Seeking Alpha

Egan-Jones cuts its credit rating on U.S. government debt to AA from AA+ with a negative watch,...

Egan-Jones cuts its credit rating on U.S. government debt to AA from AA+ with a negative watch, citing a lack of progress in cutting the mounting federal debt. "When debt-to-GDP exceeds 100%, a country's financial flexibility becomes increasingly strained," Sean Egan writes. "For the first time since World War II, U.S. debt exceeds 100%."
Comments (147)
  • Another failure from Obama. No surprise.


    "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
    5 Apr 2012, 06:14 PM Reply Like
  • Do you think it could be possible that starting two very expensive "just wars" without raising taxes to pay for them; giving two very large tax cuts; implementing Medicare Part D again without raising taxes to pay for it; allowing banks to increase their leverage from 14 to 40 times reserves; all by the Bush Administration's eight year rein could have contributed to the current enormous economic problems?
    6 Apr 2012, 07:56 AM Reply Like
  • Of course it did. But is that a rationalization to keep spending like a drunken sailor.
    6 Apr 2012, 10:10 AM Reply Like
  • It's Congress that spends, not the President. Check the Constitution of the United States for details.
    6 Apr 2012, 12:08 PM Reply Like
  • Congress authorized both wars and it was unthinkable that we were not going to go into Afghanistan. A Dem or Rep President would have gone into Afghanistan. Iraq is another worn out debate.


    However I am a fan of kicking butt and leaving. Our military is for breaking things and killing people not building countries and that is what cost a tremondous amount of money.
    6 Apr 2012, 02:42 PM Reply Like
  • I agree with all of this Thomas. Personally I didn't want us to go into Iraq but I felt that if we did go we needed to see it through and do it right. Instead we just went in and made a hash of things. Armed conflict should be the last resort but if you do choose it, go all out and win. I felt the same about Vietnam btw.


    However, none of this has anything to do with having eliminated the funding. I also feel that if one chooses to go to war, one needs to accept responsibility to pay the cost of that. That should have been faced honestly up front but instead we went for tax cuts.
    6 Apr 2012, 02:56 PM Reply Like
  • banks are not lending because capital ratios have been raised to the highest in American history. Why contract credit in a recession?
    7 Apr 2012, 01:41 PM Reply Like
  • Afghanistan is an unwinnable War that will run our economy dry. I just came back from the war and I saw it first hand how stupid the Afghans are. Try going on a patrol and have an Afghan police officer OD off heroin on you while being in an unstable area. Our Armored vehicles cost $700,000 a pop. We lost 9 during my deployment by IED's (roadside bombs). Thats just my unit. Not to mention all the fuel we exhausted while doing patrols.
    7 Apr 2012, 07:59 PM Reply Like
  • cs


    One of the problems is we don't define what is a "winnable war." My view with our military is that we win when we meet the military objectives like killing or dispersing the bad guys then we have won.


    Winning the hearts and minds of people is not a military objective. That should fall on the state department and let them waste the money and resources in a visible manner to the American people. That would not last long.


    Our soldiers are for kicking butt and breaking glass and then get them out as quickly as possible.
    7 Apr 2012, 09:35 PM Reply Like
  • Thank you for serving, it must have been frustrating wondering around in rugged territory being shot at and not having any idea why you were there.


    The job is done.
    7 Apr 2012, 10:11 PM Reply Like
  • The Russians had the same problem in Afghanistan. My god, you must've seen things there. Best of luck and use your toughness and experience to do well in life.
    8 Apr 2012, 10:39 AM Reply Like
  • Because the banks have trillions of debts off their books in credit default swaps that were leveraged 15-1 or more.


    All our big banks are bankrupt. They can't lend any longer because their off-the-book debts are, when taken together, are about 15 times America's GDP.


    That's the real crisis that the Fed has been trying to fix, but can't fix. That is the real crisis that few people are talking about.
    8 Apr 2012, 07:34 PM Reply Like
  • ….shocker...
    5 Apr 2012, 06:23 PM Reply Like
  • Raise taxes from a 58 year low. Read that Ford CEO will make 29.5 million per year.
    5 Apr 2012, 06:34 PM Reply Like
  • ...because the government is so responsible with the money they already get? What happened to actually balancing a budget? How about a little accountability and cutting all the waste? Responsible spending, cuts and accountability FIRST…then raising of taxes can be considered. The class warfare thing is a political diversion used for the ignorant masses. Ford is beholden to it's stock holders….if they don't think the CEO is worth it…then they can exercise their power to change it. As to the govt bailing out companies…well we see what it has gotten us.


    It is the voter and the stock holder that has become lazy and complacent…
    5 Apr 2012, 06:56 PM Reply Like
  • Looking back, it seems that government was actually much more responsible for spending when they were spending tax money rather than borrowed money. I suspect that's because people pay more attention to their elected official's decisions when they are actually going to have to pay for those decisions *right now*, rather than just charging it.
    5 Apr 2012, 07:54 PM Reply Like
  • Maybe he deserves 29.5 million since he didn't take a government hand out, Terry the troll is back.
    5 Apr 2012, 11:18 PM Reply Like
  • Very interesting observation. And I'm sure this is true.


    "Shall I charge this for you?" "Yeah, why not?" Such a civilized conversation.
    6 Apr 2012, 05:10 AM Reply Like
  • Obama saved the auto industry apparently. He should be all over Ford's bonus program since he thinks he runs it.
    6 Apr 2012, 02:43 PM Reply Like
  • Whats funny is, they went bankrupt after the 50 billion was it wrong to say no bailout and go into bankruptcy proceedings?
    6 Apr 2012, 09:22 PM Reply Like
  • madav, what are you talking about?


    Anyway, call it rescue for the industry, not a bailout. The GM shareholders lost everything, and the bond holders lost most of their holdings. Union retirees were forced to give up their guaranteed benefits and take stock that would be worthless if the companies didn't succeed.


    The companies were headed for a shutdown, so the US government provided over $50 billion to keep the factories open long enough so that they could go through a managed Chapter 11 financing. The private sector was unable to come up with the usual "debtor-in-possession" (DIP) financing that is used in a bankruptcy proceeding to pay suppliers and to pay other necessary operating costs. So the government stepped in. It is now estimated that the government will recover all but $14 billion of the funds -- or perhaps even make a profit if the recovery continues.


    Plus, its a rescue because had GM and Chrysler shut down, many parts makers would have been bankrupted, sending Ford over the cliff as well.
    6 Apr 2012, 10:32 PM Reply Like
  • That is completely theoretical. With 200 million cars on the road, there is not way parts suppliers would go bankrupt as a result, if they did, then it is their own fault as well. I think GM should have gone out of business, and probably been bought out by a foreign car company or broken up. I could care less about the American auto industry if they cannot float their own boat. They make the worst cars with the worst margins because of excessive labor costs.


    I have owned two American autos, both GM and they both sucked butt after 40K miles, just fell apart. This was only 10 years ago, when supposedly they were much better. I can only imagine the nightmare of them in the 80's. No company deserves to be rescued in my view, and its a shame if workers get laid off, its not their fault, but being propped up artificially is not the way we work.


    Failure is a fact of life, there is always some one the steup up in their place. If GM went under, I am betting several other car companies would buy those factories and keep those workers. Same job, different uniform.
    7 Apr 2012, 01:27 AM Reply Like
  • """That is completely theoretical."""


    Oh, I forgot, you have a Bachelors in International Relations. You are the one who is theorizing. For your information, the car parts aftermarket and the OEM market are two completely different animals. Expert opinion is that many of the OEM suppliers, who also supply Ford, would have gone bust. The Japanese, using homegrown suppliers, would have been the biggest beneficiaries. Don't take my word for it. Here is an opinion from someone more expert than either you or I.



