shock when you see the retail price. But when you get there, the dealer added 2k on top of full retail. That's the budget we have. [bleep], we can't even get the friggin dealer down to full retail? All this crisis talk is crap. Just like they did for TARP, just like they did for Fanny Mae, just like they did for GM, just like they did for Obama Care, just like they are doing right now. I say reject any bill that is not a smaller budget than THIS year (ie an actual drop in the budget). If he doesn't sign it, HE can explain to the people why he cannot cut spending by a single dime.
The Tea Party folks are the only ones there who are serious about fixing the nation and they are draconian. We are in a serious pile of schit here guys.
Steve, not too very long ago, Team (R) owned the House, the Senate, and the White House.
And, the spent like frat kids on Bourbon Street during Mardi Gras.
They did nothing except make the debt problem, entitlements, and spending WORSE.
The "trust us, we won't do it again" schtick is WAY past old at this point.
you say that as if you think you're imparting new information. the tea party and Obama's three trillion plus deficits have changed the landscape, and the GOP is going to have to run....and did run successfully in 2010....as the party of cutting spending.
if they don't, there will be a third party that will, and Obama and the democrats will be safe for a generation.
Steve, not too very long ago, Team (R) owned the House, the Senate, and the White House.
And, the spent like frat kids on Bourbon Street during Mardi Gras.
They did nothing except make the debt problem, entitlements, and spending WORSE.
The "trust us, we won't do it again" schtick is WAY past old at this point.
Finally you say something that makes sense. Bush got us into this mess, and we need to reverse his strategies of failure. End the tax cuts for the wealthy, the oil company subsidies, close the tax loopholes, get us out of the Missle East rabbit hole (some would say "[bleep]"), revamp Medicare and Medicaid, with special attention to fraud and abuse, cut military spending, etc, as a good start.
Never lose sight of the strategic situation. Pass this and you back Obama up against a wall. Kill ,arguing for a better bill that will never happen and the blame will go solely on the GOP.
You will then inch closer to giving the reins completely back to the Dem's in 2012.
I think Steve's analysis is the correct one given the circumstances.
Like I said, it WILL be resolved, but it will be by market forces, and it will be very painful. The market will force a decrease of at least 12% GDP, or whatever amount that we need to borrow. If the Fed begins another round of QE to make up the market shortfall, that will trigger the loss of confidence and accelerate the decline in the FRN$ to its intrinsic value as a source for heat.
Like I said, we're F'd. We're going to get a downgrade no matter what type of bill is passed, unless it contains at least $4 Trillion in real cuts, not baseline budgetary smoke and mirrors.
you say that as if you think you're imparting new information. the tea party and Obama's three trillion plus deficits have changed the landscape, and the GOP is going to have to run....and did run successfully in 2010....as the party of cutting spending.
I agree with you on that thought Steve. But this is the last chance before the next election to PROVE to the people that they are going to demand what you say. Neither Reid's or Boehner's bill does anything but prove neither party is willing to do that. So when election time comes around, why would the voters look at this record and believe what you said? Why would they vote to send more Rs in DC? We won a landslide last year because we wanted to send people like the Tea Party guys to do exactly what they are doing. Now we are willing to let the establishment losers throw those same people under the bus. This is depressing, especially on this damned Fire fat boy diet
wanna sell me on the crisis.....end congressional post term benefits and retirements. they are afterall elected servants of the country right?.....so why are we keeping them on the kings welfare forever. collect a fair wage while working and then hit the skids. when I see that, then I know we are close to total dissolvement.
Ron Paul is exactly right. We are going to have to face the reality that we are bankrupt. A lot of people don't understand that term. Bankrupt doesn't mean we don't have money coming in. Nope, we've got a lot of money coming in. It just means we don't have enough money coming in to cover all of our spending and our obligations.
At some point, someone HAS to acknowledge that the only way to fix the problem is to have a DRASTICALLY smaller government. We can always pay the interest on the debt, Social Security, Medicare, and the military. We'll need to make reforms in those to a degree and we'll need to reduce spending in all, but we can do it without too much hardship and with the revenue we have. We just can't have two million other federal government employees overseeing every other aspect of our lives.
A European style cradle to grave welfare state wouldn't be such a bad thing, if government got out of every other aspect of our lives. You want to make sure people are cared for until they die, fine, but you can't do that and have a hundred inspectors at a 100K a year each, whose sole job is to make sure that farmers in South Dakota are not harming the population of the black footed grasshopper or some nonsense like that.
Yeah, I heard The Bernank speak on the subject a couple of weeks ago, but I hadn't realized that they had started it yet. Are they using the foreign PD's to buy the auctions? That would be the easiest to hide.
Never lose sight of the strategic situation. Pass this and you back Obama up against a wall. Kill ,arguing for a better bill that will never happen and the blame will go solely on the GOP.
You will then inch closer to giving the reins completely back to the Dem's in 2012.
I think Steve's analysis is the correct one given the circumstances.
Well, there lies our difference of opinion. I think the Tea Party was sent to DC to do exactly what they are doing. I think giving in to one of these plans, in light of that, is EXACTLY what is needed to re-elect the Dems. I believe the exact opposite of you guys then. I think this "strategic" stuff you advocate is precisely what the conservatives are tired of. I agree to disagree and await our fate.
FDR got us into this mess. Johnson made it worse. Carter, Reagan and "W" compounded it. Hussein is taking it to limits previously unimaginable.
But, BOTH parties have done nothing over the last 70 years but suck like leaches from the people, and NEITHER party has done anything to fix this problem; in fact, both have done all they could to just keep adding fuel to it.
What scares the P out of all Congressmen and pols is the reduction in GDP that will happen if they reduce the "G" part of the GDP formula enough to balance the budget. If they do that it will be an immediate 12% hit to the raw GDP number.
The job losses and gnashing of teeth that would result from that, plus the increased demand on the entitlement side makes cutting anything akin to handling Cobras to a politician.
It won't happen, so the market will end up doing it by shutting .gov out of capital markets. That's when the Fed steps in, but again, that's the other side of the "rock-hard place" dilemma. Accelerating debasement with the concurrent ramp in essential commodities, without associated increases in wages due to our "free trade" agreements that arbitrage said wages against the Mexicans and Chinese.
Yeah, yeah, the check's in the mail, and I won't *** in your mouth. Typical lying sacks of $hit, you'd have to be the stereotypical blonde to buy their BS.
Oh, and the cheerleaders (Paddler, Steve_NO, isaac, Stan_V, watch4bear, JeffO, etc.) will all show up soon, blathering about how it's ALL the OTHER team's fault, and how we have NO choice but to vote for whatever lying sack of schit THEIR team puts out, 'cause otherwise we'll all be doomed, go straight to Hell, be incapable of making love to our women, all beer will lose it's flavor and alcohol, and even our dogs won't like us anymore.
The political games being played by both sides should end when dealing with the economic health of the country. Sadly none of games being played right now look like they have any end in site.
What is missing from both sides is a sense of integrity and respect, the country will suffer for it.
Partisan politics, grandstanding and obstruction are making it difficult to reach an agreement to raise the national debt ceiling and begin to reduce federal spending, Sen. Ben Nelson said Wednesday.
I've been listening to Limbaugh talk about it today.
The Lords of High finance have spoken, the can gets kick down the road again.
Because of our debt based economy the last thing the Lords of High Finance want is for debt to be paid off, be it government, business, or personal. Paid off debt means less money in the economy, the dollar increases in value, and less profits for the Lords.
I figured the Red Team of the National Socialist Party would cave to the Blue Team and the Lords of High Finances.
What scares the P out of all Congressmen and pols is the reduction in GDP that will happen if they reduce the "G" part of the GDP formula enough to balance the budget. If they do that it will be an immediate 12% hit to the raw GDP number.
The job losses and gnashing of teeth that would result from that, plus the increased demand on the entitlement side makes cutting anything akin to handling Cobras to a politician.
It won't happen, so the market will end up doing it by shutting .gov out of capital markets. That's when the Fed steps in, but again, that's the other side of the "rock-hard place" dilemma. Accelerating debasement with the concurrent ramp in essential commodities, without associated increases in wages due to our "free trade" agreements that arbitrage said wages against the Mexicans and Chinese.
We're F'd.
Well, this is true. The fact is this whole hyper consumerism lifestyle we all so covet is built upon government spending and debt. There is plenty of money in the world to live well, but it would be a "live well" like your grandparents did in the 50s. A kind of "Ozzie and Harriett" or "Father Knows Best" of a nice simple home with one, maybe two cars, and enough consumer products to make life comortable. Not the four cars for a family of five, 3,500 square foot mini mansion, 200 guns in the gunsafe, and eating out every night kind of "living well" that we have come to know in the last 30 years with the tremendous expansion of government spending and debt creation.
Oh, and the cheerleaders (Paddler, Steve_NO, isaac, Stan_V, watch4bear, JeffO, etc.) will all show up soon, blathering about how it's ALL the OTHER team's fault,
Agree 100%, but I think that it began longer than 30 years ago. It began with the creation of the Fed in 1913 under Wilson, got a boost from FDR, and increased acceleration with LBJ and Nixon. We're just seeing the end game.
Did you know that 96% of all government debt has been created since 1971? What other event happened in 1971? I'll give you a hint, it occurred on the 15th of August, and it is celebrating its 40th anniversary next month.
Agree 100%, but I think that it began longer than 30 years ago. It began with the creation of the Fed in 1913 under Wilson, got a boost from FDR, and increased acceleration with LBJ and Nixon. We're just seeing the end game.
Did you know that 96% of all government debt has been created since 1971? What other event happened in 1971? I'll give you a hint, it occurred on the 15th of August, and it is celebrating its 40th anniversary next month.
Agree 100%, but I think that it began longer than 30 years ago. It began with the creation of the Fed in 1913 under Wilson, got a boost from FDR, and increased acceleration with LBJ and Nixon. We're just seeing the end game.
Did you know that 96% of all government debt has been created since 1971? What other event happened in 1971? I'll give you a hint, it occurred on the 15th of August, and it is celebrating its 40th anniversary next month.
Oh, I know exactly what happened and that is why I said 30 years, although 40 would have been more accurate. By completely removing the gold standard, there was no limit. And as someone born in 1970 I can really see the difference between the way people live now, than how they did when I was a kid.
