Just a little rant

[TSPTrader]

I am a retired military guy after serving 21 years. I have had the unpleasant experience of listening to Obama as he puts on another TV show where he tells the kiddies how wonderful and fair he is, while those mean old Republicans are the bad guys, and a small fraction of them are trying to over ride what the population really wants.

I truly wish the robot reporters in the crowd could ask really hard hitting questions instead of set up softballs for Obama to hit out of the park. As we speak bus loads of tourists from around the globe that have had vacations to Yellowstone park that they planned for years, have been held literally under armed guard, and then sent back out of the park without even the use of the restrooms, because the park rangers have become militarized Nazi's for Obama. We've seen them close off the use of literally a thousand square miles of the ocean in Florida bay. We've seen the WWII memorial barricaded and men that gave their all for this country, denied the ability to stroll the park and say their prayers and remembrances.

But wait a minute. The National mall, which is also supposedly "closed" is all staged for a gigantic Illegal immigration reform rally to go on, complete with 100 Johnny on the spot potties, and bands and a stage, etc.

They've kicked WWII vets out of the memorial park and threatened them with arrest, but a rally to let illegals have more rights and power in the US goes on without a hitch?? Obama's golf course is still open isn't it??

I'm sick of this right down to my core.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/signs-say ... le/2536957

http://www.newburyportnews.com/local/x1 ... ellowstone

Look folks, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the republicans are much better than this lunatic in office. Both sides are in it for their own agenda's, not what is best for the Country of America. But this is dirty pool, and frankly everyone is sick of it.

[MakeMe$$$$]

I want to tread carefully here but...

Both sides try to skew the optics and frame the discussion. To me, this is not about the debt limit nor is it really about the budget. The fact that the proposed CR is darn close to the Ryan plan tells me that.

What it is to me the Republicans are attempting to end run the intent of the framers of our constitution. In effect, it is a nuclear option being used to erase the outcome of previous administrations and congressional bodies. Once it is unleashed, who is able to stop it from being used by either party. This is analogous to the filibuster rules of the Senate that allows the minority party to holding up bills.

There should be no big surprise that I am an Obama supporter but I am not some kind of mindless minion. I agree with the basic tenants of Obamacare. I agree it should be tweaked but then again, I haven't seen any major program not require tweaking. Some of you want it abolished. Fair enough but in the words of Sen. McCain...Elections have consequences. While I would be disappointed at any major revocation of the ACA I would at least be accepting of such an action if done through elections. Call it a "regime change" if you wish but that is how *I* see the process as it was envisioned by the framers.

As one of those that is on furlough, I am willing to accept the potential that I will not be paid when it is ended if it, in the end, ends with an answer that I think it is within the framework of a constitutional process as designed. That is my opinion.

Man...where is that flack jacket and fox hole.

[skiehawk11]

Just as an FYI. Do not use any ad hom attacks.

Example: "You are dumb."

Please follow TSPTrader's and Relevant's posts.

[skiehawk11]

I think both the Republicans and Democrats are playing dirty politics. I agree with both to a certain degree on the issues. Currently I do lean a little more left due to the fact that I am a proponent of making healthcare insurance a social good rather than a private good.

However, I fear that Obamacare will generate massive profits for the private health insurance industry. Essentially, it mandates that everyone gets healthcare, but has no effective mechanism, IMO, that can reduce costs. The healthcare system as a whole is very complicated puzzle. Reducing cost in one area will probably increase cost in another area. Health insurance is one part of the system.

I advocate a national healthcare system that has a single party negotiator which uses free market mechanisms to negotiate prices every 2 years with the healthcare industry. This would be similar to the Japanese plan, but with the change that the single party can't force actual prices. Rather, they use economies of scale and negotiations to get the best market price where the healthcare industry can operate without assuming operating losses.

We need a single party negotiator for a few reasons. First, healthcare consumers are captive customers. Another way to view it is that demand for healthcare is inelastic demand. Everyone gets sick and dies. Unless you live in a plastic bubble (there’s a movie about that), you will get sick and hurt. True, preventative medicine will help, but only to a degree. Again, I am stating an extreme example here; if you get injured, the probability that an ambulance will be able to drop you off at your pre-negotiated doctor of choice is highly unlikely. And, you are still a “captive” customer. When you negotiate on your health, you don’t have the option to walk away. Competition is stands now won’t help prices decrease. There is a need/demand that your require and the other side (supply/healthcare) knows that they can pretty much charge you what they want because you will find a way to pay. Your life is on the line after all.

I’m going off on a slight tangent as I feel the need to explain my convictions on healthcare. In theory, there is infinite demand for healthcare and there is limited supply of it. With that in mind, the cost of healthcare should theoretically head towards infinity. The point is that not everything in society can be properly managed given the capitalist function. Capitalism is a human mechanism/invention that helps manage an economy. It works great for some things and not so great on others. To that end, capitalism is not the best mechanism to manage human sickness and misery. That is unless one values money over morals.