    Of course, I realize that you will stick to your obstinate ideology. You will deny that Republican economic policies gave us the housing boom and bust -- and brought the banks down -- and nearly wiped out the US auto industry. I used to vote Republican, but I was smart enough to change my mind.
    7 Apr 2012, 08:00 AM Reply Like
  • Let the Japanese benefit, I could care less, they run auto companies much better than americans do. In fact, the Japanese could come in and show GM how a real car company is run. Who on here that makes more than 250k a year drives a chevy malibu or a buick regal?


    The bust of 2008 was something in the making for the last 15 years, if you remember several bubbles burst under Clinton, then Bush, and here we are. The fakest most artificial economy ever created.


    Why would you jab at my education when you are a chemical engineer? At least I have the experience to know how the world works while you geek out over primordial slime. Take your high and mighty attitude some where else, I'm not buying the BS you are shoveling.
    7 Apr 2012, 08:14 AM Reply Like
  • Yes, he should be.
    8 Apr 2012, 08:23 AM Reply Like
  • Terry,


    At least Ford manufactures a good deal of products in the USA with Union, middle class wages, (unlike AAPL) rather than Foxconn slave wages in China.
    29 Apr 2012, 04:03 PM Reply Like
  • Normally I’m ambivalent to either party, but our economic future is traveling a very narrow path with little room for maneuvering. My opinion - another 4 years of the current administration would be very bad for America… don’t think most voters know how close to the edge we could get.
    5 Apr 2012, 06:38 PM Reply Like
  • Let's not forget -- being honest, or trying to be -- that Obama's opposites ran the train over the cliff -- and then began the bailout process that Obama agreed to continue.


    Are the Republicans really going to require more fiscal responsibility, or are they going to make those who have no money be more fiscally sound in their decision-making and allow those who have all the money to continue to get free money from the Fed and free bailout money if they can't run their ships straight?


    Bailing out Wall Street was the Republican strategy. Let's not forget that. Bush, Paulson, Geenspan/Bernansky...t... fellows are all Republicans. Obama was owned by Goldman-Sachs, so he went along, and for this he must certainly be held accountable.


    We need leaders/politicians who are not whores of Wall Street. Most Republicans don't qualify under this definition. Most Republicans own the whores of Wall Street.
    6 Apr 2012, 05:13 AM Reply Like
  • Excuse me but GS were not republicans. Geithner is not a republican, Corzine is not a republican, and Joe was quoted as the man to go to for budgetary issues was Corzine. They wanted the guy on their cabinet. I don't know where you come from but you are obviously a hack.
    6 Apr 2012, 06:25 AM Reply Like
  • I wrote: "Bailing out Wall Street was the Republican strategy. Let's not forget that. Bush, Paulson, Geenspan/Bernansky...t... fellows are all Republicans. Obama was owned by Goldman-Sachs, so he went along, and for this he must certainly be held accountable.


    We need leaders/politicians who are not whores of Wall Street. Most Republicans don't qualify under this definition. Most Republicans own the whores of Wall Street. "


    Now where does this say that GS were Republicans. "Obama was owned by Goldman-Sachs." Of course, GS owned both sides of the deal; that's the way Wall Street works, especially now that the democrats (who no longer have enough campaign funding from Big Labor to compete with the Wall Street political brokers) sent Bill Clinton on his knees to beg Wall Street to 'let the democrats in to', in to the big money, in to the power. ("We'll protect you guys from the poor," Clinton is reported to have said. "Look I'll hire Wall Street thieves and laywers to run my own administration as proof.")


    Where am I from? If you could see where I am from, you could tell whether or not I am a hack?


    You mention two people at GS as being proof that GS is not 'republican'. Actually, Tim Geithner considered himself a moderate Republican when he worked for the Clinton Administration; then he change his party allegiance to 'independent'. Apparently, he's never been a democrat.


    You might enjoy this article, showing that GS is now giving more money to Republicans than to Democrats:



    Where I'm coming from is this perspective: the Republicans represent the rich in America and have most of the money in America -- Big Money understood that they didn't have to compete for the Republican vote, which they owned; however, if they could own the democrats too (make the democrats their whores), then they would own everything. Which they accomplished through Clinton, and now additionally through Obama. The Democrats don't want the poor -- hell they want to be rich too.


    America is now run by Wall Street (the Republicans) and the whores of Wall Street (the Democrats) ... which means we will need a new party in America. Not the Tea Party, which is a noisy fringe of the Republicans -- but a new party that embraces the destiny of 99% of Americans, even those white and religious who have been convinced that they will be rich themselves if they just keep voting for the same bastards who own everything. Better to be on the side of the 'winners' than the 'losers', even if they 'winners' despise you and will never let you in.


    I guess that's where I'm 'coming from' at the moment.


    A hack? I'm getting paid by no one to voice my opinions. Is your definition of a hack someone who writes something with which you don't agree.
    6 Apr 2012, 06:45 AM Reply Like
  • """another 4 years of the current administration would be very bad for America"""


    Yes! Bring back the Republicans!




    1. Started an unnecessary war with Iraq and cut taxes (3 times) -- (if there is a better formula for taking the US from a budget surplus to unsustainable deficits, PLEASE tell me what it is).


    2. Created the unfunded Medicare Part D drug plan


    3. Deregulated banks and disregarded the need to regulate mortgage lending (Greenspan famously said that he thought the market would take care of any problems)


    Yes, bring back the Republicans. We'll have more tax cuts and we'll go to war with Iran at the same time. Bring back the Republicans!
    6 Apr 2012, 08:07 AM Reply Like
  • hahaha, ok here is bottom line...4 trillion in debt over 8 years vs 16 trillion in debt in 3 years, which is more unsustainable?
    6 Apr 2012, 08:09 AM Reply Like
  • TARP was Hank (give me a blank check with no strings and raise the debt ceiling) Paulson's creation. In case the name doesn't ring a bell for you, madav, Paulson was Bush's Treasury Secretary and former CEO of Goldman Sachs.
    6 Apr 2012, 12:12 PM Reply Like
  • "16 trillion in debt in 3 years"


    Yep, that's what happens when you're saddled with two unfunded wars, unfunded Medicare Part D, and then add to that the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. If the Bush tax cuts had been allowed to expire on people earning more than $1M/y, we'd have a whole lot less debt now. But Congressional Republicans blocked that.
    6 Apr 2012, 12:16 PM Reply Like
  • MC


    Wall Street is full of Democrats. You don't trust Reps but that is based on what you think you know. But you really need to beware of the fox in sheeps clothing.
    6 Apr 2012, 02:46 PM Reply Like
  • Wars are typically unfunded by every country. Who puts that into a budget?


    We are spending too much money in every direction.
    6 Apr 2012, 02:49 PM Reply Like
  • I love how you all jump to conclusions and put words in my mouth.


    Did I even mention Bush? TARP was Bush's baby and Obama birthed it after beating Bush in the election (he didn't even run against McCain).


    We all know Bush was not a good president, but this one is worse! We went from mildly incompetent to Wildly Incompetent!
    6 Apr 2012, 09:26 PM Reply Like
  • Obama could have ended the wars the moment he stepped into Office...he could have actually saved money by not passing healthcare reform. He could have signed into law new energy regulations...


    He could have made a balanced budget for starters...but its too late for him now, he will lose.


    It comes down to the fundamentals of increase revenue to increase spending is what he want to do. We are not raising taxes because we don't need to spend 2 trillion on the government!
    6 Apr 2012, 09:28 PM Reply Like
  • "I love how you...put words in my mouth."


