Seeking Alpha

President still at odds with House Republicans as Senate negotiates

  • Negotiations between the President and House Republicans have reportedly broken down.
  • In a close-door meeting, Speaker John Boehner said talks have hit an impasse.
  • "The president rejected our deal," one GOP lawmaker told CNN. Another House Republican called the situation "a complete meltdown" and a "train wreck."
  • A Senate bill to raise the debt ceiling through the end of the year and fund the government through March 31 was rejected, although discussions between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell are ongoing.
  • Summing up the situation is Republican Adam Kinzinger: "It doesn't seem like the White House is serious at all about entering negotiations with us until they see what comes out of the Senate. If they get something out of the Senate that's weaker than our negotiated position, it obviously strengthens their position."
  • Optimism about a proposed deal lifted stocks Friday and any lack of progress over the weekend will likely weigh on the broad market in the coming week.
  • Index ETFs - IVV, SPY, VOO, RWL, SFLA, SSO, UPRO, SDS, SPXU, SH, EPS, RSP, BXUB, BXUC, BXDB, DIA, DDM, UDOW, DXD, SDOW, DOG, QQQ, QQEW, TQQQ, SQQQ, PSQ, QLD, QQQE
Comments (103)
  • J Mintzmyer
    , contributor
    Comments (3604) | Send Message
     
    Looks like the market definitely got ahead of itself on Thursday. Depending on the open on Monday, it might be time to play VXX weeklies again...
    12 Oct 2013, 02:46 PM Reply Like
  • mitrado
    , contributor
    Comments (1948) | Send Message
     
    I got rid of a few shares last Thursday. That pop was too good to be true... and it was very inconsistent with what was happening in the White House:

     

    Deal is close, some say? As if.

     

    Obama says: "Sign this and we'll talk later."
    Republicans say: "We won't sign a thing until we discuss a few issues."

     

    No one is willing to cede. This won't end well.
    13 Oct 2013, 06:50 AM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8153) | Send Message
     
    I highly recommend investors load up on (XVZ) to hedge their portfolio.

     

    (PST) will hedge your income holdings.
    13 Oct 2013, 08:35 AM Reply Like
  • TruffelPig
    , contributor
    Comments (4059) | Send Message
     
    $XVZ seems to trade thin and seems to degrade as fast as the other VIX ETFs due to the roll-over and price adjustments etc. So what is the advantage over $VXX or $UVXY?
    13 Oct 2013, 08:40 AM Reply Like
  • TruffelPig
    , contributor
    Comments (4059) | Send Message
     
    Maybe they fix it again by Tuesday ;P - otherwise I agree. Going to buy UVXY if the screw up. Anyhow sold a lot of stuff already. Doing my end of year clean up a bit early.
    12 Oct 2013, 02:54 PM Reply Like
  • slash32is4
    , contributor
    Comments (115) | Send Message
     
    "In 1982, Reagan had to sell a package of spending cuts and tax increases. In other words, there was something for everyone to dislike. But Reagan didn’t shrink from such things. Here’s what he said:

     

    Do we tell . . . Americans to give up hope, that their ship of state lies dead in the water because those entrusted with manning that ship can’t agree on which sail to raise? We’re within sight of the safe port of economic recovery. Do we make port or go aground on the shoals of selfishness, partisanship, and just plain bullheadedness?"
    12 Oct 2013, 03:00 PM Reply Like
  • mobyss
    , contributor
    Comments (1835) | Send Message
     
    Reagan vs. Obama?

     

    Like Payton vs. Eli.
    12 Oct 2013, 11:48 PM Reply Like
  • poundofbutter
    , contributor
    Comments (86) | Send Message
     
    More like Peyton vs. Jacksonville
    13 Oct 2013, 08:24 AM Reply Like
  • genomegk
    , contributor
    Comments (440) | Send Message
     
    Reagan got almost to the dime what he wanted.

     

    http://bit.ly/JDjfa5

     

    Those were the days of bipartisanship when business as usual meant "I'll vote for your bill that costs money and panders to special interests, if you do the same for my bill."
    13 Oct 2013, 11:11 AM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4009) | Send Message
     
    Hurry up and raise the debt limit, pass a CR and get on with the end game. This train wreck is taking too long.
    12 Oct 2013, 03:19 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (12738) | Send Message
     
    Too late to buy any put positions on Monday, after a gap-down open. After combined huge upper Thursday and Friday, puts could have been purchased at Fridays' close with little risk of the market running away too much higher and a sizable possibility -- apparently, about to be realized, barring some Sunday love-making -- that the market would suffer a major reversal.

     

    In the end, of course, it will all get settled, but meanwhile the savvy day-traders can make a bundle, selling the highs and buying the lows.
    12 Oct 2013, 03:20 PM Reply Like
  • MLP Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (875) | Send Message
     
    Filled a bunch of iwm puts at 4:05 on a stink bid. I didn't think they traded after hours. My lucky day unless things change......
    12 Oct 2013, 03:32 PM Reply Like
  • TruffelPig
    , contributor
    Comments (4059) | Send Message
     
    That must have filled before? I thought options stop at 4.
    12 Oct 2013, 05:32 PM Reply Like
  • BlueVelvet
    , contributor
    Comments (41) | Send Message
     
    There are some exceptions. Options that are based on indexes, such as the Standard & Poor's 500 and Dow Jones industrial average trade until 4:15 ET, he says.

     

    And options on futures tied to the CBOE volatility index, or VIX, trade from 8 a.m. ET to 4:15 p.m. ET. The VIX is an index that rises and falls along with investors' anxiety about markets.

     

    Source: http://usat.ly/19GXsYP
    12 Oct 2013, 05:38 PM Reply Like
  • TruffelPig
    , contributor
    Comments (4059) | Send Message
     
    Your last paragraph is my command! I will follow it!
    12 Oct 2013, 05:40 PM Reply Like
  • MLP Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (875) | Send Message
     
    @tack

     

    Options on S&P and R2K futures start trading 1pm EST on Sunday. Volume is sometimes thin.
    12 Oct 2013, 08:50 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (12738) | Send Message
     
    MLP:

     

    If I may ask, through what brokerage(s) can/do you trade options on Sunday?
    12 Oct 2013, 08:53 PM Reply Like
  • MLP Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (875) | Send Message
     
    Any broker that trades futures. My favorite at the moment is Interactive Brokers, since it allows one integrated account.

