Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Right Wing Lunatic Fringe Says Default Might Be Good

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • L.A. BRONCOS FAN
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • L.A. BRONCOS FAN
    replied
    Originally posted by peacepipe View Post
    the collapse of 2008 proves that wrong,but then again you're not the sharpest tool in the shed.
    Indeed.

    But then, we're talking about a CO resident who constantly sounds the alarm about eminent domain laws in his state while never uttering a word of concern or protest about the millions of acres of private and public land already appropriated by the oil and gas industry in his state (and the resulting displacement of his fellow residents.)

    That's the sort of cognitive dissonance required to be a conservative nowadays.

    I guess he doesn't want to offend his "coalition partners" (read: the oil and gas industry and its GOP bedfellows.)

    Leave a comment:


  • peacepipe
    replied
    Originally posted by Meck77 View Post
    The GOOD thing about the republicans creating a fuss is our debt WILL be less desirable to purchase and our government will have no choice to cut expenses thus limiting the need for debt ceiling increases.

    I'm convinced the less the government tries to regulate and "fix" things the better off we are. Gridlock is actually a good thing.Just got off the phone with one of the biggest real estate bankers in Colorado. In the last three years the government has thrown 208 pieces of legislation at the lenders. 208!

    One of the big one's to hit is January 2014. If you own have more than 5 owner carries that you own and want to do a 6th you will have to abide by the same restrictions as the banks do. People joke about Obama being a communist but it really is heading there!

    Owner carry for those who may not know is if you own a property out right and act as the bank and seller finance to the new buyer essentially holding the not and collecting payments from them.
    the collapse of 2008 proves that wrong,but then again you're not the sharpest tool in the shed.

    Leave a comment:


  • TonyR
    replied
    Originally posted by Meck77 View Post
    In the last three years the government has thrown 208 pieces of legislation at the lenders.
    They should have thrown 208 of them in prison.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rohirrim
    replied
    Originally posted by W*GS View Post
    Since it was the "real estate bankers" who nearly collapsed the entire economy, yeah, the government is going to clamp down on 'em.

    WTF did they expect?
    No ****. Are these people living in a bubble, or what?

    Leave a comment:


  • W*GS
    replied
    Originally posted by Meck77 View Post
    Just got off the phone with one of the biggest real estate bankers in Colorado. In the last three years the government has thrown 208 pieces of legislation at the lenders. 208!
    Since it was the "real estate bankers" who nearly collapsed the entire economy, yeah, the government is going to clamp down on 'em.

    WTF did they expect?

    Leave a comment:


  • Meck77
    replied
    Originally posted by Blart View Post
    It makes up the difference by issuing debt. People enthusiastically purchase this debt (treasury bonds) because it's the safest investment in the world. Or at least it was.
    The GOOD thing about the republicans creating a fuss is our debt WILL be less desirable to purchase and our government will have no choice to cut expenses thus limiting the need for debt ceiling increases.

    I'm convinced the less the government tries to regulate and "fix" things the better off we are. Gridlock is actually a good thing.

    Just got off the phone with one of the biggest real estate bankers in Colorado. In the last three years the government has thrown 208 pieces of legislation at the lenders. 208!

    One of the big one's to hit is January 2014. If you own have more than 5 owner carries that you own and want to do a 6th you will have to abide by the same restrictions as the banks do. People joke about Obama being a communist but it really is heading there!

    Owner carry for those who may not know is if you own a property out right and act as the bank and seller finance to the new buyer essentially holding the not and collecting payments from them.

    Leave a comment:


  • peacepipe
    replied
    Single payer will.be the next logical step

    Leave a comment:


  • peacepipe
    replied
    Look people, the privatization of SS, medicare, and Medicaid will never happen.

    Leave a comment:


  • peacepipe
    replied
    Originally posted by B-Large View Post
    A discussion about cutting spending is almost worthless unless you discuss the big 3, Medicare & Medicaid, SS and Military outlays. To me, there will have to be some further mean-testing of Social Security and Medicare in the future to stablize the budget, as well as pretty substantial cuts to miltary outlays as well.