    Madav, this is the comment you were replying to: "Bailing out Wall Street was the Republican strategy."


    And this was your reply: "Excuse me but GS were not republicans. Geithner is not a republican, Corzine is not a are obviously a hack."


    I repeat, TARP was (Republican and former CEO of Goldman Sachs) Hank Paulson's creation. In case you're unsure what TARP was, it was a bailout for Wall Street.


    When the Republicans scream don't tax the wealthy, they're not referring to waitresses, plumbers, and electricians. They're referring to their hedge fund buddies and their friends on Wall Street.
    7 Apr 2012, 04:01 AM Reply Like
  • So are the other side. What who does the jobs act help?


    John Corzine and Geithner came from Goldman Sachs too.


    You keep putting words in my mouth as if I referenced Bush which I did not. You are being disingenuous.
    7 Apr 2012, 04:13 AM Reply Like
  • You referenced Republicans. Bush was a case you didn't know.


    Says something about you that you think everyone ELSE is being disingenuous.
    7 Apr 2012, 11:52 AM Reply Like
  • "he could have actually saved money by not passing healthcare reform."


    How would that have saved money? The effect of the ACA has been to reduce the deficit.
    7 Apr 2012, 11:54 AM Reply Like
  • San Diego


    What I have seen thus far is companies reducing their health benefits and dumping them on the employees so they can then dump it on the federal government. Costs for employees is going through the roof and we have given companies an excuse for not supplying health care.


    The ACA has destabilized an industry that was already at equilibrium and needed work but not by throwing all 52 cards in the air. The trajectory looks real bad for the american worker and consumer.
    7 Apr 2012, 02:13 PM Reply Like
  • One big problem I see on healthcare is the pricing of drugs. One example, I know of a company that bought the world commercial rights of a drug for 1M dollars. The price of the vial was $800 in 2006, now the vial is sold for $27,000. The margins of the drug are 97%. There is something wrong there.
    7 Apr 2012, 04:12 PM Reply Like
  • Not all republicans are Bush! Get that through your head!
    7 Apr 2012, 05:03 PM Reply Like
  • But the CBO has admitted it will cost double, over 2 trillion now! Whoopsy, where did that accounting mistake come from? You have not been following any news, because when the CBO announced this, it was merely a blurb and they moved on, why? because they want Obama to win of course. Healthcare reform will cost double not 900 billion more like 2 trillion as stated by the CBO. My insurance went up 20% for last 2 consecutive years...where is my savings?


    The goal was never to reduce anything, the goal was to give away free crap like birth control and abortions in order to lock in public support...that is obvious now in this election.
    7 Apr 2012, 05:05 PM Reply Like
  • Exactly, they planned that I can keep my insurance plan, but it will keep skyrocketing until I have no other option but a cheapo government plan that will only cover preventative care.
    7 Apr 2012, 05:08 PM Reply Like
  • "Not all republicans are Bush!"


    Never said they were. Now you're just making stuff up.
    7 Apr 2012, 08:09 PM Reply Like
  • I don't really trust either party, Tomas. But this site is full of the 'all we need to do is get the Republican back in power' which is but one side of the tired old duality. Republicans and democrats are all part of the same system that divides up the world for its own benefit.


    Hence, my call for a new party to replace the democrats as they now exist, as the whores of Wall Street.
    8 Apr 2012, 08:28 AM Reply Like
  • You've been making stuff up this entire thread.
    8 Apr 2012, 05:39 PM Reply Like
  • MC


    Reps might be able to stop us from going bankrupt but I am not sure as both parties have held power over the past decades and we are more in debt than ever.


    One statement I can make that very few can refute if they want to see things realistically is that most everything and everyone is corrupt to one degree or another.


    They just passed a law against congressional insider trading last week and acted like it was a great accomplishment. That is pathetic.
    9 Apr 2012, 12:13 AM Reply Like
  • I agree, power and corruption always go together. That's why it is the job for SOMEONE to police both Big Business and Big Government. Who can that be?


    We won't change human nature very easily, but we need to make it painful for people who cheat and break the laws, even if they are the same people who own the society.
    9 Apr 2012, 09:27 AM Reply Like
  • "What I have seen...."


    You did a nationwide that how you determined this?


    I find it hard to believe a majority of companies would have been so bad at reading legal documents as to misunderstand the law so thoroughly. It doesn't work that way at all.
    9 Apr 2012, 10:52 AM Reply Like
  • "pricing of drugs"


    Yes, I agree, anonymous. Part of the blame for that lies with Bush's Medicare Part D. But it's an industry problem that goes beyond this legislation.
    9 Apr 2012, 10:56 AM Reply Like
  • madav,


    "But the CBO has admitted it will cost double, over 2 trillion now"


    I think you're confusing the CBO with Fox Cartoons. You're probably thinking of the recent, completely untrue claims that Bolling made. Fox does that frequently. Presents some complete fabrication then pulls it down a short while later when it's been exposed as fake -- without offering any sort of retraction.


    Here is a quote from what looks to be the most recent CBO update:


    "CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012-2021 period-about $50 billion less than the agencies' March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period....


    "CBO and JCT have previously estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012-2021 period; that estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA has not been updated."


    Source, the CBO:
    9 Apr 2012, 11:12 AM Reply Like
  • Nope I work for a very large company that impacts 10's of thousands of employees and my clients and colleagues who work for other very large companies tell me the same thing. They all use the same HR and Benefit consultants and move in herds that is how it really works.


    Nobody is going to announce this though as the left does not want to appear to have screwed up health care worse and the right does not want to make corporations look bad.
    9 Apr 2012, 12:45 PM Reply Like
  • Well there's nothing at all in the ACA that would shift the cost to the federal gov't. So either every HR person in the U.S. is illiterate or you heard wrong.
    9 Apr 2012, 02:01 PM Reply Like
  • You are just voluntarily ignorant of the goal of the "ACA", which is to screw up the entire system so badly, we must go to a single payer system, this is the ultimate goal, the crown achievement for Obama's second term...with his "more flexibility" to do whatever the heck he wants, including leading us into a depression which he will if he is re-elected, this phony stock market has made us few bucks at the beginning of the first quarter two years in a row, but wont last with the way things are going. Volatility is back, just in time for the election.
    9 Apr 2012, 02:08 PM Reply Like
  • It's called the TEA Party and it's coming to a Republican primary near you!
    9 Apr 2012, 02:13 PM Reply Like
  • Nothing wrong with that...if calling for a balanced budget is me an extremist. I am so far off a cliff, wow...I keep a balanced budget at home, too much to ask for my government to do the same? Those whacko bean counters, gosh...they expect women to pay for their own birth control, those jerks! They actually expect people to foot their own bill gosh darn them tea baggers.


    On the other hand you have Free Stuff Obama acting like Hugo Chavez by bribing the American public into voting for him by hocking FREE STUFF!
    9 Apr 2012, 02:17 PM Reply Like
  • SanDiegoNonSurfer: Greetings. Actually there is: The plan will create a negative self reinforcing feed back loop. As more employers drop plans premiums will go up on the remainder. Which in turn will cause more of them to drop their plans. Eventually there will be a crises created and the Federal government will step in to fix it. Thus the plan to get a single payer government system will be finally achieved. It started almost immediately. No crises should go to waste.
    9 Apr 2012, 02:30 PM Reply Like
  • Actually it has estimated that the cost will be nearly double. The CBO is using very rosy projections. They can only use information they are given so when garbage goes in garbage comes out. Lies, damn lies and statistics.
    9 Apr 2012, 02:40 PM Reply Like
  • That's not the net cost. As your own link says. It's the outflow without the inflow. Try running a company on only gross receipts sometime, totally neglecting the other side of the bookkeeping, and see how that works out for you.
    9 Apr 2012, 04:53 PM Reply Like
  • Robert,


    Here's what your link says:
    "Sheaks says companies with a low-paid or transient workforce might be better off paying the fines."