The average middle class person owns things, does things, and thinks in a way that only "rich" people did when I was a kid. And I didn't grow up poor. On the contrary, my dad was self employed and did very well. My dad made as much money in actual 1970s dollars as lots of these people now are making in debased 2000s dollars and we didn't do half the stuff these people do. Of course, he accumulated land.
Agree 100%, but I think that it began longer than 30 years ago. It began with the creation of the Fed in 1913 under Wilson, got a boost from FDR, and increased acceleration with LBJ and Nixon. We're just seeing the end game.
Did you know that 96% of all government debt has been created since 1971? What other event happened in 1971? I'll give you a hint, it occurred on the 15th of August, and it is celebrating its 40th anniversary next month.
I agree.
The end of the gold-exchange standard?
Yep. Nixon closed the gold window and we suffered our third default on our obligations since 1913. Default is nothing new to the US Government.
I was 14 when it occurred, and remember it well. I still have reloading tools and boxes that have price tags on them from the early 70's, and looking at the difference in what they cost then and what they cost now is eye opening, to say the least.
Agree 100%, but I think that it began longer than 30 years ago. It began with the creation of the Fed in 1913 under Wilson, got a boost from FDR, and increased acceleration with LBJ and Nixon. We're just seeing the end game.
Did you know that 96% of all government debt has been created since 1971? What other event happened in 1971? I'll give you a hint, it occurred on the 15th of August, and it is celebrating its 40th anniversary next month.
I agree.
The end of the gold-exchange standard?
Yep. Nixon closed the gold window and we suffered our third default on our obligations since 1913. Default is nothing new to the US Government.
That's what I thought but you know how us old men are, Swiss cheese for brains.
I remember Nixon on TV announcing the end. Didn't he also announce price and wage controls at the same time or was that another time? I know that price and wage controls lead to runaway inflation during Carter's rein.
Yes he did, and all that resulted from that were shortages. I expect the same from Ob@m@ when inflation gets increasingly bad, which it will at the start of QE III. I also expect something along the lines of a bank holiday, depending upon how bad it gets for the banksters, especially IRT the REO mess that they have been hiding.
I was wanting to see the GOP stand firm and stick to Cut Cap and Balance. Then I started hearing from people around here that are preparing to pull all their money out of the banks if a deal is not reached. I dismissed any idea of a panic until now. More people are paying attention to what is going on than Obama thinks.
Why would you want to pull all of your money out of the banks? The one great thing about nothing getting passed and our credit being downgraded is rising interest rates. Maybe we could get back to a historically normal interest rate and see some decent return on savings again.
I could even see an uptick in the U.S. bond market if our credit got downgraded because U.S. bonds would be offering better interest rates and return than others.
I am not planning on pulling any money out, I am just posting what I have been hearing around here. I want Boehners feet held to the fire, but I have no faith in the GOP.
Well, yeah I've been recommending PM's, as that's the only thing that has no exposure to counterparty performance-or lack thereof. But that goes hand in hand with "we're F'd". Financially and fiscally we ARE F'd. That doesn't mean that life will end, it just means that it will get exponentially harder, and for some will result in a very large decline in their accustomed standard of living.
If you have protected yourself with metals, food etc., and aren't dependent upon .gov for your everyday sustenance, then you will more than likely come out OK, but it will take a few years, and .gov will not be going quietly into the night while the great reset is going on.
Finally you say something that makes sense. Bush got us into this mess, and we need to reverse his strategies of failure. End the tax cuts for the wealthy, the oil company subsidies, close the tax loopholes, get us out of the Missle East rabbit hole (some would say "[bleep]"), revamp Medicare and Medicaid, with special attention to fraud and abuse, cut military spending, etc, as a good start.
bugger off, Paddler. if we need the communist viewpoint, we'll ask for it.
OP, what they need to do is prove they're not stupid. forcing a humiliating bill on Obama...or even better forcing him to do this again before the election in 2012...is the best tactical use that can be made of this situation.
when you don't have the white house or the senate, your real world options....if you eliminate the option of looking like idiots....are somewhat narrowed.
the House has already passed a budget....which of course went nowhere in the Senate. what is going on now is largely theater.....and the public is seeing the GOP as the party of cut, cap and balance and the democrats as the party of continued tax, borrow and spend. it's important to play it out that way.
I completely understand the practicality of your point Steve. All I can say is that they better not do anything that extends past the election. Put in a bandaid, tell the people that we can't do the right thing while this president and Senate leadership is in office, and make it perfectly clear, "if you want to do the right thing and take measures that will fix the current fiscal problem that we have SEND US HELP NOW". Then hope for the best in the election.
If we can get more Tea Party folks in the Senate, take over the leadership there, keep the House, and at least not elect a true RINO as president, we can do the RIGHT thing. And I'll tell you what, if we DO regain power and the Rs fail to truly reduce the budget, the Republican Party is OVER. All the strategy in the world won't help any longer. And your worst fears of the third party crisis will come true.
FDR got us into this mess. Johnson made it worse. Carter, Reagan and "W" compounded it. Hussein is taking it to limits previously unimaginable.
But, BOTH parties have done nothing over the last 70 years but suck like leaches from the people, and NEITHER party has done anything to fix this problem; in fact, both have done all they could to just keep adding fuel to it.
You are precisely incorrect:
Economist Mike Kimel notes that the last five Democratic Presidents (Clinton, Carter, LBJ, JFK, and Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the last four Republican Presidents (GW Bush, GHW Bush, Reagan, and Ford) all oversaw an increase in the country�s indebtedness.
When Carter took office, the debt as a proportion of GDP was 35.8%. When he left office, it was 32.5%. Ronny ballooned that to 53.1%, and quadrupled our debt in actual dollars. In point of fact, RR oversaw the first $1 trillion dollar deficit. That's a legacy you can hang your hat on, don't you think? Then, after Clinton reduced the debt from $1.5 trillion to a mere $400 billion, GW increased it ten fold. When he left office, it was $4 trillion.
I think the Mack plan can really get traction and be the defining campaign issue....and if Romney would embrace it he could eliminate a lot of the suspicion about him....although I'd never trust him on the second amendment, any more than I would Chris Christie..
I'll repeat what I posted earlier. We are all in this and not rising of the debt ceiling will harm us all.
Previous post:
In spite of wishes, demands and hopes, the Federal budget will most likely continue to rise in the future (if for nothing else like wars or national disasters) due to inflation.
Example 1: Astronauts are either GS-12 or GS-13 civil service employees (unless they are in the military). IIRC, Neil Armstrong was a mild-level GS-13 when we walked on the moon. - In 1969, the GS-12 salary range was $14,192 to $18,449 and the GS-13 salary range was $16,760 to $21,791. - In 2011, the GS-12 salary range (adjusted for Houston COL) is $77,579 to $ #100,851, while the GS-13 salary range is $92,252 to $119,926. - i.e.. labor costs have and will continue to rise as time passes.
Example 2: Health care costs will continue to rise. The DOD health care budget alone exceeds the TOTAL amount the US spends on intelligence and this includes the CIA, DIA, military branch intelligence agencies, NRO, NGIA, NCTC, etc. - and that�s a lot! Plus, we have the Veterans Affairs Department costs. - Veterans are living longer than before due to improved health, better medical care, exercise, less smoking, etc. The bill for their medical care will increase each year. - Today�s better medical care and quicker evacuation are saving the lives of combat wounded than in previous wars. These men and women (thankfully) are living and will need to be cared for with medical treatment and disability payments for a long time. - This latter situation is described in a New York Times article entitled �Cost of Treating Veterans Will Rise Long Past Wars�. It is in insightful article, see: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/28/us/28veterans.html
Cost of Treating Veterans Will Rise Long Past Wars By JAMES DAO
WASHINGTON � Though the withdrawal of American military forces from Iraq and Afghanistan will save the nation billions of dollars a year, another cost of war is projected to continue rising for decades to come: caring for the veterans.
By one measure, the cost of health care and disability compensation for veterans from those conflicts and all previous American wars ranks among the largest for the federal government � less than the military, Social Security and health care programs including Medicare, but nearly the same as paying interest on the national debt, the Treasury Department says.
Ending the current wars will not lower those veterans costs; indeed, they will rise ever more steeply for decades to come as the population of veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan expands, ages and becomes more infirm. To date, more than 2.2 million troops have served in those wars.
Studies show that the peak years for government health care and disability compensation costs for veterans from past wars came 30 to 40 years after those wars ended. For Vietnam, that peak has not been reached.
In Washington, the partisan stalemate over cutting federal spending is now raising alarms among veterans groups and some lawmakers that the seemingly inexorable costs of veterans benefits will spur a backlash against those programs.
Though there is currently strong bipartisan support for veterans programs, some budget proposals, including from Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, and Representative Michele Bachmann, Republican of Minnesota, have called for trimming benefits for veterans and military retirees.
�Those proposals have been batted back so far,� said David Autry of the Disabled American Veterans. �But we�ve got more vigorous budget hawks today. If they are willing to bring the nation to the brink of insolvency, who knows what else they might do?�
Even if cuts to veterans programs do not occur, the current mood of budgetary constraint seems likely to force the Department of Veterans Affairs to make do without the large spending increases it has received from Congress in the recent past.
That means efforts by veterans groups to expand existing health care programs, provide additional benefits to Vietnam veterans or institute new research into things like traumatic brain injury or hearing loss will face difficult uphill battles, lawmakers and veterans advocates say.
�No one is thinking about the lifetime costs this country is responsible for,� said Senator Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat who is chairwoman of the Senate Veterans� Affairs Committee. �I�m really worried.�
In a hearing before the panel on Wednesday, Heidi Golding, an analyst with the Congressional Budget Office, testified that the annual cost of caring for veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars would nearly triple or more in the next decade, rising to $5.5 billion to $8.4 billion in 2020, from $1.9 billion in 2010.
In that hearing, Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, also raised concerns that veterans� disability checks might not be paid if Congress fails to raise the debt limit next week.
With an annual budget of more than $125 billion, the Department of Veterans Affairs runs a nationwide health care system that cares for more than eight million people who have left military service, of which about 700,000 are from the current wars. The agency also administers disability compensation for millions of veterans wounded in service.
