Seeking Alpha

President Obama says House Speaker Boehner has decided to walk away from debt limit...

President Obama says House Speaker Boehner has decided to walk away from debt limit negotiations. Earlier today, Boehner had suggested talks would continue.
Comments (249)
  • Bouchart
    , contributor
    Comments (780) | Send Message
     
    You'd think that a Nobel Peace Price recipient would be diplomatic and savvy enough to keep negotiations going...
    22 Jul 2011, 06:26 PM Reply Like
  • Origa
    , contributor
    Comments (545) | Send Message
     
    OMG, John Boehner has just shown that Europe has more political will than he has.

     

    The Democrats are pushing very hard to GOP and their pledge not to increase taxes. I am glad that I am not a US Citizen, who would ever want such a dysfunctional government.
    22 Jul 2011, 06:44 PM Reply Like
  • Agbug
    , contributor
    Comments (1133) | Send Message
     
    On the other hand, it could be argued that what we are witnessing is necessary and healthy and just the way it is designed to work. I kind of like to see it get messy, ugly and uncomfortable. It might actually lead the news, again, and again, and.......

     

    For far too long too many Americans have gone about their business fat, dumb and happy, since we thought we could get away with ignoring reality. Hey, the sign said "free lunch". Whatta you mean I have to stay for dinner and pay double?

     

    This is just starting to get good. As they say, paybacks are a bitch.
    22 Jul 2011, 07:19 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    This is necessary and healthy like going out and trying to get a venereal disease is necessary and healthy. The Republicans just can't stop themselves.
    25 Jul 2011, 03:27 AM Reply Like
  • Origa
    , contributor
    Comments (545) | Send Message
     
    The Democrats Have To Begin To Close The Gaps In The Deal, and the Republicans have to be forthcoming for changes to their plan.
    25 Jul 2011, 08:24 AM Reply Like
  • steveh58
    , contributor
    Comments (10) | Send Message
     
    I know that's a widely held opinion, but in fact the Founding Fathers designed our government to by dysfunctional -- they had had quite enough experience with a government (England) where it was 'easy to get things done'.

     

    Our form of government requires negotiation and compromise among large, disparate groups before anything significant gets done.

     

    Happily, it's quite a long ways from a dictatorship!
    25 Jul 2011, 04:01 PM Reply Like
  • kingcozzi
    , contributor
    Comments (127) | Send Message
     
    Its not Obama's fault, the Republican party is refusing to work with him. They don't want him reelected and are trying to make him look bad. They care more about letting America default in order to feed their egos, I am not sure why everyone keeps blaming Obama.
    22 Jul 2011, 06:58 PM Reply Like
  • Good Captain
    , contributor
    Comments (456) | Send Message
     
    King,

     

    Obama ostensibly is the President. If you will permit, he is like the Captain of the ship. What happens on board the ship is attributable to the Captain. That's why he gets the cool shoulder boards and the "big bucks". Captains accept their job and the responsibility along w/ the possibilities and dangers and do everything in their power to drive the Ship where it needs to go while distancing it from danger.

     

    As I seem to recall, Mr. Obama ran for office freely. As the winner of the requisite number electoral votes, he gained the right to assume office but he could have decided against it had he chosen to do so. He assumed the office so he has charge. Discussion over!

     

    Whether or not he caused this mess in whole or in part is irrelevant, what matters is that we have Chief Executive that is prepared to move Heaven and Earth to drive the Ship (I.e., the country) out of harm's way utilizing all the mechanisms available to him. In doing so, he will find out like Presidents before him, that he will not always get what he wants, but that is his reality. It's becoming increasingly clear that Mr. Obama sorely lacks any real leadership qualities and that like you, he views the Blame game as the most important outcome. Heaven help us!
    22 Jul 2011, 07:42 PM Reply Like
  • johnybutts
    , contributor
    Comments (62) | Send Message
     
    The captain of a ship can always keel-haul a the crew members who absolutely fail. Unfortunately Obama can't do that.
    22 Jul 2011, 07:47 PM Reply Like
  • kingcozzi
    , contributor
    Comments (127) | Send Message
     
    "Blame game?"

     

    What exactly do you consider the blame game? My aunt was driving on the road one day and goes through a green light, all of a sudden a truck comes in and hits her. The truck went through a red light because the driver was drunk. In your world, this is nobody's fault and everyone should take equal responsibility. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Just to let you know, I am a Republican that is extremely frustrated at the GOP, I am honestly starting to like Obama now.
    22 Jul 2011, 07:52 PM Reply Like
  • sickofthehype
    , contributor
    Comments (426) | Send Message
     
    On the flip side it's more likely Obama wanting the Republicans to appear as the fall guy for the drama going on. Republicans being portrayed as non negotiable, financial markets implode, Obama is able to carry on his ideological agenda, inflate away the debt with more printing, then arrange Dow 20,000+ by election 2012.
    22 Jul 2011, 08:54 PM Reply Like
  • sickofthehype
    , contributor
    Comments (426) | Send Message
     
    And unfortunately Obama has no idea how to steer a large vessel.
    22 Jul 2011, 08:55 PM Reply Like
  • Smarty_Pants
    , contributor
    Comments (2851) | Send Message
     
    "Obama ostensibly is the President. If you will permit, he is like the Captain of the ship." - Good Captain

     

    Yes. And Congress OWNS the ship. Read the Constitution.