    That's a far cry from "all companies are dropping health benefits because the feds will pick up the tab". Think about it.


    First, there are almost no employers who offer low-paid and transient workers health insurance. The only company I've even heard of that does that is Trader Joes.


    Second, it doesn't say companies that currently offer health insurance (i.e., have already decided the cost of that perk is worth it to them to attract better quality employees) will suddenly decide to stop providing that, lose the employees, and chose to pay a fine. That would make zero economic sense.


    Finally, the fed doesn't come in and cover the tab. The ACA requires people to take responsibility for their own health care by paying for it. That's what all the fuss is about -- people not wanting to take personal responsibility. Right now if someone is uninsured and gets sick, the State pays for their health care. The ACA would change that and make it the individual's responsibility instead of the government's.
    9 Apr 2012, 05:05 PM Reply Like
  • SanDiegoNonSurfer: Greetings. This is a process that will play out over time and was designed to work exactly as described. Premiums are already sky rocketing and will continue to do so. Coverage continues to be lost or are getting very expensive as detailed in the second link. The fuss is about the erosion of individual liberties. Name one single thing that the federal government forces you to buy from a private entity as a condition of citizenship under penalty of law today.
    9 Apr 2012, 06:22 PM Reply Like
  • Have you seen all the exemptions? Just what inflow will be large enough to carry out a program of this magnitude? Medicare is already broke and that was well intentioned as well. Unfortunately there is no inflow large enough. This law will bankrupt the nation even faster than the misguided steps already undertaken.
    9 Apr 2012, 06:25 PM Reply Like
  • I buy my own health insurance -- individual coverage -- and have done so for years and years because I'm an independent consultant. My insurance rates have not skyrocketed. In fact my 2012 rate increase was a smaller percent increase than my 2009 rate increase.


    "The fuss is about the erosion of individual liberties."


    Yes, there do seem to be a lot of very vocal individual who want the freedom to force someone else to pay their medical bills.


    " the federal government forces you to buy from a private entity as a condition of citizenship."


    No one is forced to pay for their own health care as a condition of citizenship. However, if they can afford to pay for coverage but instead try to freeload, they get a fine. Not taking personal responsibility has consequences under the ACA. Losing one's citizenship isn't one of them.
    9 Apr 2012, 06:30 PM Reply Like
  • My point is that companies may offer health insurance but the funding is coming from the employee so in effect they are not providing health insurance. Employer sponsored premiums are skyrocketing every since Obama volunteered the federal government to take on all of health care. Why would employers want to pay for something that WDC under Obama wants to pay for?


    Frigging idiots.
    10 Apr 2012, 05:35 PM Reply Like
  • Thomas, There's usually a company match. At least in companies I've worked at there was. Additionally, just the fact that the company organizes it makes it a group policy, which is cheaper than individual coverage. I've had both and my personal experience is in line with that expectation.


    The federal government is not offering to pay for all of health care. That's a fabrication.
    10 Apr 2012, 05:50 PM Reply Like
  • Aside from anecdotal evidence research shows that costs are rising even faster now due to Obamacare. Things aren't going to get better either.
    10 Apr 2012, 05:54 PM Reply Like
  • Robert, those aren't research reports, they're political blogs. There's a difference.


    Nevertheless I do expect there will be costs. For one, insurers would no longer be able to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. I never expected to get healthcare for free. I do want to get what I paid for though. The way the laws were before, insurers could decide pretty much at will to not cover any of us even though we'd been paying their policy for years and years. They could then also decide to never cover me or you again and in that case a single health problem would mean we'd have to pay out of pocket until homeless and destitute, no matter how much we'd worked and saved up until then. Eventually we all do die but that's different from being denied the healthcare you've actually already paid for. I won't be surprised if costs do go up somewhat now that insurers are no longer allowed to operate as death panels. I've always paid my own way and will continue to take personal responsibility for that.


    What I will say is that the ACA isn't perfect. It's a hodge-podge of compromises. It's better than what we had before though where you paid and paid and paid for insurance only to have it denied to you the moment you actually needed it.
    10 Apr 2012, 08:08 PM Reply Like
  • """But the CBO has admitted it will cost double, over 2 trillion now!"""


    This is complete and utter nonsense. Did you actually read the CBO report? Because if you did you would have found that the latest report estimates the net cost of the ACA provisions for 2012-2022 at $1,083 billion, which is a reduction of $48 billion versus the year ago estimate of $1,131 billion. The estimate of the gross costs has risen by $51 billion, but this is more than offset by increases in penalties, excise taxes and other effects of $99 billion. You can see this if you go to Table 1 of the report at:
    10 Apr 2012, 08:54 PM Reply Like
  • Wrong!


    The intial estimate they used to sell it to the public was 900 billion, so even your projections are more than what they told us. It will get struck down, so I am not worried about it. But its hilarious to see you guys squirm over it, its doomed, get over it. If I am wrong, feel free to laugh in my face.
    10 Apr 2012, 09:19 PM Reply Like
  • I'm afraid the Teaparty is just the far right of the republicans, sort of like the Old Barry Goldwater branch in the 1960s. We'll see.
    11 Apr 2012, 04:01 AM Reply Like
  • Look at employee-sponsored premiums over the last 20 years, Tomas. Up 10% per year. It's not Obama that caused that.


    The last 15 years I worked I didn't get a raise. I was told: "Your raise is your health insurance benefit. Premiums are up 10% again this year." ACtually, if I remember correctly, preciums came down a bit after Obama was elected. I think the insurance companies started to get nervous that the might get puinished for unmitigated greed -- but, of coure, Obama didn't seem to notice with his blythe 'let's all get rich' demeanor.


    Luckily, I was healthy. So my year's raise went directly into the pockets of the insurance companies. I didn't see a dime of it.


    Which is why healthy workers should get a kick-back for insurance benefits not used. It would sure change our 'run to the doctor' mentality for everything mentality.


    Why are insurance premiums skyrockting for the last 20 years? I think there's price collusion, which is the oppoiste of what capitalism is supposed to do.


    If you don't believe me, look at this chart (scroll down to the middle of the page) showing health insurance premium costs vs salaries and inflation since 2000. This was the pattern long before Obama:

    11 Apr 2012, 04:06 AM Reply Like
  • If the chart above doesn't make your blood boil, look at this chart showing how much the cost of health care has gone up in America since 1970, compared with other 'free world' countries. Again, you need to scroll half-way down the page to see the chart.

    11 Apr 2012, 04:28 AM Reply Like
  • What are you talking about? All the tea party wants are lower taxes and a balanced that far right? Paying your fair share means paying for your own birth control for example. Their values are only what Americans used to value, honest days work for an honest days pay.
    11 Apr 2012, 10:07 AM Reply Like
  • Yup it worked great in the EZ their broke now with out adequate health care for any one. Canada is trying to figure out how to extricate themselves from their universal health care debacle before it breaks them too. Be cautious in your desires they may come to fruition and not be what you expected.
    11 Apr 2012, 11:44 AM Reply Like
  • When one pays for insurance, one pays for birth control that the insurance covers. That's not "getting it for free".