Estimating the long-term costs of those programs is a complex, contentious art, and no one inside the government does it beyond 10 years. But independent and government experts agree that for a variety of reasons the costs are just about certain to continue rising, even though large numbers of World War II and Korean War veterans are dying.
The reasons have much to do with improvements in battlefield medicine and equipment. More troops today are surviving injuries � 90 percent, up from 86 percent in Vietnam, according to the Congressional Budget Office. But that also means that more troops are coming home with complex and severe wounds. Moreover, nearly one in five service members returning from deployment are thought to have symptoms of post-traumatic stress or major depression, according to a study by the RAND Corporation. A similar number are thought to have sustained traumatic brain injury. Though not all seek help, a significant percentage are expected to receive care from the veterans system, in part because of efforts to reduce the stigma of mental health problems in the military.
Further adding to strains on the department, more young veterans have been seeking care from the system than had been anticipated, possibly because they do not have private health insurance. Outreach efforts by the veterans department and veterans groups may have also increased enrollment, experts say. Linda Bilmes, a Harvard academic who has done extensive research on the impact of the wars, said all those factors together suggested that �the actual cost over 30, 40 or 50 years will be even higher than we projected.�
�And with life expectancy getting longer,� she said, �the cost will probably peak later than in past wars.�
Ms. Bilmes, a senior lecturer in public finance at the Kennedy School of Government, has estimated that the total cost of health care and disability compensation to veterans of the current wars will be nearly $1 trillion over the next 40 years. Some academics and government officials say her projections are too high. But there is broad agreement on her larger point, that the costs will keep going up for decades to come.
�Because we have saved more peoples� lives,� said Gordon Adams, a senior budget official in the Clinton administration, �we�re going to be paying that bill for some time to come.�
Mr. Adams, a professor of international relations at American University, said he considered it highly unlikely that Congress would ever cut veterans benefits. But Ms. Bilmes disagrees.
�I think when times are tough, there are no sacred cows,� she said. �There was a time when it would be unthinkable that we would be talking about cutting pensions for teachers, firemen and policemen. Yet all over the country that�s what we�re looking at today.�
I think the Mack plan can really get traction and be the defining campaign issue....and if Romney would embrace it he could eliminate a lot of the suspicion about him....although I'd never trust him on the second amendment, any more than I would Chris Christie..
I love the Mack plan because of how easy it would be to sell to the PEOPLE. Anyone can understand it and it is VERY smoke and mirror proof. My biggest fear is the balanced budget amendment though. As you know, we would need a 2/3 vote in Congress before that would go to the states. I am confident the states would pass it. Most of the hard core libs are concentrated in a few states which gives us the edge. But even if we had the Senate and the White House, I'm not confident we can get a 2/3 vote on it. Without that amendment, the Mack plan could do great for 8 years and then there's nothing to HOLD the gains it would make.
Typical Keynesian BS, coming from one who survives on government cheese. Paying off debt with more debt, yeah, that makes total sense.
Forget the government cheese stuff and think how it affects you. If Moody's and S&P lower the US credit rating, it will add $100 billion to the interest paid each year by the taxpayer. Why heck, $100 billion would buy a fleet of 100 B-2 bombers or, about 10 new carriers or, just add another &100 billion to the debt.
.....and the public is seeing the GOP as the party of cut, cap and balance and the democrats as the party of continued tax, borrow and spend. it's important to play it out that way.
Do you really see no downside potential for the GOP? One could rationally see this as a subset of Republicans foisting budgetary issues on fiscal policy and in their intransigence risking at least a small fiscal meltdown. But then Democrats in the Senate are gaining no favor by failing to fairly negotiate, or at least come up with a conciliatory proposal, while Obama can be seen as bumbling along, providing no real leadership and hoping to claim victory by adopting a winning position after the fact.
So if the whole thing falls apart or if one side is seen to have caved someone is going to get bit hard, remains to be seen who. A good incentive to come up with something that allows face saving on all sides and save your chips for something with better odds, no? People I've talked to are pissed at all sides but more so Republicans for instigating this mess. Hard to tell nationally with dueling polls but perhaps not a unique view if you split the difference.
Mike762 - I agree that we need to reduce spending in order to cut the national debt, but where is the best place to do it? We can cut Social Security, Medicare, defense and, veterans benefits since these account for about 68% of the whole budget. These are the areas in which meaningful cuts can be made which will impact Federal spending (plus other areas need to take a hit).
Going after small stuff (like National Parks and Forests, and the EPA etc.) will not make a dent in the deficit and the interest
I think that you don't get it. Ratings agencies will do what they will do, and if it costs more to service debt, or decreases the likelihood of rolling debt over, it still avoids the reality that WE DON"T HAVE THE MONEY. Adding more debt to the already unpayable public debt and the unfunded entitlement debt only kicks the can down the road for a few months or a year, i.e. through the next election cycle. The capital markets will make the decision to stop lending at some point. When they do, I'm sure that the Fed stands ready to print the shortfall, as they always have. Hello Weimar.
We're screwed no matter if the ceiling is raised or not. The choices are, default now and kill your currency, or default later and kill your currency. The longer you wait the greater the pain will be. It's pretty simple arithmetic. We had the chance in 2000 and 2008 to take our medicine, and the choice was made on both occasions to kick the can down the road. Well, the can is more like a barrel now, and the distance it's able to be kicked is shorter and shorter.
Hello Watch4bear. I note you are from Alaska, the home of the late Senator Ted Stevens who managed to send more of other people's money home (per capita) than even Robert Byrd. Spenditrol - Ted Stevens certainly endorsed it and took 5 tablets per day!
Funny skit. But it's wrong. It isn't going to be for our kids to worry about, it is going to be for us. And our kids will deal with by simply refusing to pay the debt we've built up. And we, when we are in our old age, will be the ones to suffer the worst.
Cut spending? Yeah I should say so. The problem is how things in DC get "scored" using a baseline projection. We have sufficient revenues coming in. The problem is spending across the board. We need to cut everything in .gov across the board-including entitlements-by at least $6 Trillion and balance the budget tomorrow to have any chance of avoiding a total collapse of government, yet the pinheads in government keep "scoring" their cuts using the 7.5% increase in budget baseline to do so.
I don't call Ob@m@Care "small stuff", or increasing pet bureaucracies like EPA 100% or better every year "small stuff". Add it all up and it gets beyond "small stuff".
Wasn't it Sam Rayburn who said, "a billion here and billion there and pretty soon you're talkin' real money." Now we're talking trillions with the same aplomb, and weaseling around the edges trying to maintain political viability.
If we do not cut in large amounts, across the board, it will be done for us. To quote The Terminator, "Judgement Day is inevitable". It's just a matter of when.
If you weren't so silly, you'd know we weren't a state until 1959. We even have bits of infrastructure now. Did you ever learn to crap in the woods? Some here still do. Heck, I still drive 80 miles a day, cause we have no bridge to shorten my drive to 20.
Then Mike, you need to pray that Boehner and Co. kill the US credit rating!
The US credit rating is toast regardless of what Boehner and Co. do. S&P has already stated that if they do not see at least $4 Trillion in cuts-real cuts, not just reduction in baseline increaases-then we will be downgraded. Try the boogety, boogety, scary BS somewhere else, because I can do math, and the numbers don't add up.
Edited to add, Egan-Jones has already downgraded US debt instruments. I expect Fitch-they are French after all-to be next, followed by Moody's and S&P last.
OP, what they need to do is prove they're not stupid. forcing a humiliating bill on Obama...or even better forcing him to do this again before the election in 2012...is the best tactical use that can be made of this situation.
In other words, they're not addressing the problem. They're playing politics with it.
When Carter took office, the debt as a proportion of GDP was 35.8%. When he left office, it was 32.5%. Ronny ballooned that to 53.1%, and quadrupled our debt in actual dollars. In point of fact, RR oversaw the first $1 trillion dollar deficit. That's a legacy you can hang your hat on, don't you think? Then, after Clinton reduced the debt from $1.5 trillion to a mere $400 billion, GW increased it ten fold. When he left office, it was $4 trillion.
So, once again, pull your head out of your ass. Who got us into this mess?
Sorry Paddler, your head is up your azz. Some of your numbers are correct but you're completely off the mark on others.
The 1st thing you need to do is learn the difference between the national debt and federal deficit and maybe learn to read a chart and maybe,...maybe,... you won't sound like such a dumbazz.
Re-read your source and get a 'Chart Reading for Dummies' book and try again.
As far as the credit rating thing goes, I have no idea why anyone would hold a AAA rating on a debtor that refuses to balance it's budget. This August 2nd thing is a totally manufactured crisis in perfect Obama fashion. It is nearly impossible for us to default on our debt. The interest on the debt is roughly 12% of August's revenues. The only way a default would ever happen is if Obama wanted one to happen, regardless of whether any bill is passed.
The govt can afford to pay the interest on the debt, social security checks, medicare, medicaid, the military and the veterans administration without any problems at all. After those things, there is about $40 billion of revenues left. At that point, the govt would need to prioritize what gets paid and who gets laid off.
That is the big scam. This is not a DEBT DEFAULT crisis by ANY stretch of the imagination. It is a GOVT SHUTDOWN crisis, and it always has been. Obama doesn't want to make the tough decision about which govt departments go home without pay. So he and Geitner has completely fabricated this default crisis.
And the sad part is that everyone is jumping into the crisis mentality with both feet. He has won the crisis management war yet again on yet another farce.
And the sad part is that everyone is jumping into the crisis mentality with both feet. He has won the crisis management war yet again on yet another farce.
Agree that it is ALL about Ob@m@'s re-election, and the crisis mode is what they use to sell the product, but there IS a very real debt/deficit problem, and it only requires a trigger to become a very real crisis. IMO, the D's have provided that trigger.
he's just a pathological liar...no point in even responding to such trolls. The deficits racked up by Tip O'Neill and the House democrats while Reagan was president ranged from 78 billion in 1981 to a high of 221 billion in 1986...while income to the treasury doubled, Tip and the boys spent it even faster.
Clinton didn't reduce the debt.....the republicans in control of Congress reduced the deficit by the end of his term to a brief surplus, if you use the usual accounting tricks and off budget items, although any company officer that used that accounting would go to jail.
Paddler, are you really that stupid or do you assume everyone else is?
just got a blackberry message from the House floor....looks like the wheels are coming off:
"I'm watching the floor. This has all become so ridiculous.