Our healthcare costs in the U.S. are simply outrageous. It is a drag on the economy and the numbers suggest that Americans put more money into healthcare per person than any other country and get less of a return. This is because there are two fundamental differences in how healthcare should be treated. One view is that health care should be treated as a social good and the other view is that health care should be treated as a private good. The U.S. has never been able to make up its mind, so our healthcare system is completely out of whack.

[sa1]

Many would argue, and probably successfully, that Obamacare was passed in an end run to the intent of the framers of the Constitution and in a totally partisan way. Never has such a massive bill with such a massive impact on the population passed with 0 votes from the other side. The bill has never polled in a positive way and the majority of the public is against it. If the first week is any indication of how successful it will be, we are all in big trouble. The Republicans are using the only tool they have to try to undo some of the damage and they know that once they get past the C.R. and debt ceiling, the President will have no interest in talking to them.

Secondly, for the President and his administration to spin the debt ceiling the way they have is totally irresponsible and doing great harm to the market and the economy. There is no way we will default on our debt.

[dcramer29]

"there is no way we will default on our debt"

You're probably right...but...what if the Tea Party and Behnor <----(I know thats spelled wrong)...have come at peace with "being ok" about the government being shut down...and defaulting on our debt ?

Seriously...if thats the case...then they have Obama and the democrats in a corner...

Again...this is probably out there...but is it ???

[skiehawk11]

The talking heads suggesting that the U.S. won't default on its debt after the debt limit has been raised are wrong. A structured default is still a default.

The U.S. has approximately 413 billion dollars a year in interest payments. Combined with social program liabilities, retirement system liabilities and fees on goods and services rendered; a lapse in any payment will not only hurt the credit rating of the U.S., but the possibility of an interest spike occurs. The 413 billion dollars could double causing massive budgetary strain.

Even if the U.S. has enough money not to default on its current interest payments, doesn't mean that there won't be adverse issues. The credit rating of the U.S. will get hurt and like anything else, increased risk means increased interest rates which leads to increased interest payments. This is especially true since most of the debt securities are under 5 years in maturity so rolling the debt over on a higher interest rate will be extremely bad for the U.S. government and economy as a whole.

[crondanet5]

I had the opportunity to hear the crafter of both the Massachusetts plan and the National Health Care plan talk about the programs. There are very few complaints in Massachusetts with the program. Yes, there were glitches, but haven't you experienced glitches with plans you implemented? Give it a chance, correct the errors, get good care to those in need. msn.com just posted an article about women in the South dying at a younger age than their mothers. 5 years earlier. That is significant. And it is in the low income no health insurance population. The rest of the world is looking at us in shock. How can we, the grand master champions of living the best possible life on Earth, do this to our own citizens?

As for Obama's talk, remember that a few years back all politicians cut the nads off the reporters by telling them to either write nice or they would be excluded from meetings and interviews. So we suffer as the Parties struggle for position. It will pass. And if the Republicans remain under the influence of the smell of big money they will lose big time in 2014 elections. I hope they don't as I am concerned about the collapse of their Party and that would make us a One Party System. But I would not mind their getting a rude awakening by losing their majority in the House so we can pass some legislation to get the economy moving. Is it not obvious they listen for the approval of their money masters?

[rgoodin66]

here is my 2 cents

if they were that scared about the deficit crisis they would of already done something about it by now.
Staying at the same debt level does not mean we will default. We can still pay the interest. They are exploiting this to put fear in the public. So, they can get more money to spend.

at some point it will have to get paid off. which will mean everyone will pay a 50% income tax

spending and control has to start now.

Obamacare is a mistake. Our government could of implemented a plan for those that did not have insurance only. 80% of americans already had or still has insurance. That means we only needed to worry about the 20% that didnt. They could of went on medicare. Which by the way we already pay for.

Obama has lied to everyone!!!!

Quantitative easing has done nothing but, make the rich, richer and we are paying for it.

We cant keep puting a BANDAID on this.

[MakeMe$$$$]

Many would argue, and probably successfully, that Obamacare was passed in an end run to the intent of the framers of the Constitution and in a totally partisan way. Never has such a massive bill with such a massive impact on the population passed with 0 votes from the other side. The bill has never polled in a positive way and the majority of the public is against it. If the first week is any indication of how successful it will be, we are all in big trouble. The Republicans are using the only tool they have to try to undo some of the damage and they know that once they get past the C.R. and debt ceiling, the President will have no interest in talking to them.

Secondly, for the President and his administration to spin the debt ceiling the way they have is totally irresponsible and doing great harm to the market and the economy. There is no way we will default on our debt.