     

    The President doesn't just get to change the rules on a whim. Congress writes the laws, the President is supposed to approve and implement them as written. That's his job as head of the Executive branch.

     

    When the ship owner tells the Captain to sail to Tahiti and bring back rum, he shouldn't sail to Ireland and get sheep dip because he thinks that's what's really needed. Not if he wants to stay on as Captain.
    23 Jul 2011, 12:09 AM Reply Like
  • 867046
    , contributor
    Comments (398) | Send Message
     
    You are obviously totally clueless on how the Navy works and the difference between the military and civilian world.
    23 Jul 2011, 01:44 AM Reply Like
  • retire early
    , contributor
    Comments (51) | Send Message
     
    Some how, sadly it seems, many Americans somehow missed civics class. It more than appears that Republicans think the president should be a king with absolute power. Maybe that's why they voted for Bush Jr.
    Just an observation....
    23 Jul 2011, 02:43 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    If Obama was Captain of the ship he should throw the Republicans overboard and keep on sailing.

     

    I recommend having them walk the plank.
    25 Jul 2011, 03:29 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    I think he's doing a pretty good job considering all the dead weight he has on his vessel. Republicans don't even make good ballast!!!!
    25 Jul 2011, 03:31 AM Reply Like
  • spald_fr
    , contributor
    Comments (2735) | Send Message
     
    [Republicans don't even make good ballast!!!! ]

     

    Mongie wants to scrap the propulsion mechanism driving the ship? The ship will then be forever adrift, matey.

     

    Oh wait, there's windpower.
    25 Jul 2011, 09:47 AM Reply Like
  • steveh58
    , contributor
    Comments (10) | Send Message
     
    << Yes. And Congress OWNS the ship. Read the Constitution. >>

     

    Aaaaah. So those surpluses in the '90's really WERE due to Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress, and not President Clinton! I'd always thought so, but it's nice to have the verification.

     

    On the other hand, look what's happened to the deficit since Pelosi & company took over in 2006.
    25 Jul 2011, 04:30 PM Reply Like
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (867) | Send Message
     
    I've never been so proud of our President. Excellent press conference­.
    22 Jul 2011, 06:58 PM Reply Like
  • tigersam
    , contributor
    Comments (1711) | Send Message
     
    He is always a good speaker. In case I forgot, he is also one of the smartest president in recent presidential history. By 2013 there will not be any tea party. Buy, buy radical tea party.
    22 Jul 2011, 07:52 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Obama is good at press conferences. It is just everything between the press conferences that is a mess. He is good at covering his butt and especially with a press that has not caught up with his shake and bake style. The press might just as well not show up.
    22 Jul 2011, 07:53 PM Reply Like
  • pearls before swine
    , contributor
    Comments (273) | Send Message
     
    Think of Obama as Elmer Gantry. He has a gift... the gift of BS. But who is he really, and what does he want? Look at his appointments, draw your conclusions.
    22 Jul 2011, 08:57 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3165) | Send Message
     
    Excellent press conference???????????

     

    Thats the standard these days?

     

    I mean perhaps elementary mathematics might be more impressive - like adding the revenue and subtracting the expenditures and coming up with zero as the answer? Instead of negative 1.4 Trillion!!!

     

    Your comment pretty well sums up exactly whats wrong with our politics.
    22 Jul 2011, 09:22 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4277) | Send Message
     
    After promising several times to actually show what his proposals were in writing, he still has not done so after several weeks.
    22 Jul 2011, 09:28 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Idi Amin was great at press conferences. He had them all chuckling. Seriously, he was charismatic. Meanwhile his hatchet man was making amputees out of the political opposition in the basement downstairs.

     

    It was interesting if you watched Obozo the Clown today at his presser. Check out the closer. The last 5 minutes after the questions he fielded, which were by the way underhanded softballs lobbed by fat chicks. A real question would have been: 'So, Sanford & Son, tell me how the measly $1.6 trillion cut yer pushin' won't get our credit rating turned instantly into a wet, runny pile of hobo stool? Where's your credibility, sir? Seriously. Moody's already told us we needed at least, AT LEAST, $4 trillion just to break even in 10 years on a debt holding pattern. And when are you going to buy a box of Just For Men, Jet Black, cause bro, your hair its like a a damn Golden Girl?'