    This is the problem most Americans have w/the T.P. This ongoing chip on the shoulder is based on just making stuff up. What this looks like to everyone watching is nothing more than an excuse to get all self-righteous and exercise aggression like a child by stomping around, shouting a lot, and labeling everyone a socialist who doesn't run around in a tri-cornered hat calling the President of the United States "a mooslim and a traitor".
    11 Apr 2012, 11:51 AM Reply Like
  • Prices and coverage are worked out between the insurers and the insured. Included in these negotiations are co-pays, caps and scales. If an individual or corporation chooses to offer or not offer a drug or procedure that should remain between the parties without any interference from third parties. If a consumer doesn't like what an insurer offers or the price demanded by the provider they are free to find another insurer/provider. If they don't like their pay or benefits they are free to find another job. Government has no business compelling any entity to enter a contract with another entity or dictate what services private enterprise will or won't engage in. What was made up? That the TEA Party is full of racists? That they don't have their facts straight? That they are all radicals and call the incumbent POTUS a Muslim or a traitor? Just what fictions will be posited next? Last time I looked it was the OWS construct that was offering violence, racism and a whole array of unsavory behavior.
    11 Apr 2012, 01:02 PM Reply Like
  • Lady, pay for your own birth control, you're co-pay for it isn't that much...
    11 Apr 2012, 01:25 PM Reply Like
  • We don't always see eye to eye, but I agree with that!
    11 Apr 2012, 01:27 PM Reply Like
  • LOL. If I do need a hormone prescription, it won't be for birth control, it will be for some other medical need.
    11 Apr 2012, 01:36 PM Reply Like
  • SO FRIGGIN PAY FOR IT, GD it, why don't you get it through your head my god!
    11 Apr 2012, 01:38 PM Reply Like
  • Robert, I would agree with that if history had shown that it worked out the way you describe. However, history shows otherwise.


    "What was made up?"
    Most of what madav has posted here is fabrication -- as I've demonstrated by going straight to the original source rather than relying on what some commentator said. In this case, I was referring to the specific example that I referenced in my post.


    I'm not responsible for what others say and do and neither are you or maldav responsible for what others may say or do. However, we're EACH responsible for what we say and do. Again, I prefer the model of personal responsibility. If I ever start to see T.P. members taking personal responsibility for their own actions and words, I might start to consider that movement as something other than ridiculous. Since I'm not promoting OWS and saying it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, I really could care less what anyone thinks of it.
    11 Apr 2012, 01:43 PM Reply Like
  • Now now, I think we can keep things civil here. Besides this was never about birth control or any other woman's issues. It was always about bending the will of the church and testing limits imposed by the constitution. I can't understand how the conversation got twisted from 1st amendment infractions to an imaginary war on women. As far as I can tell the only war on women has emanated from the White house as an assault on women's finances. 800,000 more of them are unemployed now than when the incumbent took office.
    11 Apr 2012, 01:49 PM Reply Like
  • Madav, there you go fabricating things again.


    As I've already said, I do pay for my healthcare. In fact I probably pay more than most people because I have individual, rather than group, coverage. There's no health care I get that I don't pay for. If I get ovarian cysts and need to manage that with hormone therapy, I'll have previously paid for that through my insurance premiums. The only difference the ACA makes in that situation is that the insurer now has to actually deliver the thing I already paid for.
    11 Apr 2012, 02:00 PM Reply Like
  • Again you twist what is being said to fit your own reality. We are not talking about you definitively, but what the administration is dictating to all of us, which is to pay for free stuff, like birth control. You're hormonal problems are none of my business. The principal of class warfare of the 99%, and rich people like you, who act as if they are in this imaginary populist movement (chuckle), and act as if its fair to ask me, and 300 million Americans to pay for some teenager's or college students birth control because she wants to make some irresponsible decisions.
    11 Apr 2012, 02:21 PM Reply Like
  • Those items present links to the research. Not only is the ACA not perfect it was passed in the middle of the night on Christmas eve without ever having been read by anyone. It had to be passed to see what was in it. Now we are seeing what is in it and it's not good. A wide majority didn't like it then and they still don't.
    11 Apr 2012, 04:57 PM Reply Like
  • If you were't talking to me then who were you talking to...yourself?


    If it's total cost you're worried about then you should want very much to have insurance pay for that teenager's birth control because it's orders of magnitude more expensive to pay for her child.
    11 Apr 2012, 08:08 PM Reply Like
  • "Those items present links to the research"


    Not that I saw. They had links, but the links led to other blog posts.
    11 Apr 2012, 08:09 PM Reply Like
  • Oh and I almost forgot. You're not supposed to call me a rich person. You're supposed to call me a job creator. You need to get with the program here if you want to earn those tea caddy points.
    11 Apr 2012, 08:30 PM Reply Like
  • You are essentially a job creator by buying your iPad, keeping all those Chinese laborers employed pretty well.
    12 Apr 2012, 12:35 AM Reply Like
  • Next thing you know, madav, you'll find yourself arguing for labor laws and progressive taxation. They'll kick you out of the tea party for sure!
    12 Apr 2012, 12:40 AM Reply Like
  • I am not in favor of a flat tax, I do not consider myself a Tea Party person, but I agree with many of their beliefs such as balanced budgets and low tax rates. I just don't get arguing against that. If you tax only 1% of the population, you are just doing it to spend more, not pay down the debt because you could never get what you need out of them.


    Although, if you want to talk about fair share, if we all paid 20% across the board, then we all pay the same and it would all be a fair share. All in it together, isn't that what the socialists want?
    12 Apr 2012, 12:52 AM Reply Like
  • I tend to be a fiscal conservative and I'm in favor of balancing the budget. If you watched Tom Coburn's Senate floor speech during the debt-ceiling debates, you may recall that it was widely applauded by both D's and R's. It's not that people are against the idea of a balanced budget but rather the particular Constitutional Amendment that the T.P. in the House put up for a vote was not acceptable. The thing is, they knew it would be voted down so presumably that's exactly what they wanted to have happen. If these t-frosh were serious about a BBA, or even just about balancing the budget, they would have proposed something that wasn't sure to be voted down. It was all just political theater.
    12 Apr 2012, 01:33 AM Reply Like
  • Well anything proposed by either side is assured to be shot down. Its an ideological show down now. A BBA, as you put it, is acceptable, how can you be against it? Who tacked on what amendments to it, it was Harry Reid that calls a BBA extremist. They did it in other countries and has helped their economies tremendously, Chile for example, I have family in neighboring countries.
    12 Apr 2012, 01:45 AM Reply Like
  • I didn't say I was in favor of a BBA. I said I'm in favor of balancing the budget. I'm open in principle to a BBA. Drafting a Constitutional Amendment in a few hours then saying "pass this or the U.S. defaults on its past debts" was ridiculous. That's not policy. It's just gamesmanship. As for it passing through Congress, the embedded Norquist clause guaranteed that would never happen.


    If you're serious about deficits, were you outraged over Bush's deficit spending in 2004? Or did you suddenly get deficit religion when Obama came into office? Bush tried to hide the deficit by not including the biggest expense, war spending, in the official budget numbers. Did that bother you? Did you post messages about that and get angry over it? Did you call the people who wanted to invade Iraq on credit "socialists"? Or did you only start to feel outraged when Obama became president?


    See, what bothers me perhaps more than anything is that I KNEW back in 2004 that the U.S. was going to end up with this massive deficit problem. And I'm not the only one. This is EXACTLY why so many of us predicted -- even back then -- that the U.S. would never recover from the Bush Presidency. The situation we're in now is the one I've warned and warned about. But a bunch of belligerent right wingers were so all-fired happy to be kicking some Ay-rab butt that their reply to a deficit concern was, "If you don't like it here in the U.S., leave."