    What's strikes me as ironic is Conservatives are 100% deadset, rabidly aginst the Affordable Care Act, but when you think about it, it is the test kitchen for privatizing parts of Medicare... if the ACA works and comes out as a cost effective solution to healthcare, there is more likelihood of success in proposing that Amercians with certain asset levels in retirement will be routed to he ACA to purchase private coverage in their retirement instead of being a Medicare recipient. to me, they are fighting a Pyrrhic War on the ACA that will ultimately crush one of their long-term strategies in he future. If the ACA rocks it and GOP makes it work, what possible defense could people have to not consider privatising Medicare,or parts of it?
    Outside of it not be guaranteed, and private ins. Wont want to cause they can't profit from it.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoBeavis
    replied
    Originally posted by B-Large View Post
    A discussion about cutting spending is almost worthless unless you discuss the big 3, Medicare & Medicaid, SS and Military outlays. To me, there will have to be some further mean-testing of Social Security and Medicare in the future to stablize the budget, as well as pretty substantial cuts to miltary outlays as well.

    What's strikes me as ironic is Conservatives are 100% deadset, rabidly aginst the Affordable Care Act, but when you think about it, it is the test kitchen for privatizing parts of Medicare... if the ACA works and comes out as a cost effective solution to healthcare, there is more likelihood of success in proposing that Amercians with certain asset levels in retirement will be routed to he ACA to purchase private coverage in their retirement instead of being a Medicare recipient. to me, they are fighting a Pyrrhic War on the ACA that will ultimately crush one of their long-term strategies in he future. If the ACA rocks it and GOP makes it work, what possible defense could people have to not consider privatising Medicare,or parts of it?
    Good post. But the biggest theoretical problems with the ACA are that it doubles down on what the real enabler of expensive American Health Care is. Universal Cover-Everything insurance allows the medical system and Pharma to gouge people, because people have no incentive to be smart consumers. And the nail in the coffin is that it attempts to pay for the sick by coercing the healthy. Which violates the entire concept of insurance. And will cause the whole thing to crash down around itself in a fairly short period of time. And then team Proggy will pronounce "See! We tried 'the market' and it doesn't work!"

    When in reality they turned market principles upside down as only government can.

    The plus side of it is that it may help to eventually break the employer-coverage model. That needed to go away a long time ago.

    Insurance in general though needs to be for catastrophic loss and not everything under the sun. Your mechanic would charge a hell of a lot more if he knew nobody gave a **** what he charged.

    And health insurance needs to be structured more like life insurance. You buy in when you're young and usually healthy, and are guaranteed a certain payment (plus some kind of standard inflation rate) for the rest of your days.

    End employer-based coverage. Encourage HSA/catastrophic coverage programs. And lifetime or at least long-term insurance rating would do wonders for Healthcare in the US. Then the government would only have to function to fill in a few gaps.

    Leave a comment:


  • B-Large
    replied
    Originally posted by Fedaykin View Post
    Math people, basic math:

    The current deficit is what, 900 billion? Where do you suggest we instantly cut 900 billion dollars in spending?

    The total discretionary spending currently is 1.5T

    ~1T of that is defense spending (DoD, VA, DoE, DHS, NASA, etc.)

    Interest is 246 billion of that 1.5T

    That leaves ~250bn in other discretionary spending (DOI, DoEd, DoJ, etc.) from which you can cut.

    So what are you going to cut? All non defense, non-interest spending is only going to get you 1/4 of the deficit. To make up that other 3/4 you are going to have to do some combination of the following

    a.) gut defense related spending (DoD+ VA,DHS,etc.)
    b.) stop servicing current debt (i.e. DEFAULT)

    That assumes you've already completely scrapped the rest of the government dumping perhaps 10s of millions of public and private (contractor) workers into the unemployment lines (with a corresponding ballooning of social spending there) along the way.

    Saying we can just instantly balance the budget is pure lunacy.

    If you want to do it with non-discretionary spending (the biggies being SS medicare, and military pensions/va), then you are both going to have to pass legislation that will stop those programs and in the process effectively steal (again!) all the money that has been collected to fund those programs. Oh, and if you DO pass the legislation to stop those programs, you also reduce the total revenues by about 1T, meaning you still have to cut discretionary spending just like I noted above!
    A discussion about cutting spending is almost worthless unless you discuss the big 3, Medicare & Medicaid, SS and Military outlays. To me, there will have to be some further mean-testing of Social Security and Medicare in the future to stablize the budget, as well as pretty substantial cuts to miltary outlays as well.