     

    Most others force you to have a separate account for futures. I used to use Tradestation, but I left them for that reason.

     

    Again, what you're buying is an Option on a Future. So the size is pretty big. E.g. 1 S&P E-mini contract is about $85,000; an option on could run close to $1000
    12 Oct 2013, 09:24 PM Reply Like
  • TFCAB
    , contributor
    Comments (1942) | Send Message
     
    These options trade until 4:15
    13 Oct 2013, 03:20 PM Reply Like
  • tiger8896
    , contributor
    Comments (577) | Send Message
     
    I got really long last week, GS, IBM, SLB, QCOM can't believe they couldn't strike a deal after the Republicans extended raising the debt ceiling to end of December from Thanksgiving. The 17th is too close for them not to strike some kind of deal by Monday, my bet is the Republicans go out 6 months on the debt ceiling and reduce their demands before the market opens on Tuesday.
    12 Oct 2013, 05:11 PM Reply Like
  • TruffelPig
    , contributor
    Comments (4059) | Send Message
     
    Make that Thursday please - I appreciate a 5% drop by then! Need to buy some stocks.
    12 Oct 2013, 05:39 PM Reply Like
  • bdarken
    , contributor
    Comments (417) | Send Message
     
    Dems don't want this in the air before elections. Must get past 11/2014.
    Hard right dug in about cuts and/or ACA.
    And a President who's either untrustworthy or bi-polar/narcissist.
    Tough spot for all.
    13 Oct 2013, 12:21 AM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (12738) | Send Message
     
    bd:

     

    All polls show Repubs blamed for everything, so Obama would delight in milking as much pain as possible from delays. One might even legitimately wonder if a possible default has him privately smiling.

     

    I don't think we're going there, but if this nuclear pile reaches critical mass and melts down, the Repubs will have little incentive to play ball, as they will have already been pronounced dead.
    13 Oct 2013, 12:27 AM Reply Like
  • bbrady413
    , contributor
    Comments (757) | Send Message
     
    Tack,
    While I don't completely disagree, I think you're leaving an important point out. Yes, the Congressional Republicans are only polling at 28%, however, Obama isn't all that much better at 37%. The Congressional Democrats were at 42% I think? So basically the public hates the entire government right now.

     

    I do think you make an interesting point. Obama doesn't have to run for re-election, and his goal is elimination of the Republican Party. He might get burned badly on a default, but he has the media as his safety net, who will let the Republicans burn for any kind of default.
    13 Oct 2013, 01:08 AM Reply Like
  • machiavelli
    , contributor
    Comments (414) | Send Message
     
    No, the polls show they dislike the Dems and hate the GOP.
    13 Oct 2013, 05:48 AM Reply Like
  • bdarken
    , contributor
    Comments (417) | Send Message
     
    Tack:
    Always love your thoughts.
    Wonder if conservative/state's rights team is in for a
    BIG change similar to Lincoln leaving the Whigs and
    the start of the Republican party in late 1860's...

     

    A note for hope are all the states (WI, ME, LA...) with pragmatic governments solving problems without plagues, mass starvation etc.
    13 Oct 2013, 09:49 AM Reply Like
  • surfgeezer
    , contributor
    Comments (6696) | Send Message
     
    The polls show debating wether or not someone gets something for not destroying the FICO and paying the credit card after the money is spent is not popular. Good bluff, but extraordinarily dumb actual play.
    13 Oct 2013, 10:18 AM Reply Like
  • RS055
    , contributor
    Comments (1882) | Send Message
     
    Also, a lot of Repubs seem to think this Oct 17 deadline is artificial and designed to panic them into capitulating- ie. They are not convinced that going past the deadline is really going to be catastrophic.
    The markets/public is also not seemingly panicked about the deadline.
    If we do go past the deadline - it will come as a great shock to the markets - we may get a "crash"/"mini-crash".
    The consensus is that rebubs bear the blame for the shut down, so a crash would just put some nails into their coffin.
    At that point the Prez could simply demand a complete surrender and will probably get it.
    Thats why I am not so sure there will be a resolution before Thursday. With just 2 days to "negotiate" ( Monday is a holiday), and both sides dug-in, there is also just not enough time to put new concepts on the table and discuss them in both houses.
    More likely is we go past the deadline, get our crash and the sometime before Nov 1 this gets resolved. JMHO!
    13 Oct 2013, 12:24 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4555) | Send Message
     
    Tack,

     

    Isn't the problem in part that poll readings don't have significant meaning for many of the key players. Many House Members, both Republican and Democrat, represent Districts that lopsidedly favour the incumbent, the President is not eligible for re-election and Senators are more worried about being 'primaried' than they are about the later stage General Election. In other words, the bias is against finding workable political compromises.

     

    Further, unlike the constitutional practice of most democracies, the US Constitution does not provide for a timely recourse to the electorate in cases of deadlock.
    13 Oct 2013, 07:45 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (12738) | Send Message
     
    Bob:

     

    Agree somewhat. But not sure the voters are geniuses, either.

     

    The polls that show 10-14% approval ratings for "Congress" are deceptive. That makes it appear everybody wants to throw all the representatives out. But, what those polls don't show, unless divided into their constituent components, is that the Repub voters polled hate Congress because the other half isn't doing what they want, and vice versa, but, overall, the voters are religiously attached to their own partisan positions.

     

    Of course, a parliamentary system makes deadlocks impossible, but that's not how it's worked here for 237 years.
    13 Oct 2013, 08:23 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4555) | Send Message
     
    Tack,

     

    Deadlocks under a Parliamentary System are also possible but we really have to screw up to create them.

     

    Politics is the art of the possible, not some Medieval Passion Play. Whether one has a Congressional or a Parliamentary system, either works better if its constituent political Parties each include members across the political spectrum (at least to some extent) and each Party is not excessively ideological and/or dogmatic. Arguably this is especially a problem under the US version of the Congressional system at present (and this hasn't been so evident since the US Civil War).