As it stands right now, the Senate is going to vote this down. We'll be here this weekend, and then;Debtmageddon.
Best,"
name withheld to protect sender
None of them give a [bleep]. I swear most of them don't care about the debt - so what, we lower our debt from $14 trillion to $10 trillion? We still will NEVER be able to cut enough expenses, or raise enough revenue, to EVER get back to no debt. They know it, and are resigned to that fact. Meanwhile, I'm resigned to the fact that I need to work my azz off to make sure my boys won't grow up holding a sign on a street corner...
Interesting graph I'd say... a roadmap to ruin kind of thing.
The CBO projections of course tell you where you are headed with a given set of economic assumptions. The lower parts of the graph show you where two recessions put a serious dent in revenues and prolonged what would have otherwise been our schedule for paying off our operating debt. IOW where those assumptions fell short.
The stuff above it? The wall of shame. The drivers of our current deficit disaster. Gives one a pretty good idea where to start when it comes to straightening things out I'd say.
House Republicans are just wasting their time debating Speaker John Boehner�s debt reduction bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said today.
�Boehner�s bill dies tonight,� Reid communications director Adam Jentleson wrote on Twitter. �Forever.�
The House of Representatives is expected to vote on the legislation today. Reid said Thursday afternoon he plans to put the bill up for a vote in the Senate afterwards.
�As soon as the House completes its vote, the Senate will move to take up that bill,� Reid said, �and it will be defeated tonight.�
�No Democrat will vote for a short-term Band-Aid that would put our economy at risk and put the nation back in this untenable situation a few short months from now,� he said.
Michael Steel, a spokesman for Boehner, shot back in an email to The Daily Caller: �House Republicans will vote today on a second bill to raise the debt limit and end this crisis, while Senate Democrats have failed to pass any bill to do so. Why can�t Senate Democrats say �yes� to this reasonable, responsible and bipartisan solution?�
Despite a days-long push to force their conservative members into line, and sneak Speaker John Boehner's (R-OH) debt limit bill through the House of Representatives, GOP leadership has postponed a scheduled vote on the legislation -- a sign that their efforts have thus far failed.
This evening, members were alerted that Boehner and his leadership team were delaying the vote, which had been scheduled for 6 p.m.
"Members are advised that the House GOP Leadership has postponed the votes on the motion to recommit and final passage of S. 627 - Speaker Boehner's Short Term Default Act (amending the Faster FOIA Act of 2011)," reads a notice from Minority Whip Steny Hoyer's (D-MD) office to his whip team.
The measure could still come up for a vote late Thursday, but not until the House holds a series of back to back votes on unrelated issues.
The announcement landed well after U.S. markets closed.
but there IS a very real debt/deficit problem, and it only requires a trigger to become a very real crisis. IMO, the D's have provided that trigger.
Nobody here is arguing that point. In fact, we should have passed a balanced budget amendment 30 years ago. But his argument has not been about the DEBT. In fact he wants MORE debt. Their whole crisis argument has been a debt DEFAULT. In other words, the US fails to pay the interest on someone's bond holding. And there is absolutely ZERO chance that under ANY circumstance that has to happen- with or without one of these so called plans in place. The interest on the debt is $29 billion and the August revenues will top $200 billion. Even if you pay SS, medicare,medicaid, the military and the VA on top of the debt interest, there is STILL $40 billion left. In other words, unless Obama intentionally chooses to pay for some idiotic, useless discretionary program over the debt interest, no default can happen. This is nothing more than yet another magic trick.
There is a huge downside for the GOP. Public opinion is clearly on Obama's side in this debate, by a 3:1 margin according to a poll I saw on Fox yesterday. The Tea Tards are seen as holding our economy hostage, trying to enforce their will on the entire country. Extortion comes to mind, and the public is tired of it. They will be hunted down and shot like rabid animals, and justly so. Just speaking figuratively, of course.
I've said it before but I'll tell you guys what's gonna happen. The Republican bill will die in the Senate and the Democrat bill will die in the House and there will be nothing left. The dictator will pull his 14th amendment parlor trick out and increase the debt ceiling on his own. Then he will claim he had to do it because the Republicans wouldn't negotiate and were pushing us into the next great depression. Mark my words.
And no one will by 14th amendment T-bills. At least not at less than double digit interest rates to cover the risk that SCOTUS will call them unconstitutional...
nearly every one who posts here are caught up in gov't school rhetoric, it seems like?
what is the base line? why, the productive potential of the Urth itself, of course.
we can mine minerals, fish, farm, practice forestry, and apply technology. what a concept.
everything else is bally-hoo theactrics. the demopublicans don't seem to care much about a healthy environment. they're into taxes to utilize for their own benefit. yes, the publicans love taxes too, otherwise they'd lobby for almost no taxes.
debt ceilings are imaginary. don't believe it? then, just ask the Red Chinese. they're in the game.
ho-hum, i gotta go to the newest Wal-mart store in my community. i'm looking for a quality, low-cost lawn mower, push-type.
I don't have much debt. What debt I have has a long term fixed interest rate. At this point in my life, I would welcome some higher interest rates with open arms. Maybe saving money could be a winning proposition again.
I've said it before but I'll tell you guys what's gonna happen. The Republican bill will die in the Senate and the Democrat bill will die in the House and there will be nothing left. The dictator will pull his 14th amendment parlor trick out and increase the debt ceiling on his own. Then he will claim he had to do it because the Republicans wouldn't negotiate and were pushing us into the next great depression. Mark my words.
You may well be correct, OP. And indeed, the Repubs will be held responsible, as they truly are to blame. Tying the increase in the debt limit to the budget was an entirely Republican machination in order to extract cuts to programs they never liked anyway. Now, they want to get more cuts, but no tax increases, in return for increasing the debt limit by a small amount which will guarantee we deal with the same issue in a few months. Then, they will pull the same sh*t again.
The people agree with Obama on this, and the Republicans currently occupy the low ground. It's like Pickett's charge, and they will sustain heavy losses. I hope it exceeds the 50% casualties the Confederates sustained that day. What was that saying about those who don't learn from history? It's game over, Boner. Time to come to the table with taxes on the wealthy, ending the oil company subsidies and closing tax loopholes. Then the American public will believe you're not just a grandstanding *sshole.
So what again is Obama's plan? Why hasn't Reid put his plan up for a vote in the Senate?
Their plan all along has been to pretend to have a plan, let the Republicans put up their's, vote it down and demonize them. That way, they maximize their time in front of the microphones and cameras making out conservatives as the bad guy. This ENTIRE quagmire has been nothing but a PR campaign. Bet on it. And unfortunately, when you have a pathological liar in the White House, and you're in a spin war, he wins.
The Tea Tards are seen as holding our economy hostage, trying to enforce their will on the entire country.
I wouldn't say that; more it's a game of political brinksmanship and it's unclear where advantage will fall when its all over. In retrospect sort of like trying to fill an inside straight.
Judging by their actions, it appears that the Dems want a deadlock that partially or mostly shuts down the government. That is the most plausible explanation for Obama torpedoing the agreement that was made by insisting on much higher taxes after the deal was reached.
The hope is that they will gain politically, as they did last time.
I don't think it will work nearly as well this time. For one thing, people want spending cuts. And second, it is blindingly obvious that nobody but the House has put forward any kind of realistic plan.
So if that supposition is true, what we have here is an administration that is willing to crash the economy to gain political advantage. That, plus they are willing to get people killed by shipping guns to criminals in order to advance their agenda. Not too pretty when you add it up.
Obama's Strongly Disapprove rating is ramping up sharply, and is now around 45%. He's not winning. Congress's approval rating has hit an all time low of 6%. It's not clear to me that this is winning them any points.
They don't want a govt shutdown bud. Govt is their religion. They want just the opposite. There is a plan B and Obama has it in his back pocket. It's already been pimped by Clinton. Obama can unilaterally raise the debt ceiling, on his own, by butchering the 14th amendment.
So one of two things will happen. The Republicans will cave and the Democrats win or Obama raises the debt ceiling without their consent, as a true dictator would. But what is certain is that they will push the drama to the last minute. That fills everyone with tension and fear.
Then when Obama rides in on his white horse, he will have saved everyone yet again from financial calamity. Don't think for a second that this is anything but an election campaign show for Obama. At that point the tension will have been so high that everyone will be relieved that it is over.
But at the end of the day, when the smoke clears and the dust settles... one thing will remain. We will have allowed him to create his master piece crisis illusion again. A we will be left with a higher debt ceiling so that they can immediately start spending more of our money again.
Seems to me that Reid is running the strategy and Obama is just ducking, like flipping on tax increases. (Or are they loophole-closing spending reductions.) Then he can give his imprimatur to any measure that can pass House and Senate and congratulate himself. Avoids the possibility of catching hell from backing a failure.
Reid seems to be angling for pure political advantage by coming up with something that will pass both houses and claim to be the rational adult to the Tea Party fanatics. A crap shoot but that's what politicians do. Who wins depends on public perception when the dust settles, which IS politics of course. Pity.
Best stolen line is that Democrats demand a long term limit to encourage economic stability. Never mind tax and spending uncertainty.
you have a group of Americans that need/want their gov't cheese, Obama's got them in his pocket
you have a group, that are struggling mightily to pay their bills with ever increasing costs for the things they use, like FOOD & OIL products and pay their taxes, the main perception they will get is the slant they get on it from the MSM as they wolf down their dinner and then go crash hard, so they can get up and hit it again in the a.m.
and then you have the liberal elite, they're in Obama's pocket too, no matter their incomes, there'll be escape hatches for them, didja see how many are exempt from Obamacare?? lol
and lastly you have those taxpayers that can afford the luxury of time(most expensive thing we ever purchase is time) to educate themselves beyond the spin of the MSM
it looks to me like we're outnumbered, would surprise me none that most Americans support Obama
What a circus! It's DOA in the Senate, and they can't even get the POS passed in the house when they have a majority. It's Game, Set, Match, Mr. Boner.
Wonder why African American middle class unemployment numbers have soared since the magic negro has been in office. Nevermind,just read the above post. I guess clueless dumbasses still get to vote.
If you weren't so silly, you'd know we weren't a state until 1959. We even have bits of infrastructure now. Did you ever learn to crap in the woods? Some here still do. Heck, I still drive 80 miles a day, cause we have no bridge to shorten my drive to 20.