On the first point...Majority ruled. That is the nuts and bolts of our system so I don't see it as an end run at all. Beyond that, even if one discounts the Supreme Court's decision, the following general election seems to re-affirm that there is a majority of voting Americans that supported the Obama agenda. Keep in mind that even on inauguration day, term #1, the Republicans met to discuss how to make sure Obama didn't see a second term. That plan included opposing anything that Obama administration would propose. In effect, it was the political version of scorched earth. Even more interesting was how politicians considered "conservative" had to run further to the right to protect there flanks. A single vote for anything Obama proposed would open up challenges from ultra-right organizations. This can be directly tied to the Republican's failure to take the Senate and not taking as many house seats it could have because of the crazy ones out flanking electable republicans. Republicans running for office after Obama's first election had to run on a platform of "no negotiations" and repealing Obamacare or face the wrath of ultra-right funding organizations. Even beyond that many ran on the promise to repeal Obamacare and/or shutting the government down. The word compromise was considered equal to surrendering.

Within that context how can anyone say Obama has any other choice? Consider that the Democrats agreed in the CR to numbers nearly out of the Ryan budget. The Democrats have agreed to numbers that they don't like. Now that the Republicans have seemed to de-emphasize the total repeal of Obamacare and concentrated on the budget...I'm thinking they have started arguing with themselves. After all, the Dems agreed to Republican numbers so what is the hold up on the CR and un-ambiguous message to increase the debt ceiling? I think that this is really a "fake left, dive right" plan. The plan is to keep Obamacare from being fully implemented with the hopes they can keep biting at the apple.

I go back to my point about the "end run". The point being is that if any President is presented with the ultimatums that Obama is facing and backs down, then Katy bar the doors because it will happen again. The fact that the Republicans in the House are trying to defund a law in such a manner can and will be replicated. Imagine if the majority party of the Senate, being the Dems, refused to allow funding of a Republican President's prime piece of legislation unless it included fully funding background checks for all gun purchases?

By the way...I am not so sure there would be sufficient Republican defections to pass a "clean CR". The fear of being "primaried" by the ultra-right is palpable. The Republicans saying they would support a clean CR are hoping they don't have to prove it and trying to appear reasonable to their purple districts.

On the second point...

What spin? Unless one believes that the US would not suffer from a default, or even that it would be "good" or even a non-event, I'm not seeing how this is "spin". There are clearly Republicans that don't think a default is such a bad thing. Generally speaking, debt ceiling legislation has been part of a budget bill. In other words, the budget was set and the debt ceiling was established to support it. If needed in between budget bills it was increased to support spending that was already agreed on. The debt ceiling does not change our debt posture, it only supports the debt load that was already agreed upon.

Per Rasmussen Reports http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/september_2013/51_favor_government_shutdown_until_congress_cuts_health_care_funding 80% of GOP voters believe it is more important for their party to stand for what it believes in rather than to work with the president there is no wonder we have finally reached the point where Dems have to defend their turf.

[billandkat]

I'm not happy with either side. But for the President to stand up there and pretty much dare Wall Street to do something is just awful. The law they're arguing over now, the one they call the law of the land that was also reviewed by the Supreme Court is not the law we have now. At least 19 changes signed by the president have changed the law. The exemptions handed out have changed the law, the delays approved have changed the law. When even John Stuart can look at the HHS director and shake his head as she spins and dances his questions you know the system is jacked up. We as active or retired federal employees have health care, this won't affect us and from what I read this whole monster of a law will at best only help 15% of the population as 85% of us have insurance. That does not include those who are getting removed from their existing health care because their employers are dumping them to the exchanges. Then they throw in the debt ceiling debate and we all see the videos of Obama telling America Bush was unamerican and unpatriotic because he was asking to raise the debt ceiling. Now they say that was then but this is now and we must raise the ceiling. Was Obama lying then or is he lying now or what? It confuses me. I just want to better my TSP account. Costa Rica is looking better and better

[sa1]

We have an uninformed public and Obama and his minions preyed on that. That is how he was reelected. If you'll recall he and the Dems ran and hid from Obamacare at every corner. In addition, Republicans put forward a candidate that made numerous blunders along the way and alienated many.

It is erroneous to say now that Obamacare is the law of the land and the public and Supreme Court have spoken. As stated above the law is very different now than when it was drafted. How can anyone possibly defend carving out a delay for large businesses, but the individual is required to follow the mandate? One can only imagine the reaction of the media and Democrats if the Republicans were in power and had put any type of delay in place. I think that most will also agree that the many promises that were made when the law was being sold are not being kept. Things like being able to keep your doctor or health care and lower premiums. I think that it is more than fair to ask for a year delay for all, and those that want to sign up can do so voluntarily. After the year has expired everyone will have a better idea as to the costs and, additionally, the time could be used to smooth out the so-called "glitches" that look to be imminent.