     

    To foreign ears like mine, the discourse on national politics at present in the US too often appears reduced to consideration of who is wining or losing some tactical advantage of the moment (rather than what basic issues face the nation and how a broad consensus can be formed to address these issues productively). Images of futile trench warfare on the Western Front in 1915 or 16 come to mind.

     

    Agreed, politics is a full contact sport but if it is only that a nation's affairs suffer in times of stress or crisis.
    13 Oct 2013, 08:49 PM Reply Like
  • TruffelPig
    , contributor
    Comments (4059) | Send Message
     
    @BA - Pretty clear who is losing: the US (international reputation and worse), the people, and the Republican Party thanks to giving in to the tea bags.
    13 Oct 2013, 09:03 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    I think I like the tea baggers. They are a counterbalance to the drunken middle full of Reps and Dems that just want to give away money for votes. Therefore it takes a more radical fringe to pull the entire mess to a more rationale ground.

     

    Badmouthing TB's is like badmouthing tree huggers and pro environment radicals. Without the tree huggers we would have probably cut down the last redwoods and strip mined Lake Tahoe.

     

    Nothing gets done in this country unless it is extreme. I don't like it but that appears to be reality.
    13 Oct 2013, 10:12 PM Reply Like
  • Lakeaffect
    , contributor
    Comments (972) | Send Message
     
    RS - if it goes past the deadline and we get the crash, there will not be a V shaped recovery when all this is finally resolved. The country's standing will have been badly damaged, maybe permanently.

     

    This is especially true if the Republican party gets destroyed as many are predicting here. A single party system would be more disastrous than the current two party system. Something would quickly fill the vacuum, and possibly something even Obama would regret.

     

    Our credibility is already getting badly hammered because of these shenanigans but also the Syria, Benghazi and NSA fiascos.

     

    Perhaps Obama wants this, but there are plenty of sane Dems that realize the permanent damage a default, even for one day, would produce. Their agenda does not include destruction of the United States of America.

     

    There might be a bounce on resolution, but then it's going to be "look out below".
    14 Oct 2013, 12:56 AM Reply Like
  • mitrado
    , contributor
    Comments (1948) | Send Message
     
    This smells more and more like a manufactured Stock Market Crash, just like in 2011. Up to 31 July 2011, everybody was confident about a deal getting done... a deal that never happened (at least not in time to keep the markets floating.)
    14 Oct 2013, 03:27 AM Reply Like
  • mitrado
    , contributor
    Comments (1948) | Send Message
     
    If the majority of voters had a very high level of culture and intelligence, do you even think there would be any Democracy!?

     

    Democracy only exists because politicians know for sure they can count on the overall stupidity of the population to remain eternally in power.

     

    Republicans and Democrats (also known as Demoblicans) will be forever in control... While the people remain divided by a fake debate of Left vs Right, they always win.

     

    Then they can create these fights to maintain the illusion of free choice. If it were not for these manufactured discussions (healthcare, gun control, debt ceiling... etc), the people would wake up and see the probable truth: both parties are in perfect harmony, fooling everyone and keeping the voters divided between Left and Right, once again.

     

    "Of course, a parliamentary system makes deadlocks impossible, but that's not how it's worked here for 237 years."

     

    Gridlock is just another tool to keep voters divided. That will never end.

     

    This game is really ancient... and its name is: "Divide and Rule."
    14 Oct 2013, 03:38 AM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (12738) | Send Message
     
    M:

     

    In America, the electorate is becoming less divided each day. We're at the point where a clear majority is forming, and that majority just wants lots of "free stuff" and will vote for anyone who promises to give it to them.
    14 Oct 2013, 10:37 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    One things appears clear to me is that Obama does not believe he has any downside to not dealing. That makes a deal very difficult if not impossible.

     

    I think he is misreading the fallout because of his own hubris and the press supporting him blindly rather than point out the risk. He is the one identifiable figure on a global stage that everyone can point the finger at and blame. Everyone knows Congress is dysfunctional and that is the way the constitution set up that body. However Obama has no excuse.

     

    If we have a colossal failure here the fallout will a tidal wave and nobody will be able to ride it out.
    14 Oct 2013, 12:54 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (12738) | Send Message
     
    TVP:

     

    Obama has no risk. He has no re-election to face. He's an ideologue with a cause. And, unfortunately, we seemed to have reached the point in this nation's electorate where subsidies and free goodies trump all else, so who votes for whom won't be altered by any shenanigans unless those getting the goodies fail to receive them.

     

    Even so, we aren't going to have any final meltdown because, staunch conservatives notwithstanding, there are simply too many moderate Republicans for the minority to prevail, in the end. All it takes is for Boehner to jettison the Hastert Rule and call a floor vote, and this "crisis" is instantly over. And, as Boehner, himself, is no right-wing icon, no matter how he patronizes their efforts in the meantime, he'll call that vote before standing by and overseeing a technical default.
    14 Oct 2013, 01:03 PM Reply Like
  • Ba1k3es
    , contributor
    Comments (485) | Send Message
     
    If you had a scale and on one side put defaulting and on the other you put almost any idealogical issue it will likely never balance.

     

    You would have to be a complete idiot to be on the side of defaulting.
    14 Oct 2013, 08:19 PM Reply Like
  • mitrado
    , contributor
    Comments (1948) | Send Message
     
    Obama has no risk for the simple fact that the economy (and life) goes on, whether markets crash or not.
    15 Oct 2013, 04:08 AM Reply Like
  • mitrado
    , contributor
    Comments (1948) | Send Message
     
    They are not dysfunctional, they are working together just fine: http://bit.ly/H2bInT
    15 Oct 2013, 05:52 PM Reply Like
  • Fear & Greed Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (4546) | Send Message
     
    They need some fodder for the Sunday Am talk shows. One last time
    for both to preach to us all from their respective bully pulpits .

     

    Worst case i expect S & P 50 day MA (1678) to hold . that's 25 handles down from friday's close ..
    12 Oct 2013, 06:17 PM Reply Like
  • rambler1
    , contributor
    Comments (397) | Send Message
     
    Let Obamacare through and let's see what a train wreck it becomes.
    12 Oct 2013, 07:29 PM Reply Like
  • joe kelly
    , contributor
    Comments (1727) | Send Message
     
    I don't think it will be a train wreck but I agree with your idea and let what happens happen.
    12 Oct 2013, 07:32 PM Reply Like
  • jaginger
    , contributor
    Comments (475) | Send Message
     
    Might want to take a look at this:
    http://bit.ly/189CwwV
    12 Oct 2013, 11:32 PM Reply Like
  • VictorHAustin
    , contributor
    Comments (793) | Send Message
     
    It's certainly a wreck for me. I'm one of those who paid his own way the last four decades. ACA voids my insurance, and I am one of the uninsured now. However, Ms Secty HHS never includes me in her numbers.