    What's strikes me as ironic is Conservatives are 100% deadset, rabidly aginst the Affordable Care Act, but when you think about it, it is the test kitchen for privatizing parts of Medicare... if the ACA works and comes out as a cost effective solution to healthcare, there is more likelihood of success in proposing that Amercians with certain asset levels in retirement will be routed to he ACA to purchase private coverage in their retirement instead of being a Medicare recipient. to me, they are fighting a Pyrrhic War on the ACA that will ultimately crush one of their long-term strategies in he future. If the ACA rocks it and GOP makes it work, what possible defense could people have to not consider privatising Medicare,or parts of it?

    Leave a comment:


  • L.A. BRONCOS FAN
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • L.A. BRONCOS FAN
    replied
    Once again, Parry has the repigs' number...

    Making the Economy Scream

    by Robert Parry

    Link

    Americans who have studied CIA destabilization campaigns around the world may see some striking parallels to the strategy of Tea Party Republicans who have provoked a government shutdown and now are threatening a credit default. The idea is to make the country appear ungovernable and to make the economy “scream.”

    This approach is similar to what CIA operatives do to get rid of disfavored political leaders in other countries, such as when Nixon ordered the spy agency to sabotage Chile’s economy and upset its political stability in the early 1970s.

    The CIA’s thinking is that most people just want a chance to make a living. So, if an economic crisis can be ginned up – while propaganda outlets put the blame on the government leaders who are ostensibly in charge – then the people will ultimately turn against those leaders in an effort to restore normality.

    In effect, the CIA takes the political process hostage by inflicting economic pain on the average citizen, sponsoring “populist” disorders, spreading confusion through propaganda outlets and then waiting for a weary population to give in. This technique has worked in many countries over the years – and surely the idea long predated the formation of the CIA in the late 1940s.

    Leave a comment:


  • frerottenextelway
    replied
    Originally posted by Taco John View Post
    Moody's credit rating agency raining on Obama's scare parade:

    Moody's offers different view on debt limit

    One of the nation’s top credit-rating agencies says that the U.S. Treasury Department is likely to continue paying interest on the government’s debt even if Congress fails to lift the limit on borrowing next week, preserving the nation’s sterling AAA credit rating.

    In a memo being circulated on Capitol Hill Wednesday, Moody’s Investors Service offers “answers to frequently asked questions” about the government shutdown, now in its second week, and the federal debt limit. President Obama has said that, unless Congress acts to raise the $16.7 trillion limit by next Thursday, the nation will be at risk of default.

    Not so, Moody’s says in the memo dated Oct. 7.

    ” We believe the government would continue to pay interest and principal on its debt even in the event that the debt limit is not raised, leaving its creditworthiness intact,” the memo says. “The debt limit restricts government expenditures to the amount of its incoming revenues; it does not prohibit the government from servicing its debt. There is no direct connection between the debt limit (actually the exhaustion of the Treasury’s extraordinary measures to raise funds) and a default.

    The memo offers a starkly different view of the consequences of congressional inaction on the debt limit than is held by the White House, many policymakers and other financial analysts. During a press conference at the White House Tuesday, Obama said missing the Oct. 17 deadline would invite “economic chaos.”

    The Moody’s memo goes on to argue that the situation is actually much less serious than in 2011, when the nation last faced a pitched battle over the debt limit.

    “The budget deficit was considerably larger in 2011 than it is currently, so the magnitude of the necessary spending cuts needed after 17 October is lower now than it was then,” the memo says.

    Treasury Department officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...b-327c5c814d82
    Default Truthers! Our credit is based upon investors believing the US Dollar is the safest investment. That's what keeps our economy, and the worlds economy from completely crashing into complete chaos. We already had people like Fidelity completely sell off ALL their US treasury bonds. What do you think would happen if we pass that deadline? Honestly? Come into reality world for a minute.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X