Lastly, if there is a default it is because Obama forces one. Lew will have the ability to prioritize payments so that interest is paid first. There is more than enough revenue coming in to pay interest. Granted something would have to be done eventually, but there is no immediate danger of a default.

[MakeMe$$$$]

...

Lastly, if there is a default it is because Obama forces one. Lew will have the ability to prioritize payments so that interest is paid first. There is more than enough revenue coming in to pay interest. Granted something would have to be done eventually, but there is no immediate danger of a default.

Regardless of who forces one a default...

Even if it were possible for Lew to prioritize payments and even if we can technically avoid a default, this IMHO, will have an immediate impact on the markets. Since folks erroneously like to equate the national budget with a home budget, I will use a "home" example. Suppose you have a loan that does not have an "interest only" provision. If you go to your note holder and propose an interest only payment, how do you think that is gonna affect your credit rating? This becomes a circle argument in that any increase in the interest the US pays for its debt will exacerbate the problem and lead to an immediate increase in our future debt due to increased costs to service the current debt.

I submit that as we found in the last close call that resulted in a debt downgrade from AAA to AA+ based on the mere possibility of default, what will happen if we go there again? Do you feel lucky? OK...so the next step is a technical default which would increase pressure on our credit rating. Still feel lucky? How do you think SS recipients would feel if they aren't getting paid because we are paying China an interest only payment on the debt it holds?

So, even if we have enough money to go beyond Oct 17th, when do we get to the point of no return? Does anyone really think we can go to the edge and beyond without serious repercussions? I don't.

Consider this article for outlining potential issues of default.

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/10/raising-the-debt-ceiling-what-happens-if-we-default--95050.html

[grant1]

If at the beginning of the month I found that the only way I could pay my obligations was to borrow more money simple math would tell me I was doing something wrong. It is time to stop this madness. No more increases. We have sufficient cash flow to pay for the debt service and the necessary obligations SSI, Medicare, Defense ect. What we need is a Leader who knows how to manage a budget. Not a Community Organizer

[TRiddle]

I don't tend to bite on debates of this nature too often, but I'll take a shot...

What is most baffling to me is society's lack of fundamental understanding of the exponential function. Treasurydirect.gov lists the PUBLIC debt held at the end of each fiscal year (we won't even begin to discuss the elephant in the room that is unfunded liabilities and thus not counted towards the public debt). All one has to do is open up excel, copy and paste the numbers listed, and plot the curve. If you aren't computer savvy, use standard graph paper. Either works, and what it shows is an out of control exponential function. Now, I'm no genius by any means, but I happen to do math on a daily basis for a living (mechanical engineer), and even I know when to spot an out of control exponential function, and our public debt (void of unfunded liabilities) is a no brainer on this one. Furthermore, the rate of change for nominal GDP and the rate of change for publicly held debt are not the same, thus they are growing apart from one another in an exponential manner. This folks, is not sustainable.

Now, it's always fun (and even somewhat comical) for me to watch folks of different political beliefs argue the talking points from their perspective side of the aisle. Why is it comical? Because although debates on healthcare, entitlement benefits, defense spending, etc. are considered important conversations, neither addresses the real problem: how are we going to pay for this? This is a math problem folks. It's been a math problem for 30+ years now (some would argue even longer than that). Thus why I laugh: people think this is a either a republican problem or a democratic problem when in reality, both sides are complicit to the real problem: the math.

Now on to the sexy term of the current times: default. The 14th amendment is pretty clear on this: the government shall pay it's debt and the public debt shall not be questioned (very, very loosely paraphrased here). So what is a debt exactly? Well, a debt is nothing more than an instrument, and in our case this comes in the form of Treasury issued bonds, bills, notes, etc. Nothing else is a debt beyond that. Social Security shortfalls are not debts. Medicare/Medicaid shortfalls are not debt. Defense funding shortfalls is not debt. Those are political promises, and are subject to change without notice. If you don't believe me, go check out the fine print on a social security statement and it'll clearly lay out the fact that Congress can change the terms on that at a moment's notice. The 14th amendment clearly prioritizes payments on the public debt as payments on the interest and principle of debt incurred by the Treasury. Political promises are low man on the totem pole in this regard.

So in conclusion, would it make us as a country look bad for this all to go down in a blaze of glory. Most likely. However, it's about time that we have a serious conversation with each other over what we want versus what we need in this country, because quite simply, the math is not sustainable to continue on down the path we are on. I'd love for everyone to have healthcare (so that maybe the premiums that I pay as a healthy millenial that rarely goes to the doctor will actually be sustainable), I'd also love for everyone to retire at 60 and be self-sufficient and funded until death, but please explain to me how we pay for this. I'm all ears...