     

    Obviously, I get no subsidy. Instead, I get to match the subsidy from my pocket, as it goes up.

     

    My costs for worse overage will rise near double just to begin, adding the equivalent of 50% FIT increase.

     

    HHS regs prohibit the costs of the chronically ill from being included in any real pool, insulating all government and private payers. Only the working individuals bear the entire cost of helping our sick. The government only subsidizes certain poor, not the pool. In fact it will operate to push coverage further and further out of reach. The Dems who support ACA are not paying one thin dime; only confiscating from a select responsible and productive 10% of us.

     

    My slacker neighbor who carried no insurance but got sick gets the same deal as I, but gets to keep all the extra wealth accumulated.

     

    Also, I pay all of my own actual health care in addition to the insurance.
    13 Oct 2013, 11:42 AM Reply Like
  • Sir. Monaco
    , contributor
    Comments (367) | Send Message
     
    ron284,

     

    problems could accelerate for Obamacare given that insurance providers are pulling out of various states, and this was not expected during construction/passage of the program:

     

    http://fxn.ws/GXT68J
    13 Oct 2013, 12:00 PM Reply Like
  • charliezap
    , contributor
    Comments (1174) | Send Message
     
    """Let Obamacare through . . """

     

    I have news for you. Obamacare is already through. It was passed by the house and senate and signed into law by President Obama in 2010. It was even found to be in accordance with the constitution by the Supreme Court.

     

    Even if a bill defunding Obamacare made it through the senate (highly unlikely), there is absolutely no chance that Obama would not veto it. Only a complete idiot would think that Obama would veto Obamacare!

     

    There is really nothing to negotiate at this stage, although changes may be made to take care of problems once the law is implemented. Republicans repeat ad nauseam that Obamacare is unpopular with the American people. What they don't say is that a majority (50% to 39%) oppose defunding Obamacare (NBC/WSJ poll). And only 13% favor sending up a law defunding Obamacare if it means continuing the government shutdown.
    13 Oct 2013, 08:35 PM Reply Like
  • Lakeaffect
    , contributor
    Comments (972) | Send Message
     
    Victor, your comment has a lot of truth to it. A quick back of the envelope calculation of Wisconsin's insurance market shows that premiums for individuals who buy their own insurance should have only gone up about 10-15% to bring the 8% uninsured in Wisconsin into the program. Instead, prices are more than doubling. This discrepancy might be explained by your observation on how the "risk pool" is getting allocated.

     

    If one makes less than about $63,000, then subsidies will offset the increase and even a little bit more. But if you are making $63,001 or more, then you're going to get hit with an increase in the range of $6,000 to $10,000+ in healthcare premiums, per annum. That will translate into a lot of new car payments that are shifted into the health insurance market. When the light bulb comes on for these people, they'll trigger a recession.
    14 Oct 2013, 01:07 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Might just as well lump ACA and Medicare together now when talking about the impact. Neither one will meet cost projections if past is prologue but worse we will probably see major disruptions in the health care sector along with service levels dropping. Doctors will be bailing out as their insurance costs will be private but their revenues will be driven by government. Not gonna happen. That's a mismatch. Doctors will go private on costs and revenues to better manage the business.

     

    On the Medicare side almost half of the cost comes from people in the last days of their lives or people under 60 with some serious illness or calamity. Solve those two classes of people and costs will align better. And keep in mind that the heaviest load of people with end of life costs is still ahead of us.

     

    I don't see anything good ahead without some serious retooling of Medicare and ACA or this train will wreck.
    14 Oct 2013, 12:59 PM Reply Like
  • jaginger
    , contributor
    Comments (475) | Send Message
     
    ...and this: http://bit.ly/1cOFBGr
    14 Oct 2013, 01:38 PM Reply Like
  • Lakeaffect
    , contributor
    Comments (972) | Send Message
     
    Insurance rates for those who buy their own coverage (self employed and those whose workplace doesn't provide coverage) will essentially double but those making less than $63,000 per year will receive tax credits to bring the premiums back into line with what they were paying previously.

     

    Those making greater than $63,000 receive nothing in the form of tax credits. Their rates will increase in the range of $3k to 10k per year, or more, depending on what coverage they purchase. That is a car payment on a nice new vehicle. Discretionary spending for these folks is going to shift down.

     

    I guess in the liberal mind that is a good thing, but I fail to see how this will not hurt the economy once reality sets in for these people.

     

    BTW, the $63,000 is not indexed for inflation, which will create an AMT type situation of monstrous proportions as the years roll by.
    12 Oct 2013, 09:23 PM Reply Like
  • bdarken
    , contributor
    Comments (417) | Send Message
     
    Huge contraction/reduction in consumer-free-cash.
    13 Oct 2013, 12:22 AM Reply Like
  • VictorHAustin
    , contributor
    Comments (793) | Send Message
     
    I believe the subsidy cutoff is more like 48K for an individual.
    13 Oct 2013, 11:48 AM Reply Like
  • slash32is4
    , contributor
    Comments (115) | Send Message
     
    what about the people that just didnt puchase health insurance because it wasnt affordable and didnt want it but know has to pay for it but doesnt get any tax credits for it? lets not mention that our freedoms are slowing being taken
    13 Oct 2013, 09:05 PM Reply Like
  • Lakeaffect
    , contributor
    Comments (972) | Send Message
     
    It might vary by age, I didn't test for that. My own came in at $62,999 you get a nice rebate. At $63,001, you get zip.
    14 Oct 2013, 01:28 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Not surprised one bit. Brinksmanship is practice on everything in WDC. WE are at war with ourselves.