1) Yes, I did learn to crap in the woods, probably before you were born.
2) Regardless of when Alaska became a state or its infrastructure situation, it does not have a god given right to bleed the US taxpayer through pork barrel politician's votes. (And neither does any other state.)
Regardless of all the crap that is being said (by both parties, the Administration, the Press, and here on the forum, three things remain in the forefront:
1) The debt ceiling needs to be raised to avoid default and the economic consequences that will follow.
2) We DO need to cut spending by reducing Federal budgets. Entitlements need to be cut (this includes Social Security, Medicare, and veterans pensions and benefits).
3) Revenues need to be raised and dedicated to paying down the debt (retiring or paying off Treasury notes). I do not advocate raising the tax rates, but certainly some of the loopholes (depletion allowances and some other write-offs could be eliminated)
What if the "looming threat" of the debt ceiling needing to be raised is just a ploy? Who really knows what happens if they ignore the timer and don't press the button?
If I were near bankruptcy and couldn't afford the payments on the interest on my debt, would you guys tell me to go get "one more" credit card to help pay, or ask me to renegotiate the terms of existing debt to avoid bankruptcy?
Why not leave the ceiling where it is and slash federal spending BECAUSE we're over our limit?
I honestly don't know, because I've become cynical about those who scream at me for my wallet because of some "crisis looming" all the time. Couldn't it all just be a big bluff?
Entitlements need to be cut (this includes Social Security,
Can you have your democrats send me what I have already paid in, and we'll just call it even?
I'm 36 and I'd be happy to let them KEEP what I've put in if I didn't have to continue. I can definately invest my money better than they can... surprise, surprise...
Apparently, they are about 2-3 votes short in the House. So, it's time to pull out the threats and bribes... no worry, they get that turd passed yet.
I doubt it would pass the Senate and get signed into law. While I can see some Tea Party types worrying about re-election, I think the better game plan is to pass a bill out of the House so the blame lies elsewhere for failing to pass/sign anything.
If it doesn't extend the debt limit to beyond 2012, I expect Obama to veto it. We don't need to deal with this every day of our lives. And, if this becomes law, the Repubs will pull the same sh*t next time around. We need to break the back of the Tea Tards NOW!
HEH HEH HEH,......what's this "We" chit? Do I detect a little FEAR ?
It is WE who will "Break the back" of your lib. soc aspirations, plans, and agendas.
It's coming, ....nothing you do or say will change that.
The right thing to do is always the right thing to do.
Sounds good in theory, but not when a few hundred people have to address in a single piece of legislation what 300 million people are thinking, and at least three fourths of the 300 million can't even figure out what they are thinking.
WSJ is going nuts right now. On a personal level, I wouldn't mind interest rates going up from their artificial low right now.
The right thing to do is always the right thing to do.
Sounds good in theory, but not when a few hundred people have to address in a single piece of legislation what 300 million people are thinking, and at least three fourths of the 300 million can't even figure out what they are thinking.
WSJ is going nuts right now. On a personal level, I wouldn't mind interest rates going up from their artificial low right now.
My answer is the same:
The right thing to do is always the right thing to do.
I'll say one more thing about this stuff. When the Democrats are making the Tea Party the villains, and the establishment Republicans are fighting with the Tea Party, that tells me the Tea Party is doing the right thing.
We'll see. I think Obama lured the Repubs into the trap. He compromised last time around, and this time gave up his very reasonable call for increasing revenue by specific means. Since the Tea Tards have absolutely refused any kind of compromise, their position is now untenable. I expect Obama to strike back hard, as public opinion is on his side. The Tea Party has now been exposed as being selfish and petulant. The Repubs are divided against themselves, without a coherent strategy. I expect the head taking to begin soon.
House Republicans announce late Thursday there will be no vote on Speaker Boehner's bill until at least Friday, casting doubt on whether he has enough support within the GOP to pass it.
EXACTLY! I mean how hard is it to COMPREHEND that one part of one part of the government cannot dictate to the two parts that don't??? I mean this is like a GEICO commercial.
On the other hand the two cannot overrule the third. So in essence the House has as much power as the other two.
Never lose sight of the strategic situation. Pass this and you back Obama up against a wall. Kill ,arguing for a better bill that will never happen and the blame will go solely on the GOP.
You will then inch closer to giving the reins completely back to the Dem's in 2012.
I think Steve's analysis is the correct one given the circumstances.
Well, there lies our difference of opinion. I think the Tea Party was sent to DC to do exactly what they are doing. I think giving in to one of these plans, in light of that, is EXACTLY what is needed to re-elect the Dems. I believe the exact opposite of you guys then. I think this "strategic" stuff you advocate is precisely what the conservatives are tired of. I agree to disagree and await our fate.
Personally, I believe the Democrats (under Obummer) will introduce a "debt reduction" bill the day before we go into "default". It will be comprised of at least 10,000 pages, and be scheduled for vote the next day - because of impending doom. NO ONE will have time to read it before our legislators "must" vote yea or nay!!! (Think Obummercare) and prior experience. Mark
Another thousand point drop, like what we saw when first Tarp plan didn't pass or a debit downgrade with instant, but ultimately short term interest rate spike will get to two sides calm enough to pass something. They care to much about getting re-elected, both sides, to really affect a drastic change. Both sides known since Feb. That this would be an issue, but nothing really done till last hour....and the politicing...It's worse than the TV craze over the tot hoo how was found not guilty.
....... Since the Tea Tards have absolutely refused any kind of compromise, their position is now untenable. I expect Obama to strike back hard, as public opinion is on his side....
I don't think that's true at all....it's funny that even here in liberal Massachusetts, working people are not at all happy with Obama.They seem to know what Obama is up to and frankly those working people I speak with,all want him gone.This is the street talking....the guy is toast come 2012.
That Repubs don't know how to win a horse race is apparent.Throw them out ,too...
Tea Party should hold the line hard,let the deadline pass....nothing will happen August 2 and we'll be downgraded anyway,if the rating agencies are to be believed...it's all smoke screen and mirrors.
I don't believe for a second any scare tactics from the Left.
Paddler you speak in generalities and platitudes. You are as intellectually dishonest as your handlers.
"Military Retirement Overview "The military retirement system is arguably the best retirement deal around. Unlike most retirement plans, the Armed Forces offer a pension, with benefits, that starts the day you retire, no matter how old you are. That means you could start collecting a regular retirement pension as early as 37 years old. What's more, that pension check will grow with a cost of living adjustment each year."
"What is a High 36 military pension worth? "Although the benefits gained from a lifetime military pension will differ based on the pay grade of the member upon retirement, I�ll provide two examples of the worth of a lifetime military pension.
(The following calculations assume the following: High 36 retirement plan, began service at age 22, served for 20 years, and national average life expectancy of 78.4 years.)
1.The typical officer: The typical officer who retires in 2010 as an O-4 with 20 years of active duty service will receive $2,523,817 total over the next 34 years. 2.The typical enlisted member: The typical enlisted member who retires in 2010 as an E-7 with 20 years of active duty service will receive $1,465,308.00 total over the next 34 years."
I certainly do not begrudge retired military members their pension, but in today's fiscal environment, can the nation afford a lifetime of payouts, starting at age 37 or so (depending of age at joining)? Perhaps the pension should be payable (adjusted for inflation) on reaching age 62 to help balance the budget and reduce the load on the national debt. Until reaching age 62, the retiree would have to work and save just like the rest of us.
True, this pension benefit was granted by a liberal, welfare oriented Congress, but we need to consider its ramifications in light of the current fiscal situation.
It's an irrelevant circus act, anyway. DOA in the Senate. Now, can we get on to the business of governing this land of ours?
Look stupid, here is the way it works:
The PRESIDENT (you know the current marxist occupant in the WH) SUBMITS a budget to the Congress. He has failed to do so now for over a year and a half. The last one he sent was voted down by a democrapically controlled Senate 99-0 and that is when he had both a democrap controlled House and Senate.
If he repeals the so-called Bush Tax Cuts that would net him about 90 billion out of his ridiculous 1.3 TRILLION budget and in the process, severely handicap small businesess because of the way they fill their taxes on individual 1040s, meaning a business owner might declare say a million in total income, most of that is in operating expenses employee salaries etc and his personal income might be well below 100K. So, if you cut that, their only option is to reduce expenditures, i.e employees thus reducing the tax base.
if he were to tax at 100% tax rate every penny everyone made above 250K and I mean every penny, that would net him about 900 billion and in the process destroy the economy as most small business owners file their business on individual tax forms, thus causing mass layoffs.
If he were to CONFISCATE ALL OF THE WEALTH of the top income earners that would give him a balanced budget for ONE YEAR. The problem with that is in year two, our revenues would be non-existent because we'd be back in a 16th Century ecoomic process.
While I'm at it, destroying all your silly-assed communist talking points, the total debt amassed during the Bush eight years in office was 2.8 billion. The marxist obama's debt since he took office stands at 5.3 TRILLION. Speaking of democraps, the president responsible for first tapping into social security funds? LYNDON JOHNSON.
Oil companies: Currently pay over 40 BILLION in taxes and work on a 9% profit margin.
And perhaps the most telling comment of all on that worthless POS Marxist evoked by the non-partican CBO:
"Mr. President, we do not score speeches, we score budgets"
if that is not a world-class embarrasing bitchslap, I don't know what is. (well this post to you is even better).
I realize I've probably overtaxed your pointy head, but if the hammer and sycle fit, stick it up your commieass and go post your crap somewhere else.
"Oil companies: Currently pay over 40 BILLION in taxes and work on a 9% profit margin."
Jorge - you are correct that oil (and gas) companies work on a 9% profit margin on average; but his is profit based on sales. Economists generally rank profitability using investment as the denominator.
I do not know what their rate-of-return on investment would be, but I' guessing it would be nearer to 15-18%. True, they have huge capital need, but they keep managing to put holes in the ground.
"Military Retirement Overview "The military retirement system is arguably the best retirement deal around. No it isn't. Fed/State unions have a much better racket, for instance they work them overtime for their last year so their retirement is based on that last year's salary so they retire at what was normally their full pay. Miltary retirees retire at roughly 50% of their BASE PAY and lose all allowances, onsensibly losing over 50% of their active duty pay.