    The T.P. is made up of those same loud-mouth belligerent fools. Except now they all of a sudden got deficit religion. As if it were their idea all along to worry about balancing the books. They were yelling at us in 2004 and they're still yelling at us in 2012 and all I hear is "we hate everyone who doesn't march in our parade".
    12 Apr 2012, 02:51 AM Reply Like
  • Here we go with Bush again. I didn't like Bush, and I favor if you go to war you levy taxes, that is how its been for a thousand years. I laugh because you had to come back to Bush, again, you can't let it go. The man did not do as much damage as Obama has. We went from bad to worse. The financial crisis was as much the democrat controlled 2/3 of the government as it was Bush's. We gave full control to Obama and he didn't do anything helpful, now he still has 2/3 of the government and still can't get anything done! Spare me the Bush lecture ok, 400 billion vs 4 trillion...stop attempting to compare.
    12 Apr 2012, 03:04 AM Reply Like
  • No, I'm not coming back to Bush. I'm talking abut the deficit trajectory that started in 2004 and about the right-wing loud mouths who called anyone that mentioned it a traitor. Those are the same people who make up the tea party. The only difference is that now they call everyone socialists.


    What you don't understand is that the deficit is a trajectory. If you didn't correct the trajectory when it was still early you can't just come in later, yank the car into a skid, and expect that's going to fix things. The magnitude of the current deficit was foreseeable in 2004. That was the time to have addressed it. But too many people (were you one of them?) were asleep at the wheel. All it took was one economic shock and the current situation with trillions in deficit was 100% inevitable. Well guess what, we got that shock.


    I agree with you that the housing bubble was a bipartisan effort.
    12 Apr 2012, 03:21 AM Reply Like
  • We have no end to end health care strategy in this country and everything the gov't has done has only screwed it up worse because they don't know what they are doing and they often have conflicting policies which only drives costs up further. It would be so simple to just work on allowing health insurance to be sold nationwide so compettition takes over and they drive down their own margins. But that would not get anyone their name on a building or statue would it?
    12 Apr 2012, 03:53 AM Reply Like
  • That's how I see it. The bullies learned that, if they can't out-think their political adversaries, they could simply shout and try to intimidate.


    Rush Limbaugh became a millionaire through acting like a bully. Being a bully became the new Conservative Persona thanks to Rush and he helped to generate a new approach to politics: the less you know the more you shout.


    Look at CNN, they hire Jim Cramer, Mr. Bully, and then Suse Osmand (sp?), Mrs. Bully -- and then, suddenly, everyone is shouting. Formerly mild-mannered CNN reporters were suddely shouting to be heard, shouting to prove they were machismo enough to wear the CNN logo.


    Then came Sara Palin, more of the same. Charm, a smile, a shout, to cover up a lack of insight.


    Is the Tea Party different? I haven't seen that they are.


    Teddy Roosevelt said we should walk quietly and carry a big stick. Now apparently we are supposed to make all kinds of 'large men noises' and hope no one has the courage to enquire as to the size of the stick we are carrying. (There was no viagra in Teddy Roosevelt's day.)


    Bullies are easy to defeat. Bloody their noses and they deflate like a Fed-invented asset bubble when coming into contact with REALITY.
    12 Apr 2012, 06:00 AM Reply Like
  • Ok, I can see your point about trajectory, but that trajectory was in place long before Bush #1 and goes back to Nixon really. Even Clinton did not actually have a surplus they keep touting. It was a projected surplus based on assumptions that certain events would take place. Just like Obama, that is how he calculated Obamacare. Certain conditions in the economy would have to be met in order for the cost basis analysis to work. It didn't happen.


    So according to them, the economy is better than its every been, then why is it so bad?
    12 Apr 2012, 02:59 PM Reply Like
  • Your comments are completely idiotic. Everyone is shouting, not just the tea party or Rush Limbaugh. You are joking right? Ever watch "The Ed Show" or Rachel Maddow? How about Keith Olberman, MSNBC, Current Tv, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Huffington Post, Ny Times, the state of California...while conservatives have AM talk radio and ONE news channel. Go toot your horn some where else because you have done nothing to add to a pretty good conversation. The conservatives are always the under dogs, and the only time the media liberals go positive on a conservative candidate is when they see the wind blowing in his/her direction.
    12 Apr 2012, 03:05 PM Reply Like
  • Let me see if I can put this in perspective.


    Power, money, attention and prestige go to people who take extreme positions and they reside on the far left or the far right. This goes for politicians and political commentators, journalists, authors, professors, anyone on two legs. The biggest mouths which are political commentators and politicians are all rich so they have very little in common with the majority of Americans.


    The highly charged rhetoric is meant to galvanize people to support them and give them power. Along with that comes a lot of money. They are always looking for a sucker which might be you if don't already know who the sucker is.


    The difficult thing for people to grasp is that their version of truth is not exclusive. Truth is not a singular object that has no other points of consideration. For example excessive debt is bad but so is cutting all support for the poor. So where is the balance? That is what we struggle to find as the noise from the power and money hungry mongers is deafening and they drown discussion and rationale approaches that are not dogmatic.


    If you think it is just one side or the other you are part of the problem. You are a naive sucker being used.
    12 Apr 2012, 04:00 PM Reply Like
  • San


    Deficit trajectory started on 911.
    12 Apr 2012, 04:30 PM Reply Like
  • Look at CNN, they hire Jim Cramer, Mr. Bully, and then Suse Osmand (sp?), Mrs. Bully -- and then, suddenly, everyone is shouting


    I think I did write "suddently, everyone is shouting'.
    13 Apr 2012, 03:12 AM Reply Like
  • Glad to see you are speaking for balance, Tomas. I've been speaking for balance for a long time also.
    13 Apr 2012, 03:13 AM Reply Like
  • Who is bullying? Do you feel bullied by Jim Cramer of Susan Orman? You're point is completely baseless, they are on tv, they are not in your face yelling at you. Jim Cramer is trying to make investing exciting, and his antics are the only way to do it. If you listened to Jim or Susan and lost money, that is your own fault.


    Let me go ahead and plug why Mitt Romney is the best choice, I am in his camp.


    He will be able to sit everyone down at the negotiating table and get it done, this has been his life, his career. There is no other candidate to date, so tailor made for the current situation. We all know now, that he should have been elected in 2008. Buyers remorse, and we have an amazing second chance to get this guy at a bargain. This is a multi-millionaire CEO of an extremely successful investing firm, and a former governor. He has 100x more executive experience than Obama did in his entire life.


    He is bi-partisan, which is a negative in this venomous environment. I see it as a positive. I could care less about him flip flopping on a couple of fringe issues, what his core is, a budget balancing, money making machine, and he will get our crap together. That's how I see it, what I see on the other side is, well...NOTHING...because there is no budget, no policy, no way forward. Do we want another 4 years of stalemate and division? Another 4 years of 8% unemployment, 0% interest on savings accounts, a credit bust's coming, credit defaults and bond bubble popping? I don't think so.
    13 Apr 2012, 01:20 PM Reply Like
  • The TEA party came into existence because of President Bush spending too much. Progressives on the right like the Bush presidents are just as dangerous as those on the left like President Obama. President Obama makes bush look like a spendthrift as he has tripled the spending in just three years.
    16 Apr 2012, 10:31 AM Reply Like
  • At a minimum President Obama should have eased off the accelerator for the debt instead he floored it. No one said anything like what you describe as being a traitor except Rick, Perry. Not exactly a TEA Party guy. Your trying to paint the TEA Party as extremists when they aren't. Either you don't know what your talking about or you are attempting to mislead intentionally. Either way it's not going to make your mistakes valid.
    16 Apr 2012, 10:36 AM Reply Like
  • Robert, what I actually said (if you'll go back and look, you'll see for yourself) was that "traitor" was the stfu word in the early 2000's and that the T.P. uses "socialist" in the same way.