     

    On another note since Obamacare brings much more demand into the system than supply why wont many doctors just go into a closed practice with a list of clients? Government policy always has unintended consequences and this might be one of them.
    12 Oct 2013, 10:46 PM Reply Like
  • bdarken
    , contributor
    Comments (417) | Send Message
     
    MD's will have to be either "all in" or "all out."
    Fed "Rules" don't accommodate individual needs/choices.
    (in ACA, Insurance goes up because everyone and everything is covered under every policy....55 year olds paying for maternity coverage....).
    To your point: Find a "concierge" practice in your area. As you can imagine, they're alive and well....
    13 Oct 2013, 12:27 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    I picture them bailing "all out" because making no money on a lot of patients is a horrible experience versus making decent to great money on much fewer patients. This could become an incredible mess. However I presume what will happen is that they government will pay doctors more to keep them in the system which will raise costs and blow out all cost projections.
    13 Oct 2013, 01:32 AM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (12738) | Send Message
     
    TVP:

     

    This fiasco reminds me of my encounters, talking with physicians, in Australia in the '80's, when I was managing the international business of a major U.S. medical manufacturer.

     

    Generally speaking, the Australians implemented an all-inclusive public healthcare system, but soon found that demand was overwhelming supply and that they could not hire enough physicians at acceptable prices. They implemented a simple solution -- one that one could imagine Obama dreaming about; they simply outlawed private practice. But, unsurprisingly, this didn't solve the problem, as many doctors simply left the practice of medicine, and others went underground in clandestine practices.

     

    Of course, the government was forced to relent and allow physicians to maintain private practices, but they insisted on a mandatory percentage of time in the public system, as a compromise.

     

    I don't know what's transpired in more recent times, but all the current discussion of Obamacare just reminded me of what happens when governments try to mandate socialistic outcomes that are inconsistent with economic reality. We seem intent on duplicating this attempt in one form or another. Many more chapters of this story will follow.
    13 Oct 2013, 01:54 AM Reply Like
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (9322) | Send Message
     
    Tack...you are spot on....
    13 Oct 2013, 07:50 AM Reply Like
  • expatsp
    , contributor
    Comments (199) | Send Message
     
    Australia healthcare expenditure: 9.0% of gdp
    United States healthcare expenditure: 17.9%
    http://bit.ly/TnuNUj

     

    Australia life expectancy: 82 years
    U.S. life expectancy: 79
    http://bit.ly/GXFVVc

     

    So the Australians spend half as much money and live 3 years longer. Maybe their system ain't so bad.
    13 Oct 2013, 09:11 AM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4009) | Send Message
     
    Probably explained by cultural differences rather than quality of health care.
    13 Oct 2013, 09:26 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Ever see some of the girls from Sydney. Darn good reason for living longer.
    13 Oct 2013, 08:22 PM Reply Like
  • TruffelPig
    , contributor
    Comments (4059) | Send Message
     
    @TVP: ROFL
    13 Oct 2013, 08:34 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4555) | Send Message
     
    Tack

     

    National health delivery systems is a discussion topic that has bounced about the comment postings here at SA for several years. Too often lost in these discussions is the fact that there is almost an infinite variety of such systems most of which entail aspects of private practice and public funding and mandate.

     

    Most are premised upon the goals of universal availability of quality basic health care services at affordable (or no out-of-pocket) cost to the patient and reasonable restraint in the growth of public expenditure. The golden age for the establishment of full range public systems with these goals in the advanced democracies was the two decades following WW II and the US almost adopted with bipartisan support such a system on a couple of occasions during this era (rumour has it that Southern Democrats, fearing the racial integration implications of such a national program, were the stumbling block).

     

    The health professions and the delivery of medical services have evolved exponentially over the intervening 70 or so years and those countries that were early adopters had distinct advantages:
    1. Their systems could begin in simple rudimentary form and evolve to meet as they arose the challenges the evolution of health needs and opportunities in their individual countries posed.
    2. The accumulated cost savings over time were substantial.
    3. The public was dealing with a known system as time elapsed and, as the opportunity or need to change arose from time to time, was more inclined to engage in a rational public debate untainted by fear of the unknown.

     

    By contrast with this incrementalism, the US is now faced with the challenge of whether or not to create a complex and comprehensive system from scratch - not an enviable position in which to find itself. A possible saving grace, however, is that scores of different systems are now out there across the globe with long histories of successful operation with each, broadly speaking, substantially addressing the goals summarized above. However, when one reviews these systems, one is struck by the range of differences in the way various countries address the issue that seems to most exasperate the current US discussion - the involvement of the State.

     

    In short, if direct government expenditure and direct government control over the nature and scope of universal medical plans is the sticking point, there are several major countries (The Netherlands, Switzerland and Germany being examples) that avoid these 'problems' to a large degree while attaining the goals listed in great measure. The question therefore arises, Why did the recent debate in the US become so narrowly focussed so as to neglect to include consideration of the broader range of viable options (i.e. become a set piece battle on ideological grounds over limited and arguably flawed options)?
    14 Oct 2013, 12:10 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Bob

     

    Good macro view comment on the behavior of the US versus the rest of the world. There are a lot of differences between the US and other western countries for better or worse. Some are:

     

    1. The drive for independence in life in the US is deep rooted and government is scorned by a healthy % for various reasons.
    2. Europe is rooted in monarchies and are more amenable to government mandates. Especially if it is free or payola. This mindset is insatiable so the other side is corruption, debt and default.
    3. Our political parties and PAC's need to create political footballs to garner votes and money so they do. No middle ground.
    4. Our economy, state structure and population is so much larger, complex and diverse that many people do not believe in centralized control for anything outside of obvious needs like military. And centralized government screws up enough to prove the theory.
    5. I would also argue that the case to take over or drive the health care industry (take your pick) was never made by anyone in clear succinct language that was understandable by everyone. That tells me that nobody really understands it at any level in WDC to package it up neatly as they have admitted a number of times. They are just taking over and believing they will do better. Really?

     

    You point out the evolution of the health care systems in other countries and it would seem that was a road that worked and would have worked here. The road we are on now is very high risk and disruptive. But politicians want their name on a bridge or a bill really don't care.

     

    I would also add that a lot of western countries have been riding on the coattails of the US healthcare system. Take a look at how many of the drug makers and device makers are based in the US and export to countries that demand lower prices than what we pay in the US. That is a transfer payment from the US to those countries and makes their costs look lower and their health statistics look as good or better than the US.