Unlike most retirement plans, the Armed Forces offer a pension, with benefits, that starts the day you retire, no matter how old you are. That means you could start collecting a regular retirement pension as early as 37 years old. What's more, that pension check will grow with a cost of living adjustment each year." Not true. I retired in 08 and have not receive a SINGLE cost of living pay increase. From: http://www.moneycrashers.com/military-retirement-pay-pension-benefits/
"What is a High 36 military pension worth? "Although the benefits gained from a lifetime military pension will differ based on the pay grade of the member upon retirement, I�ll provide two examples of the worth of a lifetime military pension.
(The following calculations assume the following: High 36 retirement plan, began service at age 22, served for 20 years, and national average life expectancy of 78.4 years.)
1.The typical officer: The typical officer who retires in 2010 as an O-4 with 20 years of active duty service will receive $2,523,817 total over the next 34 years. 2.The typical enlisted member: The typical enlisted member who retires in 2010 as an E-7 with 20 years of active duty service will receive $1,465,308.00 total over the next 34 years."
I certainly do not begrudge retired military members their pension,then why say it?but in today's fiscal environment, can the nation afford a lifetime of payouts, starting at age 37 or so (depending of age at joining)? Perhaps the pension should be payable (adjusted for inflation) on reaching age 62 to help balance the budget and reduce the load on the national debt. Until reaching age 62, the retiree would have to work and save just like the rest of us. The rest of "us"? your gov't benefits are a long way off "the rest of us" for example in addition to your retirement, you get free money plus matching into your Thrift SAvings Plan.True, this pension benefit was granted by a liberal, welfare oriented Congress, but we need to consider its ramifications in light of the current fiscal situation.
My comments above in BOLD I expect *MY* contract with the gov't to be honored. If they want to change stuff and do as you suggest, I'm fine with that, then we'll see where we are with making our recruitment goals. jorge
"Military Retirement Overview "The military retirement system is arguably the best retirement deal around. No it isn't. Fed/State unions have a much better racket, for instance they work them overtime for their last year so their retirement is based on that last year's salary so they retire at what was normally their full pay. Miltary retirees retire at roughly 50% of their BASE PAY and lose all allowances, onsensibly losing over 50% of their active duty pay.
Unlike most retirement plans, the Armed Forces offer a pension, with benefits, that starts the day you retire, no matter how old you are. That means you could start collecting a regular retirement pension as early as 37 years old. What's more, that pension check will grow with a cost of living adjustment each year." Not true. I retired in 08 and have not receive a SINGLE cost of living pay increase. From: http://www.moneycrashers.com/military-retirement-pay-pension-benefits/
"What is a High 36 military pension worth? "Although the benefits gained from a lifetime military pension will differ based on the pay grade of the member upon retirement, I�ll provide two examples of the worth of a lifetime military pension.
(The following calculations assume the following: High 36 retirement plan, began service at age 22, served for 20 years, and national average life expectancy of 78.4 years.)
1.The typical officer: The typical officer who retires in 2010 as an O-4 with 20 years of active duty service will receive $2,523,817 total over the next 34 years. 2.The typical enlisted member: The typical enlisted member who retires in 2010 as an E-7 with 20 years of active duty service will receive $1,465,308.00 total over the next 34 years."
I certainly do not begrudge retired military members their pension,YES YOU DO but in today's fiscal environment, can the nation afford a lifetime of payouts, starting at age 37 or so (depending of age at joining)? Perhaps the pension should be payable (adjusted for inflation) on reaching age 62 to help balance the budget and reduce the load on the national debt. Until reaching age 62, the retiree would have to work and save just like the rest of us. The rest of "us"? your gov't benefits are a long way off "the rest of us" for example in addition to your retirement, you get free money plus matching into your Thrift SAvings Plan.True, this pension benefit was granted by a liberal, welfare oriented Congress, but we need to consider its ramifications in light of the current fiscal situation.
My comments above in BOLD I expect *MY* contract with the gov't to be honored. If they want to change stuff and do as you suggest, I'm fine with that, then we'll see where we are with making our recruitment goals. jorge
As to working overtime - I know of no Federal employees who decide to work overtime on their own; their supervisor has to approve it. Also, just as in industry, exempt employees (such as I) often work 50-60 hours a week and get NO overtime compensation - we just do it because it is the job (as to our military counterparts).
As to contracts, they can be legally altered due to changing conditions,, such as the lack of ability to pay. If the nation cannot pay its debts, then any contract is subject to revision.
I am not trying to start an argument, but sacred cows may have to be slaughtered in a time of famine (or possibly, we can opt for some "revenue enhancements").
Having trained troops sitting at the pointy head of the spear is a good thing IMO...I only served 6 years but at ANY given time, you can be called on to do what many in this country (including the current POTUS) are either afraid or unwilling to do...the fact that some people want to cut their pensions says much about their character...
"The rest of "us"? your gov't benefits are a long way off "the rest of us" for example in addition to your retirement, you get free money plus matching into your Thrift SAvings Plan."
I am CSRS Offset. I pay into both CSRS and Social Security AND, i get NO free government matching money into the TSP.
Contrary to your feeling, I do not oppose military retirement. You and all retirees earned it and should be paid the retirement, but the nation cannot afford to pay it out until a "full retirement age� is reached, just like Social Security. Or perhaps it can be "discounted" so one can receive a discounted monthly payment, based on age when payments start.
Having trained troops sitting at the pointy head of the spear is a good thing IMO...I only served 6 years but at ANY given time, you can be called on to do what many in this country (including the current POTUS) are either afraid or unwilling to do...the fact that some people want to cut their pensions says much about their character...
In times of national emergencies, drastic measures have to be taken - it is not a matter of character, but of economic reality and fairness to the country.
"The rest of "us"? your gov't benefits are a long way off "the rest of us" for example in addition to your retirement, you get free money plus matching into your Thrift SAvings Plan."
I am CSRS Offset. I pay into both CSRS and Social Security AND, i get NO free government matching money into the TSP.
Contrary to your feeling, I do not oppose military retirement. You and all retirees earned it and should be paid the retirement, but the nation cannot afford to pay it out until a "full retirement age� is reached, just like Social Security. Or perhaps it can be "discounted" so one can receive a discounted monthly payment, based on age when payments start.
Certainly a topic for discussion, but in my view military pay and retirement, if anything needs to be increased and if it must be cut, it should come after we've disbanded the departments of Energy, Education, Commerce, the EPA and of course Obamacare. Then we can talk.
Certainly a topic for discussion, but in my view military pay and retirement, if anything needs to be increased and if it must be cut, it should come after we've disbanded the departments of Energy, Education, Commerce, the EPA and of course Obamacare. Then we can talk.
Throw in TSA, and the IRS, then you're in a real discussion - and a valid one.
The more I think about it..maybe elimination of the federal income tax and replace it with a national sales tax. At least that way we would get tax value for all the stuff we import.
A Fair Tax or sales tax would be less costly for the government to manage and certainly more equitable for the general public as ALL would contribute. A huge problem with the current system is the about 50% don't contribute anything to the federal government and thus, are happy for them to spend more because they have no commitment. The current system is also fraught with loopholes and exemptions for many --- and what's fair about that.
The biggest problem with the current system imo is that politicians can pick winner and losers, redistribute wealth and buy votes for themselves with our money. When the tax code is not a tool of the politicians, it is by definition more fair that what we have now.
Getting rid of ALL Departments and programs (except DOD at 20% of budget, Social Security at 20%, Medicare/Medicaid at 23% and Debt Interest at 18%) and you only have 18% left. This will not do the job!
A Fair Tax or sales tax would be less costly for the government to manage and certainly more equitable for the general public as ALL would contribute. A huge problem with the current system is the about 50% don't contribute anything to the federal government and thus, are happy for them to spend more because they have no commitment. The current system is also fraught with loopholes and exemptions for many --- and what's fair about that.
I know one person who has paid no income taxes for the past several years (at least 5) yet has an income of over $500,000 per year from municipal bonds. By the way, he is hoping that the US defaults on the debt so the interest rates in new bonds he'll buy will go up several points.
A Fair Tax or sales tax would be less costly for the government to manage and certainly more equitable for the general public as ALL would contribute. A huge problem with the current system is the about 50% don't contribute anything to the federal government and thus, are happy for them to spend more because they have no commitment. The current system is also fraught with loopholes and exemptions for many --- and what's fair about that.
I know one person who has paid no income taxes for the past several years (at least 5) yet has an income of over $500,000 per year from municipal bonds. By the way, he is hoping that the US defaults on the debt so the interest rates in new bonds he'll buy will go up several points.
A wise man. So he has about ten million invested in munis. Nothing wrong with that.
A Fair Tax or sales tax would be less costly for the government to manage and certainly more equitable for the general public as ALL would contribute. A huge problem with the current system is the about 50% don't contribute anything to the federal government and thus, are happy for them to spend more because they have no commitment. The current system is also fraught with loopholes and exemptions for many --- and what's fair about that.
I know one person who has paid no income taxes for the past several years (at least 5) yet has an income of over $500,000 per year from municipal bonds. By the way, he is hoping that the US defaults on the debt so the interest rates in new bonds he'll buy will go up several points.
A wise man. So he has about ten million invested in munis. Nothing wrong with that.
If he's hoping that he's a dumbass.....cities are far more likely to default on their bonds than the US since they can file bankruptcy and they can't print money....as the county where Birmingham is will do next week. And if Uncle Sugar is busted, all that revenue sharing that the cities have been sucking off of for forty years comes to a halt.
A Fair Tax or sales tax would be less costly for the government to manage and certainly more equitable for the general public as ALL would contribute. A huge problem with the current system is the about 50% don't contribute anything to the federal government and thus, are happy for them to spend more because they have no commitment. The current system is also fraught with loopholes and exemptions for many --- and what's fair about that.
I know one person who has paid no income taxes for the past several years (at least 5) yet has an income of over $500,000 per year from municipal bonds. By the way, he is hoping that the US defaults on the debt so the interest rates in new bonds he'll buy will go up several points.
A wise man. So he has about ten million invested in munis. Nothing wrong with that.
If he's hoping that he's a dumbass.....cities are far more likely to default on their bonds than the US since they can file bankruptcy and they can't print money....as the county where Birmingham is will do next week. And if Uncle Sugar is busted, all that revenue sharing that the cities have been sucking off of for forty years comes to a halt.