    "At a minimum President Obama should have eased off the accelerator for the debt instead he floored it"


    Where do people get the idea that Obama is somehow causing the deficit? As far as I can determine that's completely untrue.


    The only policy under Obama that's increased the deficit has been tax cuts -- first the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts, then the payroll tax cut. I was opposed to both of these, btw, precisely because they do increase the deficit. Everything else, as far as I can tell, has reduced the deficit. The ACA (Obamacare) has reduced the deficit. Agency cuts have reduced the deficit. And ending the Iraq war reduced the deficit. The reason the deficit has grown so much is because we were already on a deficit trajectory when the worst financial crisis since 1929 threw the country into a complete tailspin. Unemployment due to the recession is what has so massively exaggerated the effect that was already in place due to the deficit trajectory that was put in place during the Bush administration. And that's also improved during Obama's tenure:


    Another thing that's made the deficit APPEAR to grow is that Bush was dishonest in how he reported the deficit. He simply left out military spending as if that didn't count towards our deficit. Obama replaced that with the correct reporting that included the true costs of the wars. Ironically, this honest facing up to the deficit was spun by propagandists such as Fox Cartoons as being some sort of sudden increase in the deficit that started the day Obama took office. I find it mind-boggling that people are gullible enough to believe that.
    16 Apr 2012, 01:24 PM Reply Like
  • "President Obama...has tripled the spending in just three years."


    I don't think that's true, Robert. What is your source for that?
    16 Apr 2012, 01:35 PM Reply Like
  • Spouting bogus numbers doesn't make them right. While president Obama didn't create deficit spending he expanded it beyond where it's ever been before and his policies are destroying wealth at an unprecedented rate. Perhaps you missed that whole $800B spendulous that he promised would keep unemployment below 8%. That was all deficit and the rate hasn't been below 8% since. Not to mention that it was added to the baseline and will never go away. Or maybe you missed the whole double counting to fund Obamacare which also drove up deficit spending as Medicare still had to be paid for. In fact the much abused CBO now projects that the debt and deficit are exploding under the Obama administration. So you can continue to ignore what you don't like, agree with the administrations spun numbers, fuzzy logic and warped math or just make things up as you go along. Why not the administration does it all the time. Not that they are the first. Just the worst.
    16 Apr 2012, 01:59 PM Reply Like
  • SDNF, no more arguments. You lost. Keep living in denial, you'll probably be better off.
    16 Apr 2012, 02:16 PM Reply Like
  • Robert, the CBO shows the ACA as reducing the deficit. I gave you the direct link to the CBO report -- not an article about it. Nothing in any of your links refutes the CBO report. What numbers in the CBO report do you think are bogus?


    "$800B spendulous that he promised would keep unemployment below 8%."


    Do you mean the tax cuts? I already said I disagreed with those. I presume you do too? If so then we're on the same page there.


    " the debt and deficit are exploding under the Obama administration."


    Due to the revenue losses (from unemployment). As I already said. What you haven't done is tie anything about the deficit to specific actions by the Obama administration except for the tax cuts that I already mentioned. Try to calm down a bit and take a deep breath then post a calm description of what you believe is the case. Just spewing out anger isn't not adding anything to the discussion.
    16 Apr 2012, 02:28 PM Reply Like
  • As I showed in previous links the numbers that the CBO was given were bogus. The Stimulus package referred to had nothing to do with taxes except empty promises now broken. It had everything to do with stimulating political allies and wasn't paid for. I'm perfectly calm as there is very little that can raise my blood pressure any more. Facts are facts ignore them at your own risk. I guess you won't believe anything bad about the Marxist in the White House. So this exercise is futile. Note I didn't say he's a traitor just a committed socialist. Why do I say that? Because it's true.
    16 Apr 2012, 02:59 PM Reply Like
  • Robert, the Forbes article is a better link so thanks for posting it. What it actually says is that someone (Blahous) thinks the CBO's most pessimistic estimates are the only ones to consider and that the law as written won't be the one we end up with. The revisions to CLASS are actually already reflected in the CBO update that I posted earlier. So there's nothing here that changes the CBO report.


    When you say "stimulus" do you mean the ARRA? If so, you're right that I didn't include that one. It did indeed have a one-time impact on the debt. It's not a structural deficit expenditure because it doesn't repeat. So then the question is, what did it buy and did that have a net positive or a net negative impact to the deficit. The CBO has been issuing quarterly reports on its estimate of the ARRA's impact, which are not that easy to measure. Here's the CBO's own summary of their most recent update: GDP) by between 0.2 percent and 1.5 percent


    - Lowered unemployment rate by between 0.2 percentage points and 1.1 percentage points


    - Increased the number of people employed by between 0.3 million and 2.0 million


    - Increased the number of full-time-equivalent ( jobs by 0.4 million to 2.6 million. (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers.)


    I think the only way to answer the question of whether it's a net reduction or increase to the deficit is to compare to what would have happened without it and obviously we can't do that with any sort of precision. If we'd had a repeat of the great depression, we'd obviously have a much worse deficit than we do now. Whether or not the ARRA was instrumental in preventing that isn't something I think I can answer but what the data do show is that it helped. What the data also show is a very large inflection in the employment situation as we went from losing jobs at a tremendous rate to actually gaining jobs -- although at a much lower rate. It looks pretty positive for the ARRA -- if you just look at the data, that is. I actually find that surprising because it was a pretty small stimulus. I really didn't think it was big enough to make as much difference as the CBO estimates it has. I also think it was rather sloppily executed, so again, I find it surprising that the data show it having as much positive impact as it apparently has had.


    Your second post is calmer than the one before it. I can tell you're really trying now to get to specifics. I'm glad to consider any specifics you might have. If you find something I've overlooked, I'll even thank you for it.


    You're wrong if you think I don't find anything to criticize -- I've already given you several things. The difference is that I try to base my analysis on facts. Flinging names at people is just a way of avoiding facts.
    16 Apr 2012, 04:18 PM Reply Like
  • I'm stating facts. Based on independently verifiable research. President Obama is in fact a socialist and he said so himself. I've been trying to get across to you the fact that the CBO can only use the data points and surmises it is given. Those premises in many cases have been proven to be wrong in hind sight and there is no reason to think the new numbers are less massaged. This administration and the last protected the status quo from their bad decisions. Decisions that the federal government in some cases foisted upon them. The very slow and fragile recovery is continuing in spite of government policy not because of it with less private sector support as there are fewer wealthy now than there were two years ago. Here are links to various statistics pointing up the fact that the so called recovery is flat. Unemployment and the broader economy are likely to get worse not better. Add to that the fact that the administration's policy is to devalue the dollar by 33% That is a sure fire recipe for inflation and if these folks aren't as smart as they think they are (I consider that a given.) and lose control of the beast things get even worse.
    16 Apr 2012, 05:55 PM Reply Like
  • Here you go. Actually it's not quite triple but very close indeed.
    16 Apr 2012, 06:01 PM Reply Like
  • Low the tax man cometh.
    16 Apr 2012, 06:06 PM Reply Like
  • Everyone likes to quote the CBO when it suites their needs. If it doesn't, they call them hacks. I feel bad for those people.
    16 Apr 2012, 06:08 PM Reply Like
  • The CBO is much maligned. They are only allowed to look at the data points and projections given to them by the entity requesting their services. President Obama requesting a visit from that bodie's senior officer was unprecedented as his treatment of the supreme court has been.
    16 Apr 2012, 06:16 PM Reply Like
  • "I'm stating facts. "


    I invite you to demonstrate that with something more credible than bare assertions and links to unsubstantiated opinions.