     

    Not all is as it seems or at least as presented.
    14 Oct 2013, 01:20 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4555) | Send Message
     
    Thomas

     

    The healthcare debate is essentially a proxy for a debate over the role of government and over the roles of the various branches of government.

     

    There is no magic Constitution that can save a country from pigheaded folly, especially a Constitution that is substantially ‘cast in stone’ (well, detailed in a binding written document that is very, very difficult to amend).

     

    Arguably the US written Constitution is modeled in its concepts upon the British unwritten constitution as idealized and democratized according to the advanced thinking of British and American thinkers of the mid to late 18th Century; an inspired effort really but it is now showing its age. This is nowhere more evident in the area of resolution of disputes between the executive branch (the President being a quasi-democratized King whose powers are significantly checked and balanced) and the legislative branch (which controls the spending power of government but the members of which individually and collectively are accountable to no one for their exercise of this power save the electorate and this only at general elections which, for individual members, range from once every two years to once every six years).

     

    By contrast, over the intervening 230 odd years, the parliamentary system has evolved further the concept of responsible government by which governments can fall at any time and elections can likewise be called at any time to resolve democratically deadlocks over fiscal matters.

     

    While the constitutional propriety of the Tea Party faction’s intransigence and of the President’s response can be debated, the fact is that neither British constitutional practice of the 18th century nor US practice since resolves this argument clearly. What is clear is that ongoing intransigence by the House or Senate (because it cannot be resolved in a timely manner) will ultimately lead either to a significantly weakened Presidential role (Question: Is the US actually prepared to evolve into a quasi-parliamentary system of government where the Congress establishes in detail all public policy which the President is duty bound to rubber stamp and execute?) or a reaction weakening Congress (Question: Does the US really want an imperial Presidency?) or prolonged government paralyse (Question: Can the US Government function adequately in the 21st Century by the glacial pace of 18th Century public affairs?)

     

    Of course, all this can be finessed if the Senators and House Members show restraint and a willingness to think openly and in cooperation with the goal of constructive consensus. This, however, may be too much to ask of mere mortals.
    14 Oct 2013, 01:47 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Hmmm.

     

    You are pretty hard on the Congress which represents the citizens of the USA and the individual states as their specific representatives to further their interests. The issue in my view is that the POTUS has sought to supersede those roles as the representative of the people and that causes dysfunction. The POTUS has taken some behavioral elements of a monarch when he complains about Congress. The translation of the complaint is that if only the POTUS did not have to deal with Congress and could be a dictator then things would be so much better. This leaves Congress no choice then but to fight for their survival and constituent interests.

     

    Leaders lead and dictators dictate. There is a vast difference between these personalities. The POTUS needs its wings clipped.
    14 Oct 2013, 02:12 PM Reply Like
  • Land of Milk and Honey
    , contributor
    Comments (3527) | Send Message
     
    @Tomas

     

    You make an important point that's part of why Australia or other countries can have better stats (less cost for longer life). American health care contributes inventions - which takes money for exploration & an open competitive system with promises of wealth if you do invent - & other systems then incorporate them.
    14 Oct 2013, 02:17 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4555) | Send Message
     
    curls -

     

    There are good features to the US health care market scene, one being the impetus it gives to innovation in drugs and devices. That said,
    (a) arguably a disproportionate portion of this impetus focuses upon the cosmetic (ex. Botox) and high cost intervention (ex. imaging, stents and end of life) at the expense of public health and low profit cures and remediation, especially of diseases and conditions that generally don't target affluent people, and
    (b) you'd be surprised how much innovation occurs in countries other than the US.

     

    The general picture doesn't fit neatly into any ideological box.
    14 Oct 2013, 03:40 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4555) | Send Message
     
    Tomas

     

    I'm sure that there is blame to go all around concerning the current impasse. My only real point here is that the US Constitution, though it has many fine features, doesn't currently provide a timely avenue for recourse to the electorate (or to the threat of going to the electorate) to promote resolution of impasses.

     

    You might think at first blush that giving the executive the capacity to force an election tilts the system in favour of the executive over the legislative component of government. Consider, however, what would happen to the executive if it forced an election and the electorate voted significantly to elect those who opposed the executive - the executive becomes lame duck.
    14 Oct 2013, 03:52 PM Reply Like
  • Land of Milk and Honey
    , contributor
    Comments (3527) | Send Message
     
    @Bob

     

    I never said anything fit into a neat ideological box. I simply emphasized one point that gets lost a lot when assessing the various ways to do health care.

     

    I'm not coming from an ideological view on all this - so I can't be adding one in. (...And I'm tired of everything said on the internet interpreted as those the commenter must support a whole entire particular angle & viewpoint & ideology of some kind, based on one or two points added into discussion... I hesitated to even add any comment because I didn't want to get into this kind of thing. If you have comments you want to add, sure good to hear, but not as counter points to me specifically as though I come from a whole specific point of view.)

     

    While innovation happens elsewhere, a great deal is triggered in the US. For everything critical medical issue I've researched for family & myself, the US is the center point. Other places will have some contribution, but it's juxtipositioned to the US contributions. They in one other country each time, may even lead, but there's always top area US contributions as well. So for everything it's US & a few other countries which vary each time.

     

    Cosmetic isn't paid by insurance. It's affluent driven & will be no matter the system. To adjust where money is spent, it doesn't necessarily require shifting the entire system to a new system. Nor is it necessarily the system, instead of US cultural think. Other systems have their downsides, like public care can include inappropriately long waits. It's a complex topic. The US system needs fixing, no question. But my whole point.....! was that when looking at the Australian numbers it's important to consider that US innovation is a factor to them too.
    14 Oct 2013, 04:12 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Bob

     

    Doubling down on your picture vs box analogy.

     

    Botox was discovered at a university and the applications were identified in the private sector. Investment was minimal for the private sector. I am not sure of the number of applications which would be a good point to understand. I am not a big fan of cosmetic procedures but a lot of that is out of pocket.

     

    Stents are put in a wide variety of people from younger ages than you would imagine as high cholesterol and blockage is often hereditary and without a stent strokes, brain damage, multiple heart surgeries would occur more often. Layer on disability, unemployment, early retirement, survivor death benefits and medicare then stents look pretty good.