Well Steve, you probably would consider him a dumbass; after all, he is an attorney (corporate merger and venture capital) who has amassed a sizable muni portfolio. He carefully weighs the strengths of the individual munis he buys and in some cases the bonds are backed by city assets (that can be liquidated). He is also my daughter's father- in- law.
Some bonds have extra insurance attached to them. The municipalities pay for this extra layer of insurance. Problem is some of those insurers are now out of business for backing terrible projects. Always look at the underlying credit rating of the bond. Rates aren't going to spike that high in my humble opinion. Maybe 25 basis points in short end and 50 on the long end for a short period of time before coming back down.
In the big picture a lot of the above needs to be done. Simplify the tax code. Wealthy people higher CPA's to find the loopholes and there all over the place, Warren Buffet pays an average of 10percent. Tax backet as they are except for those over 25 million. Increased by only 5 percent. Tough subject and no disrespect intended but True pension reform for city, state and military. The union comment about working crazy house the last year or last two years to get a higher rate just isn't fair. Know cops, firefighters that have done this. Yes you risk your life, but you chose this profession and shouldn't game the system. Same for military, maybe different pensions if ever in combat situation. I respect what cops firefighters and are military have done for us and are doing but tough decisions and cuts need to occur. My dad retired from navy after serving 26 years. Only one 3 month stint in combat. Retired and ran nuclear power plants at TVA after that for 20 years and now gets two really great pension checks along with free health care for him and mom rest of their life......Even they can't believe is hasn't been changed. Plus no federal taxes on military pay. Entitlement programs.....welfare: can you say drug testing, would probably save some money there........
djs....if he's that smart he's kidding about hoping for a federal default.
very few cities or municipalities have assets that have any real market value. Birmingham's host county is about to go under because of billions of sewer bond debt....and the bondholders are going to get poured out or agree to a total refinance, because they have no option.
I'd be scared motherless of buying munis now.....I expect to see a whole flock of municipal b'ruptcy filings before the year is out.
Now is when Reid attempts to blend his Bill with Boehner's. I'd love to be a fly on those office walls. Senate has a long cluster-[bleep] of a weekend ahead of them only to maybe come up with a Bill the House won't pass. This is where the dem leadership will begin feeling their deserved share of the heat.
djs....if he's that smart he's kidding about hoping for a federal default.
very few cities or municipalities have assets that have any real market value. Birmingham's host county is about to go under because of billions of sewer bond debt....and the bondholders are going to get poured out or agree to a total refinance, because they have no option.
I'd be scared motherless of buying munis now.....I expect to see a whole flock of municipal b'ruptcy filings before the year is out.
Steve - He does not like many city munis. Many of the bonds are state bonds and hospitals, and water/sewer works, etc. that pledge revenues to back the bonds. In some cases the assets themselves are pledged (I don't know the liquidity of a hospital or water works, but there is a market).
Oh yes, he owns NO California or Birmingham (AL) bonds. And again, he pays no taxes.
Bonds=Certificates of Confiscation. Give your money to some .gov entity with the promise of repayment at some future date-depending upon the revenue stream of course-at a coupon rate that doesn't come near to compensation for the risk involved.
Gold and silver gents. No counterparty risk. Anything else are just promises to pay. Check's in the mail, etc., etc.
Precious metals have storage, security, handling and assaying costs. Plus they are commodities that exhibit high volatility (up is good, down is bad). These take from any profit.
Remember the Hunt Brothers and their silver experience.
Now is when Reid attempts to blend his Bill with Boehner's. I'd love to be a fly on those office walls. Senate has a long cluster-[bleep] of a weekend ahead of them only to maybe come up with a Bill the House won't pass. This is where the dem leadership will begin feeling their deserved share of the heat.
If the liberalize the thing in the Senate, it'll die and lay as a bloody pulp in the House. Same thing will happen to the Reid bill if he has the balls to actually put it on the table.
I'm telling you guys, neither side is gonna cave and the dictator's gonna pull his 14th amendment card out and raise the debt ceiling on his own.
He HAS to at this because he has literally painted himself in a corner. He has made this out to be economic Armageddon now. If the deadline comes and goes and he does act unilaterally, everyone will know his bluff.
This is some interesting theater. All I want for Christmas is about a dozen more Tea Party guys in Congress so we can make the libs' lives hell on earth.
I would nothing more than for that blackazz to dictate a raise in national debt. That would esculate the inevitable to a pace I want to see happen. By this time next month, I would love to see Wall Street Burn to the ground and the inner cities to crumble to dust. I want those pukes to know the feel of pure pain and agony.
Maybe someone can help me out here. I keep hearing about the senate / Reid putting up a bill of their own. If they refuse to discuss and vote on the house bill how can the senate trot out a bill of their own when all spending bills must originate in the house, according to the US Constitution. I understand that the senate can vote and not pass a bill, make changes to the bill and then pass the revised bill and send it back to the house. I didn't know they could just say f your bill here's ours.
Typical Keynesian. Gold/silver are MONEY, not commodities. The perceived "volatility" is a reflection of the rate of debasement of the paper product that supposedly defines the value of the metal. It is in fact, the opposite. The purchasing power of the metals is relatively constant, especially when compared to the ever decreasing purchasing power of government issued paper.
Of course, you, as a .gov leech, believe that the system set up by your employers is the best of all systems, even though your savings are being devalued at an ever increasing rate. You will live and die by that system, and you deserve to.
BTW, the Hunt Bros. were victims of the CME, the CFTC, and the Fed, changing/influencing margin rules. They were dealing in paper silver with those who issue paper for a living. They paid the price for doing so. If you deal in physical, you will not have that problem.
It's a bitch when the system upon which you've based your entire existence is in the process of dying ain't it.
Maybe someone can help me out here. I keep hearing about the senate / Reid putting up a bill of their own. If they refuse to discuss and vote on the house bill how can the senate trot out a bill of their own when all spending bills must originate in the house, according to the US Constitution. I understand that the senate can vote and not pass a bill, make changes to the bill and then pass the revised bill and send it back to the house. I didn't know they could just say f your bill here's ours.
Ernie
Taking a big eraser and getting rid of everything below the bill number and the title is revising a bill and saying 'f you, here's ours'.
I would nothing more than for that blackazz to dictate a raise in national debt. That would esculate the inevitable to a pace I want to see happen. By this time next month, I would love to see Wall Street Burn to the ground and the inner cities to crumble to dust. I want those pukes to know the feel of pure pain and agony.
It's really sad to see comments like this..."bladkazz" what a racist comment.
The sad thing about all this is that if the debt limit is not raised it will hurt poor and middle class folks the most. Do you have any concept of how finance, economics, or business work at all? Based on your statement probably not..
Of course there needs to be plans put in place to deal with entitlement and tax reform, spending cuts, getting the heck out of Iraq and Afganistan but not increasing the Debt Limit in a thoughtful way is a disaster.
Things have a way or working out for better or worse, unfortunately comments like yours abound!
JorgeI, your posts are ridiculous. But perhaps the most telling is your insistence that your contract with the government must be honored, ie, your retirement must be paid, while saying we should cut entitlements, ie, SS. I have paid tons of money into SS with the clear expectation that I receive SS benefits when I retire. Is your claim more valid than mine?
I don't see how you could claim that the debt amassed by GW was $2.8 billion, when it was actually more than $6 TRILLION!!! Hello, pull your head out, McFly!!
The sad thing about all this is that if the debt limit is not raised it will hurt poor and middle class folks the most. Do you have any concept of how finance, economics, or business work at all? Based on your statement probably not..
Not that I agree with the OP and his comments regarding the Great and Powerful Oz, but please inform those of us too ignorant to understand how paying for debt with more debt will harm the poor and middle class. Inquiring minds want to know.
Typical Keynesian. Gold/silver are MONEY, not commodities. The perceived "volatility" is a reflection of the rate of debasement of the paper product that supposedly defines the value of the metal. It is in fact, the opposite. The purchasing power of the metals is relatively constant, especially when compared to the ever decreasing purchasing power of government issued paper.
Of course, you, as a .gov leech, believe that the system set up by your employers is the best of all systems, even though your savings are being devalued at an ever increasing rate. You will live and die by that system, and you deserve to.
BTW, the Hunt Bros. were victims of the CME, the CFTC, and the Fed, changing/influencing margin rules. They were dealing in paper silver with those who issue paper for a living. They paid the price for doing so. If you deal in physical, you will not have that problem.
It's a bitch when the system upon which you've based your entire existence is in the process of dying ain't it.
Gold and silver are money? No, they are a commodity unless the asset properly assayed, weighed documented and stored to assure it value. Unless you (and the other person in the transaction) know the actual value of the asset (say, gold or silver), commercial transactions cannot take place. But, if you are agreeable, I have some perfectly shiny (14 ct.) gold bullion that I will sell you at the current market price of $1,602/oz. Heck, I�ll even weigh it on my bathroom scale so you know how many pounds you are buying. Now, that�s a deal!
At current spot prices, gold is valued at $1,602 per oz. or about $25,600/lb. If you buy a modest house in a major metropolitan area (Northern Virginia, for example), you�d pay about $650,000. That would require you to carry about 25 pounds of gold in your hands � not the most convenient method of conducting commercial transactions.
If you buy your gold as coins, you are paying a numismatic value for the intrinsic value of the coin. You are also paying a dealer markup for any gold, silver, soybean, or other commodity you purchase. As to the Hunt Brothers, I am confident that you are convinced that somewhere in DC, there is a secret buried bunker where the CME, the CFTC, and the Federal Reserve meet to plot against anyone that holds a commodity. The Federal Reserve (XXX) was alarmed at the silver bubble when they concluded that the Hunt�s were trying to manipulate the silver market and they did step in. See: http://www.investopedia.com/article...thursday-hunt-brothers.asp#axzz1TauWu0cg
Have you considered that when you buy any commodity (gold or silver, etc.), the seller seems to accept your US dollars for the transaction. If the dollar is so worthless, why would an intelligent dealer use dollars as the exchange medium? There must be some value in fiat currency, or maybe your sellers are as dumb as you consider me!