     

    Yeah, the last 5 minutes when he went all preacher man and did what he does best, talking 'bout the poor, THE PWOOR, and used the word 'fairness' about 15X.

     

    That's the real child right there, mask off.

     

    He did hisself some street preachin' from the libber-RAY-shun theology daze. FAIR! It ain't FAIR! Then he did the rich thing again. Fat cats! Jets. And, uh, uhh, uhhhhhhhh, those oilmen and the uhhhhhh hedge fund guys, yeah, it's not FAIR cause FAIRNESS is what I'm about!

     

    Guy is sick in the head. Mentally ill. My skin always crawls when I hear a supposed adult say 'its not fair'. That's what a child says. Children and dictators(they are closely related). Their favorite word. You heard it hear first. Whenever you hear the 'fair' preacher beware. It means they want more of your personal property, rich or poor. But it always sounds good to the poor because they have nothing to lose. And for the DNC, they understand their feral voter more than you know, even if it means China calls our last balloon payment up on our debt. That never matters to the poor.

     

    But socialism kills. Big government kills. Big socialism starves old people. Look what Uncle Ben is doing. Keeping rates low. Old people in fixed income can't eat. Meanwhile they have high medical costs and higher food costs and higher energy costs and going on third year no COLA on their SS. BIG GOV is killing granny cause they have to float their debt which causes inflation and perversely, artificially low rates. I hope you like that DNC. You're killing old people, giving them heart attacks and putting them in poverty, all because to you Big Gov is never big enough.
    23 Jul 2011, 12:55 AM Reply Like
  • American in Paris
    , contributor
    Comments (5504) | Send Message
     
    You are just jealous because the Republicans have no cover. They want to destroy entitlements and use the debt ceiling as their excuse. The Republicans have been fear mongering ever since the debt exploded during the last year of Bush's regime.
    23 Jul 2011, 06:48 AM Reply Like
  • enigmaman
    , contributor
    Comments (2686) | Send Message
     
    T330- Obama said the minutes from his meeting with both parties will back up his claims, if that was true Im certain he would make those minutes available to the public so we can all praise him, if he doesnt then its just his typical BS and should be called on it
    23 Jul 2011, 09:38 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Wyatt

     

    Picking up on your point on fairness.

     

    Fairness requires the enslavement of someone else to establish fairness. Fair is giving people opportunity. What they do with it is their responsibility.
    23 Jul 2011, 02:15 PM Reply Like
  • 2PP
    , contributor
    Comments (349) | Send Message
     
    Obama is the biggest dolt president in history, and that is a huge accomplishment considering we lived through Jimmy Carter.
    Spell check does not fix bad grammar Tigersam, it's "Bye, Bye radical tea party".
    23 Jul 2011, 07:27 PM Reply Like
  • johngh
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    I have never seen a bigger hypocrite in my life, really this president is a snake! The way he plays social warfare is disgusting and the media is apalling....the worst thing is he will probably get reelected. God help us!
    24 Jul 2011, 11:39 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    2PP now your an English teacher. You are correct.

     

    Bye, Bye radical tea party!

     

    You couldn't have said it better yourself!
    25 Jul 2011, 03:35 AM Reply Like
  • youngman442002
    , contributor
    Comments (5131) | Send Message
     
    you are saying that adding another 2.5 trillion is coming to the rescue....LOL....what a joke.....that is the new bigger iceberg that will sink the ship....

     

    Boehner has...had a plan..BBC..the Senate voted it down....what is Obama´s plan....he only has a teleprompter plan...no plan..just sweet speeches of working together...compromise.... bla bla..show me da plan..show me da plan....he is a face..just a pretty face..
    22 Jul 2011, 06:59 PM Reply Like
  • megaballs
    , contributor
    Comments (45) | Send Message
     
    Ha. GOP controls the House. Agree on the spending cuts, don't raise taxes. Raise debt ceiling. A step in right direction and big can of s*&t kicked down the street while disaster averted. Let election of 2012 take care of 2013.
    Obama obviously needs to get just enough votes and deal with it rather than grandstanding and ramming a tax increase down GOP throat.
    Obama, take what you can get.
    22 Jul 2011, 07:02 PM Reply Like
  • Bob_M
    , contributor
    Comments (23) | Send Message
     
    Why don't we drop Obamacare for a 1 trillion increase in the debt limit and call it a day?
    Then we can focus on eliminating the Income tax and the FED and get us back on track to stability.
    22 Jul 2011, 07:14 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4558) | Send Message
     
    I’m sure that I’m not the only foreign observer that is appalled at the way this issue is being handled. The US Federal debt ceiling crisis is being seen by too many elected officials responsible for its resolution simply as a bone of contention in a partisan morality play while too many otherwise intelligent US citizens take the stance that they are watching some sort of reality television show which will somehow unfold in ways that will not really effect them. It all makes the scramble that attended the enactment of the TARP legislation in 2008 look like an exercise of high statesmanship well executed.