     

    Imaging is a pretty broad category so not sure what you are thinking about. End of life is everything imaginable to keep old people hanging on for 3 to 5 more months. Not the least of which is 24 X 7 nursing. This is expensive and tragic.

     

    Go ahead and surprise me how much innovation occurs in other countries as compared to the US.
    14 Oct 2013, 04:32 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Bob

     

    On the Constitution point I am simply stating that the Executive branch in the US is overreaching constantly and our Constitution was not designed with that in mind. And our first President George Washington never behaved in that manner or mindset. Over the years the tolerance has increased as the ignorance has increased.

     

    I believe a few congressmen point this out consistently but everyone is too engaged to notice they have drifted away from the Constitution.

     

    Changing the approach to government will not make any difference if parties are willing to violate the approach.
    14 Oct 2013, 04:40 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4555) | Send Message
     
    Tomas

     

    Here is a quickly assembled and rather random list of recent activities involving Canadian research:

     

    http://bit.ly/16IFdFE
    http://bit.ly/16IFdFG
    http://bit.ly/16IFdFH
    http://bit.ly/16IFdFI
    http://bit.ly/16IFdFJ
    http://bit.ly/16IFdFM
    14 Oct 2013, 05:37 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Bob

     

    I was interested in the amount of innovation in other countries per your comment. I don't dispute other countries have things going on but in aggregate where has the bulk of innovation occurred? The US is driving global innovation in medicine.
    14 Oct 2013, 10:28 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4555) | Send Message
     
    Tomas

     

    I don't see a way of calculating 'the amount of innovation' of one country vs. another. To my mind innovation lacks a common denominator and a common unit of measure for purposes of comparisons whether they be the innovation entailed in two different inventions or the rate of innovation between two countries.

     

    Two other complicating factors are that:
    1. Much research today involves cooperation between researchers and research institutions located in several countries.
    2. Likewise, many of the corporations that scale up and bring innovated products to market are international in scope to an extent that it becomes largely artificial to ascribe an innovation such a corporation brings to market as the product solely of the country where that company is headquartered.
    15 Oct 2013, 12:05 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Bob

     

    Take R&D budgets in the medical industry and add them up for each country for the past 10 to 30 years. That will tell the story by order of magnitude. Wont even need a calculator.

     

    Add on the budgets of universities if you want to make it more dramatic.

     

    Assume that people in each country are relatively as smart as each other with respect to innovation and ignore the countries that penalize basic research and the US will still be light years ahead.
    15 Oct 2013, 12:11 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4555) | Send Message
     
    Tomas

     

    A million dollars (adjusted for inflation) worth of steel production in one country is roughly comparable to a million dollars worth of steel production in the following year in another country. A million dollars spent on research may prove totally unproductive or productive only in the development of an innovation of little ultimate value while one hundred thousand dollars of well or fortuitously targeted research might lead to an epoch changing medical improvement - further, the spending of these sums might lead to quite different outcomes in one country or on one team of researchers as opposed to others because of the talents, unique resources and experiences of the individual researchers.

     

    Here's a rough analogy. The research budgets of IBM or Xerox were undoubtedly much greater annually in the early1980s than they were for Apple or Microsoft.

     

    Here, by the way, is a further report today of potentially productive research by an international collaborative effort:

     

    http://bit.ly/17GJYvb
    15 Oct 2013, 01:08 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Bob

     

    I knew you were going to go there but I left the door open. I am really laughing because this is not a close debate.

     

    Tell you what. Send back all devices and medicines discovered by American companies in the last 30 years and we will do the same. Make it 50 years and it looks worse. Throw the global collaboration in the ocean so all is equal and net out the differences.

     

    It's great to wave the Canadian flag but let's be real. If I was to take your mindset I would argue that the US has more snow, ice and reindeer.
    15 Oct 2013, 02:49 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4555) | Send Message
     
    Tomas

     

    I'm sure the illustrations I gave could be duplicated or exceeded by ones focused upon the innovation contributions of many other countries.

     

    My point is not that the US has not generated a large portion of the medical innovation for many decades, that other countries are somehow intrinsically better at this or that much of that innovation has really been ground-breaking. I was simply suggesting that the economic model within which US medical innovation works
    (a) favours a focus upon the hopes and fears of the affluent members of a more affluent society,
    (b) one consequence of this focus is that marginal improvements (or a least changes) in the drugs and procedures related to diseases and conditions of interest to this segment of the population (erectile dysfunction, aging, sleep and mood disorders etc.) receive a disproportionate attention while basic public health measures and research (which often address these issues more efficiently and effectively) and research into common diseases of the broader global population (but also of low income members of the US population) does not receive due attention, and
    (c) research in the US tends to be, relatively speaking, high cost because of the forgoing.

     

    This is not exclusively a US phenomena but it is noteworthy in the US context.

     

    I make these observations for you and others to consider. It is clearly not possible for either you or I to fully explore this topic within the confines of these comments and I suggest we each have now already given a summary of the way we each view matters.
    15 Oct 2013, 05:43 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Bob

     

    I will provide a deft summary:

     

    At some point it all comes down to sex!

     

    You need to get your sleep and be in a good mood. You need to start the engine regardless of age. And you want it to start every time.

     

    Who said sex was cheap?