As for the .gov leech, I know a lot of them; some I work with and others I�ve known. Some of these guys are US Prison guards, some are Border Patrol officers, some a medical researchers, some are military and combat veterans, one was a astronaut that went to the moon (Apollo 14; BTW, you realize that every man who walked on the moon was a .gov leech, don�t you), and some have spend years in dangerous situations in foreign countries. I have a very good .gov leech friend who has been a warden at 2 Federal prisons, helping keep the slugs off your streets.
You may not know it, but there are 102 stars of unknown people on a memorial wall inside the CIA. Over the 20 years that I�ve entered the CIA headquarters for meetings, I looked at the wall to see if any more stars have been added. Frankly man, I am proud to be associated with these folks.
JorgeI, your posts are ridiculous. But perhaps the most telling is your insistence that your contract with the government must be honored, ie, your retirement must be paid, while saying we should cut entitlements, ie, SS. I have paid tons of money into SS with the clear expectation that I receive SS benefits when I retire. Is your claim more valid than mine?
I don't see how you could claim that the debt amassed by GW was $2.8 billion, when it was actually more than $6 TRILLION!!! Hello, pull your head out, McFly!!
I don't believe that any military folks (and I know a lot of retired ones) ever signed a "contract" with a retirement clause in it. It is a law and can be altered by a revision, just as Social Security or other Federal programs can.
If we are going to reduce the deficit and the national debt, we need to make meaningful cuts, and ALL things are on the table.
As to a Budget Balanced Amendment I am not sure how this would work. Suppose the Chinese start a war, do we say "Now wait a year or so until we can fund a war. We need to wait for the economy to improve so we can raise the revenue for funding the war." (Recessions will occur regardless of who is in power)
Blah, blah, blah. Parroting your hero Ben Bernanke I see. If gold isn't money, and isn't worth anything except as a commodity, then why do ALL central banks hold it as a reserve? Why are CB's becoming buyers of gold, and divesting themselves of FRN$'s? Could it be that it constitutes real money and retains its value through time, as money is supposed to do?
You keep on believing that the promises of politicians and banksters are worthy of trust, and your retirement income may just buy you a loaf of bread.
As to a Budget Balanced Amendment I am not sure how this would work. Suppose the Chinese start a war, do we say "Now wait a year or so until we can fund a war. We need to wait for the economy to improve so we can raise the revenue for funding the war." (Recessions will occur regardless of who is in power)
There lies one of the dangers and why it must be written VERY carefully. There would absolutely be a clause in there for "time of war" or "natural disasters" where they can fund things outside the budget. Rest assured, even with a balanced budget amendment, the politicians will find a way to spend more money. In times of war, they will shift costs towards military operations and every time there is a fire, flood or earthquake, they would deem it a disaster area and funnel welfare funds to the local area. The good news is that there would at least be a cap on everything else.
Blah, blah, blah. Parroting your hero Ben Bernanke I see. If gold isn't money, and isn't worth anything except as a commodity, then why do ALL central banks hold it as a reserve? Why are CB's becoming buyers of gold, and divesting themselves of FRN$'s? Could it be that it constitutes real money and retains its value through time, as money is supposed to do?
You keep on believing that the promises of politicians and banksters are worthy of trust, and your retirement income may just buy you a loaf of bread.
I never said gold is worthless, but it is a commodity whose value rises and falls on demand (yes, it is going up now, but next week?) Central banks buy gold at a lot less per unit than you do; they pay no dealer markup, not assay fees, nor insurance fees and, they already have places to store it (I don't think Ft. Knox safes has sold many 48" wide safes to the Swiss government).
And, Ben Bernanke is not my friend, He was installed by GW Bush, so he should be more palatable to you than an original BHO appointee or, do you just hate everybody?
As to a Budget Balanced Amendment I am not sure how this would work. Suppose the Chinese start a war, do we say "Now wait a year or so until we can fund a war. We need to wait for the economy to improve so we can raise the revenue for funding the war." (Recessions will occur regardless of who is in power)
There lies one of the dangers and why it must be written VERY carefully. There would absolutely be a clause in there for "time of war" or "natural disasters" where they can fund things outside the budget. Rest assured, even with a balanced budget amendment, the politicians will find a way to spend more money. In times of war, they will shift costs towards military operations and every time there is a fire, flood or earthquake, they would deem it a disaster area and funnel welfare funds to the local area. The good news is that there would at least be a cap on everything else.
OK, I see your point, but how about circumstances in which the economy tanks (as it does periodically and government revenues fall. Many large contracts are long term, for example:
- The Navy contracts for a new aircraft carrier ($10 billion) and 5 nuclear subs over a 10 years period at $8 billion each (see: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...-more-than-navy-s-estimate-cbo-says.html ). Again, do we tell them to stop until we reach a balanced budget? - The same situation exists for all programs. Medicare is a very expensive activity (too expensive), but do we just say to people who will die without medical attention �GO to your doctor and tell him society can�t afford it and will he just give it to them for free (cost of cancer - http://www.cancer.gov/aboutnci/servingpeople/cancer-statistics/costofcancer ). - And so forth �
I know we cannot afford unlimited program expansion, but a meaningful courteous discussion of the issues and ways to conform costs is needed.
If gold is just a commodity as you assert, then why don't central banks hold other commodities such as oil, wheat, corn, etc. as reserves?
All the costs that you mention are part of the production cycle, and what we who hold metals put up with in order to have something that retains its purchasing power and has no counterparty risk, unlike your paper "equivalents". Government uses our tax money to protect their gold, and uses abusive taxation levels to discourage ownership and direct people to the assets which they control. That alone is telling.
As to my "hating" everybody, I don't hate everyone, I despise everyone who has a hand in destroying what was once a great country. Bureaucratic termites that reside in DC sucking tax dollars to perform "work" that makes it more difficult for the average citizen to enjoy the liberty endowed by our creator and pursue happiness are the people upon whom I direct my ire. I especially despise those who make apologies for the excesses of government and justify their existence as being necessary for the continued function of our nation. Your idea of what our nation should be, and my idea of what it should be are two very different things. You believe in government and I do not. That makes you my enemy. I don't hate you, but I do hate what you represent, and what you work to perpetuate.
If gold is just a commodity as you assert, then why don't central banks hold other commodities such as oil, wheat, corn, etc. as reserves?
All the costs that you mention are part of the production cycle, and what we who hold metals put up with in order to have something that retains its purchasing power and has no counterparty risk, unlike your paper "equivalents". Government uses our tax money to protect their gold, and uses abusive taxation levels to discourage ownership and direct people to the assets which they control. That alone is telling.
As to my "hating" everybody, I don't hate everyone, I despise everyone who has a hand in destroying what was once a great country. Bureaucratic termites that reside in DC sucking tax dollars to perform "work" that makes it more difficult for the average citizen to enjoy the liberty endowed by our creator and pursue happiness are the people upon whom I direct my ire. I especially despise those who make apologies for the excesses of government and justify their existence as being necessary for the continued function of our nation. Your idea of what our nation should be, and my idea of what it should be are two very different things. You believe in government and I do not. That makes you my enemy. I don't hate you, but I do hate what you represent, and what you work to perpetuate.
Well, thanks for the kind words Mike. You don't even know what I do and yet you hate "what you represent, and what you work to perpetuate." without knowing what I do. Interesting and, ignorant.
And, your statement "All the costs that you mention are part of the production cycle" is not correct; these are not production costs, but maintenance costs (in the economic sense) and need to be performed over and over (have you ever sold gold at the true price and not the "dealer" price with markup?).
I'd love to be a fly on those office walls. Senate has a long cluster-[bleep] of a weekend ahead of them only to maybe come up with a Bill the House won't pass.
maybe they'll up their pay while they're in there. Poor bastids having to work the weekends. No one said it would be easy to bankrupt the richest country the planet has ever seen. Takes commitment, dedication and evidently the occasional weekend.
I know that you work in DC and that you are on this site constantly defending what is being done there currently. That's all I need to know.
Wouldn't that be like someone thinking anyone from �mid TN� is an uneducated, uncouth hillbilly because they are from middle Tennessee? I met some of these folks when traveling through middle Tennessee, but I didn�t draw such universal conclusions.
OK, I see your point, but how about circumstances in which the economy tanks (as it does periodically and government revenues fall.
Well, what's amazing is that we can't even get them to balance the budget. In reality, what we need is what you and I and every other family need to do. Actual have money left at the end of the month. The govt needs savings, not just break even. And they should be required by law to take every penny in savings and put it in a "safety fund". That safety fund would be used in times of war, natural disaster, economic down turns etc. That's the way DC SHOULD be run. Call it a rainy day fund that guarantees that we never go in the red. But we can't even get them to EVEN, let alone have "insurance" funds. It's pretty sad.
Well, what's amazing is that we can't even get them to balance the budget. In reality, what we need is what you and I and every other family need to do. Actual have money left at the end of the month. The govt needs savings, not just break even. And they should be required by law to take every penny in savings and put it in a "safety fund". That safety fund would be used in times of war, natural disaster, economic down turns etc. That's the way DC SHOULD be run. Call it a rainy day fund that guarantees that we never go in the red. But we can't even get them to EVEN, let alone have "insurance" funds. It's pretty sad.
Just as a point of comparison, I work for a local govt. We have to have net assets on hand every year because we are "self insured". If a surprise happens, it can be taken care of. If the safety funds run low, we have to lay off workers and cut costs. We do not go in the red, unlike the fed govt. In 2008, 2009, and 2010, we cut programs and laid off about 15% of the work force. As you can probably guess, the job still gets done without those extra people and we stay in the green. There is ZERO reason the fed govt can't be forced to do the same.
I know that you work in DC and that you are on this site constantly defending what is being done there currently. That's all I need to know.
Wouldn't that be like someone thinking anyone from �mid TN� is an uneducated, uncouth hillbilly because they are from middle Tennessee? I met some of these folks when traveling through middle Tennessee, but I didn�t draw such universal conclusions.
Think what you like, it makes no difference to me. You may think that I'm uncouth, uneducated, ignorant, or any other appellation you wish to use, but I recognize statist, left wing agitprop when I see it. I read what you post, and it's all down the line beltway drivel.
miles
![[Linked Image]](https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Vdb2KdfGSHQ/TdR0Z9JIFaI/AAAAAAAABfM/rBwgXEbtIOo/s1600/sourceofdebt.png)
![[Linked Image]](http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn152/robert_lessard/GIFs/middlefinger1.gif)