    "policy is to devalue the dollar "


    Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be working because the dollar remains very strong. Too strong -- a dollar that's this strong hurts manufacturing and exports. Trade surpluses are the only true measure of a nation's wealth and the strong dollar is making it difficult to generate/maintain a trade surplus.
    16 Apr 2012, 07:29 PM Reply Like
  • Robert, that article isn't talking about spending. It's talking about the proportion of spending that's deficit -- i.e., isn't offset by revenues. As I mentioned above, that revenue loss is a direct result of jobs (and therefore tax revenues) lost due to the recession and to additional tax cuts.
    16 Apr 2012, 07:34 PM Reply Like
  • Robert, I agree with your description of the CBO. It does the accounting fine but of course the result depends on how valid the inputs are.
    16 Apr 2012, 07:36 PM Reply Like
  • Just ask Krugman. Debt doesn't matter.
    5 Apr 2012, 07:27 PM Reply Like
  • I thought it was Cheney who famously said, "Deficits don't matter."

    6 Apr 2012, 08:13 AM Reply Like
  • Relative to GDP, you are typically taking statments out of context...
    6 Apr 2012, 08:14 AM Reply Like
  • It's not out of context at all. Cheney was echoing Reagan's remarks that when you need to pull out of an economic downslide, you don't let worries about deficit spending stop you from applying an economc stimulus. That's absolutely relevant and so is the context.
    6 Apr 2012, 12:18 PM Reply Like
  • At least pass a budget! Even Bush passed a ridiculous 2 trillion budget, but it was a budget! We are just like that commercial..."what's your number? Bazillion gazillion...yeah I just throw money at and hope something good happens..."
    5 Apr 2012, 11:19 PM Reply Like
  • As a practical matter it is obvious that you can't borrow your way out of debt or spend your way to prosperity. Theories are all fine and good but once they fail to work in the real world they should be scrapped in favor of ones that do work in reality.
    9 Apr 2012, 02:44 PM Reply Like
  • Even a grade 6 kid could work out the mathematics here.


    For the past 3 years, subtract the additional annual borrowing $Trillions incurred on the national debt from the corresponding sum of the annual GDP 'growth' numbers.


    There is hardly any 'growth' at all. Are we growing wealth or are growing debt?


    I am surprised that Nobel economists are keeping their peace.


    No one seems to care. It will catch our attention when it hits the $20T mark! You know what will happen next.
    9 Apr 2012, 02:54 PM Reply Like
  • No problem, last time the S&P downgraded the US, the CEO got fired in one week. Let's see how long this one lasts. Now the S&P is in the safe hands of a former Citi guy, a loyal supporter of the party line. No new downgrades from the S&P expected.
    6 Apr 2012, 11:42 AM Reply Like
  • It's time to face facts.... It doesn't matter who wins the next election, dems or repubs. The rich will stay being rich, the poor will stay with having nothing, and the middle class will keep getting raped until they become poor....


    You have the average middle class child coming out of college with a degree and in debt up to their nose. While you have colleges saying" come get a degree from us, you will be able to go into today's world and get a great job". Meanwhile, probably more then half of those kids can't find or get a job in what they have a degree in..


    America has become a service country.. Nothing is built here anymore. You can't win when you import electrics, machinery, etc. while you are exporting corn, oranges, etc.
    6 Apr 2012, 02:48 PM Reply Like
  • The poor have nothing? Are you serious? Have you ever been to a poor neighborhood? I don't think I see more satellite dishes in middle class neighborhoods as I do in the poor ones. The poor have twice as many benefits as middle class Americans and it is because of the federal programs that just keep growing. The poor are being taken care of, in my state they even have a state healthcare insurance, and a lot of illegals get all their medical care for free including child births.
    6 Apr 2012, 09:33 PM Reply Like
  • madav1138,


    Re: "...and a lot of illegals get all their medical care for free including child births", I finally figure out why successive administrations, one after another, Democrat or Republican, tolerate and even tacitly encourage such acts.


    The infamous Roman Emperor Caligula, if I remember correctly, even bestowed Roman citizenship to all conquered domains. Reason? Not for altruistic reasons, but simply to increase taxation revenues. From there, you could figure out the rest of the story...It is all about 'Driving Revenues'...


    More than 1700 years after the Calamitous Century of the Roman Empire, history repeats itself.


    It is all Greed and Corruption!
    7 Apr 2012, 10:39 AM Reply Like
  • LBJ's war on poverty and all the well meaning but ineffective measures taken since have created a semi permanent underclass that is a reliable voting block for the Democrat party. Now nearly half of the working age adults pay no federal income tax, many getting back much more than their withholding, and can vote for those who promise to keep free gravy coming. If you are willing to accept what the government gives you as all that you need you will never have anything more than that.
    9 Apr 2012, 02:51 PM Reply Like
  • Most of the people who owed no net income tax on any given year are working full time. The government isn't "giving them everything they need". They pay their rent and buy their food and dress their children out of their own salaries. They just don't have much (or anything) left over afterwards.
    9 Apr 2012, 05:17 PM Reply Like
  • I know two families who are fourth generation welfare. They also divvy up which children will be claimed by which family members to get the EIC and maximize tax returns for all. Because they have no incentive to do anything else they will never do anything else.
    9 Apr 2012, 06:28 PM Reply Like
  • Yep I know, we pay lip service to it...hire thousands of border patrol, customs and ice agents only to tell them dont do your job.
    7 Apr 2012, 05:10 PM Reply Like
  • Sorry I've got the dates mixed up a bit.


    Caligula actually predates the Calamitous Third Century emperors. He was Roman Emperor from 37 AD to 41 AD, killed by his own head body guard from behind while he was 'answering the call of nature' on a side road off horseback.
    7 Apr 2012, 05:47 PM Reply Like
  • tk


    Well that changes everything. Since he was killed from behind while relieving himself we need to make sure we have a government program to install urinals on horseback.


    Reminds me of a friend of mine who was going hunting with his grandfather and while heading to the destination the grandfather grabs a big white jug from the floor, whips out his whanger and proceeds to pee into the white jug while saying "no time to stop son we gotta get in our tree stand."
    7 Apr 2012, 11:33 PM Reply Like
  • One of many downgrades to come
    7 Apr 2012, 08:00 PM Reply Like
  • All that has happened could have been predicted August 15th, 1971. Currency debasement benefits bankers, brokers, owners, and government. All that has happened has happened because the private secret US Federal Reserve bank controls the United States not the US government. Banks raided America for ONE TRILLION DOLLARS in the debt collapse these idiots caused in the first place.


    In 1963 Dow was $700. In 2012 Dow is $650 in same legal US 1963 silver coins. Dow is $13,000 in Fed bank debt notes, printed for free. In 2012, gasoline is 20 cents a gallon in 1963 US legal silver dimes. It's a money bubble. The bubble has come from the Fed, through the banks, through the government, into stocks, assets, real estate, and expanded and subsidized government. Health care, military, and education, do well through government subsidies. Israel has come out good too taking 1.6 Trillion in total subsidies so far, and getting $6 Billion a year, highest of any nation per capita.


    End the Fed, take the pain, or the Fed will end freedom in USA.
    7 Apr 2012, 11:46 PM Reply Like
  • Theres no free lunch...
    8 Apr 2012, 12:49 AM Reply Like
  • Mr. Clark:


    You are right.


    Mr. Clark
    8 Apr 2012, 07:41 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)