     

    LOL.
    15 Oct 2013, 06:09 PM Reply Like
  • bbrady413
    , contributor
    Comments (757) | Send Message
     
    So, barring some serious pillowtalk on Sunday, what does everybody think happens to the markets on Monday? Up, down, stagnant?
    13 Oct 2013, 01:11 AM Reply Like
  • surfgeezer
    , contributor
    Comments (6696) | Send Message
     
    Down until compromise.
    13 Oct 2013, 10:22 AM Reply Like
  • kimboslice
    , contributor
    Comments (1464) | Send Message
     
    As far as my investments go, I worry but would rather see some slowing of Obamacare and debt spending if the House can accomplish it.
    There was so much wishful thinking in Washington since 2008 I don't know where to begin.
    Low interest rates didn't stimulate the economy and job creation. They never have.
    Obamacare is new entitlement, new taxes, new regulations and more government meddling in 20% of our economy. If you prefer the post office to Fedex, I guess you will like Obamacare.
    The combination of gigantic debt spending, increased regulations and the train wreck of Obamacare will be obvious soon enough.
    13 Oct 2013, 02:02 AM Reply Like
  • machiavelli
    , contributor
    Comments (414) | Send Message
     
    Nah, you're totally wrong. Your dream apocalyptic fantasies simply won't come true.
    13 Oct 2013, 05:55 AM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4009) | Send Message
     
    It is hard to imagine a scenario where the ACA does not become another entitlement like Medicare and Medicaid. There has never been an entitlement program that didn't morph into a behemoth. The President and his party are well aware that any compromise on existing entitlement spending will spill over to the ACA. Their plan is to preserve the status quo, fully implement the ACA and deal with any budgetary problems later when they have control of all three branches of government.
    13 Oct 2013, 08:08 AM Reply Like
  • surfgeezer
    , contributor
    Comments (6696) | Send Message
     
    Geoffster, so tired of hearing Entitelment and SS/Midicare is bankrupting US. Flat bull. Trust funds HAVE surplus and it is prepaid from payroll taxes with NO loopholes.

     

    One side of Repub mouths say poor people don't pay taxes while they ignore the payroll tax load and the other side says we are going broke because the Trust money was spent on Income tax loopholes.

     

    Makes zero sense to anyone that does non partisan research. Screaming about debt when the record from both Reagan and Bush's tax cuts during wars is as laughable as not accepting any blame from deregulation on the great recessions debt load. The Repubs keep preaching to a shrinking choir and facts have a very sticky quality.
    13 Oct 2013, 10:29 AM Reply Like
  • amateur_investor
    , contributor
    Comments (169) | Send Message
     
    Bottom line is the US is spending more than it is taking in. Either grow the economy or raise taxes. The current administration prefers to raise taxes.

     

    BTW Surf, speaking of taking blame, I don't recall this president ever accepting responsibility for anything. Always pointing his finger elsewhere. Hands down, the most divisive president in my lifetime.
    13 Oct 2013, 11:03 AM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (12738) | Send Message
     
    AI:

     

    "Bottom line is the US is spending more than it is taking in. Either grow the economy or raise taxes. The current administration prefers to raise taxes."

     

    But, as they never seem to learn, when they raise taxes, they slow the economy even more, which reduces tax revenues more than the rate increase increases them. Growth is the only answer, always.
    13 Oct 2013, 11:17 AM Reply Like
  • VictorHAustin
    , contributor
    Comments (793) | Send Message
     
    Surf geezer, the trust funds have reserves on paper, but they have all been borrowed away at below market rates by the trustees. Were they any private program, execs would be in jail.

     

    You have to look at the FCF of the consolidated federal entities if you want an accurate assessment.
    13 Oct 2013, 12:02 PM Reply Like
  • VictorHAustin
    , contributor
    Comments (793) | Send Message
     
    I watch Myth Busters for fun, and they had a great bit about trying to sail a boat by putting a fan on the stern. That's tax and spend.

     

    Many American voters believe in perpetual motion, and obviously never even heard of the third law of thermodynamics.

     

    The result of the sailing experiment? Might be surprising ... If you crank the fan up, you can get the boat moving pretty quick -- backward. As to where the energy for the fan comes from, well that must be where the rich come in.
    13 Oct 2013, 12:06 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4009) | Send Message
     
    geezer: your response to my comment is highly partisan. I did not inject my Libertarian bias into the argument. I simply pointed out that the ACA is likely to become another huge entitlement. To suggest that there are adequate funds to maintain spending on existing entitlements is nonsense. I wish it were so. These programs have zero chance of being repealed and must be prudently managed if they are not to bankrupt the country. This would include much higher taxes and means testing.
    13 Oct 2013, 02:28 PM Reply Like
  • Sir. Monaco
    , contributor
    Comments (367) | Send Message
     
    gentlemen a public service announcement:

     

    if we go past the 17th without a deal it is not correct to say we have "defaulted"

     

    the correct expression is that we have "breached" the debt ceiling or that we have "breached" our debt limit

     

    so please help everyone else who continues to say "default" when the correct description is "breach"

     

    (this correction really is for the press and non-financial professionals, as I know all of you wouldn't purposefully mislead anyone by saying "default")

     

    thanks,
    13 Oct 2013, 12:06 PM Reply Like
  • Mattster
    , contributor
    Comments (162) | Send Message
     
    Who was the guy who wrote the famous book that the fascists in America will come draped in the flag? Then I see Tea party dressed in patriotic costumes destroying ordinary Americans faith in congress. That is how the Nazi party started, parading around in traditional German clothes, telling people that the government should not pay their WWI reparations... Scary times.
    13 Oct 2013, 02:04 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4009) | Send Message
     
    Good thing we have guns:
    The book Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-1944: Secret Conversations records Hitler as having said the following sometime between February and September 1942:
    The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police.

     

    Read more at http://bit.ly/GY86Dy
    13 Oct 2013, 02:58 PM Reply Like
  • Snoopy1
    , contributor
    Comments (1102) | Send Message
     
    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
    -- Sinclair Lewis
    13 Oct 2013, 05:09 PM Reply Like
  • Abraxix
    , contributor
    Comments (340) | Send Message
     
    "All things in moderation" (Aristotle) was carved into the marble of a Greek political forum. Our Capital Building needs "Quiners keep out" carved into its marble:

     

    quine, v. (1) To deny resolutely the existence or importance of something real or significant. “Some philosophers have quined classes, and some have even quined physical objects.”
    13 Oct 2013, 05:28 PM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1498) | Send Message
     
    Just remember who started this fight.
    13 Oct 2013, 10:10 PM Reply Like
  • fafatooey
    , contributor
    Comments (358) | Send Message
     
    It appears half of us will simply have to support the other half going forward. Obamacare, food stamps, welfare....

     

    My deal is this- Can't I just "adopt" somebody like the Christian Children's Fund I donate to? At least with them I get an occasional letter and picture so I know who I am supporting.
    14 Oct 2013, 02:25 AM Reply Like
  • machiavelli
    , contributor
    Comments (414) | Send Message
     
    ^^^ neo-cons = humor FAIL
    14 Oct 2013, 02:49 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|