     

    Time has clearly run out
    (a) for the enactment before August 2nd of a deficit plan that, in the poisonous political environment that now exists, will allow the substantial raising of the debt ceiling necessary if the US Federal Government (and, because of the knock-on effects of the Federal fiscal impasse, several State Governments as well) can continue to conduct necessary business on an ongoing basis until after the 2012 election, or
    (b) allow such a substantial raising of the debt ceiling to facilitate the finalization and enactment of such a deficit plan over the next few months.
    Further, should an economic crises ensue, there appears to be little evidence that the US political system will respond with cohesion and purpose to find a speedy and adequate response. Rather, will not the shrill finger-pointing simple intensify?

     

    The world will not look kindly on the US after the debacle of September and October of 2008 is she now proves incapable of resolving this crisis in an adequate manner.

     

    Undoubtedly the first response of many US readers to the forgoing will be that this is a US domestic matter and that I should mind my own business. That would be an appropriate response if it were not for the fact that a US economic crisis now will have such serious global ramifications.
    22 Jul 2011, 07:31 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Bob

     

    This is not a partisan play we are watching without ramifications. We know that. But we have deeply entrenched views of what this country is about which on one side is "give me my check and let the state run our lives" and the other side which is "get a job and earn it and downsize the state now."

     

    Those views are not going to reconcile.
    22 Jul 2011, 08:00 PM Reply Like
  • Good Captain
    , contributor
    Comments (456) | Send Message
     
    I agree this is not an issue to be "toyed" with. I think the key difference b/n us lies in what we individually see as the greatest issue confronting the US now. Is getting past this debt ceiling debate the key or is the beginning of a real structural change critical. I believe its the latter.

     

    Given the irresponsible deficits this Country has generated, we may well require some additional room on the debt ceiling, but if that is the only real outcome of this debate, then we've done nothing more than the EU has done w/ Greece. As a 50 year old citizen, I know what a vague promise of future massive budget cuts amounts to nothing unless its placed in Stone. Spending is
    out of control in this Country and unfortunately, our elected representatives have proven absolutely incapable of acting responsibly.
    22 Jul 2011, 08:06 PM Reply Like
  • Agbug
    , contributor
    Comments (1133) | Send Message
     
    Mr. Adamson, While I can appreciate the contents of your post, I would have to say "please allow some patience while we work this out". We've been dancing around this issue for too long now already.

     

    If one where to look at the stock and bond market numbers you wouldn't even know this was occurring if that was all the information you had. It's far from a crisis at this point. We may make it one before it's all said and done, but I don't yet see the urgency of a crisis.

     

    I just saw an AARP ad on the evening news threatening politicians not to mess with 50 million registered voters. This is just starting to get interesting. I think it's disingenuous of the AARP as the stark reality of currency debasement is the trade off, but hopefully we can get that deep into the discussion, finally.

     

    I would argue that it's much better to get this issue addressed, for a good long time. You can't give these people in DC any avenues to escape their responsibility as our elected representatives as they will only make it worse with every iteration. Please bear with us.
    22 Jul 2011, 09:44 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4558) | Send Message
     
    Tomas -

     

    I fully appreciate that there are deeply held attitudes on matters of great importance at stake. It is also clear that a viable solution will not be forthcoming by sometime in August by simply "splitting the differences" on the outstanding issues (and that, even if such a 'splitting the difference' compromise were cobbled together, it wouldn't be a viable solution or one that most could accept).

     

    I only note that the Parties are truly stalemated at present (i.e. neither one can implement its agenda, only stymy their opponent), that the next US election is little more than a year away and that this upcoming election should be a clear opportunity for both sides to argue their case and seek a clear democratic mandate of the US electorate for the historically important measures they would take in these difficult times..

     

    Would it not therefore be appropriate for a moderate raising of the debt ceiling to be agreed to by both sides, not as a solution to the fiscal and political issues in contention but rather to set the stage for the US electorate to decide those very fiscal and political issues? Would this not be both the honorable and practical way to proceed without prejudice to either side (and without painting the US and global economy into a corner of hell without a clear way out)?
    22 Jul 2011, 10:22 PM Reply Like
  • Herr Hansa
    , contributor
    Comments (3080) | Send Message
     
    Agreed and very well stated. It is baffling to see countries in Europe put together a package to keep Greece moving forward, and then watch the political theatre in the United States. Politicians may think they are getting the upper hand to ensure their own job security, but they do not pay the price, the American people do, and will. If any of those politicians were serious about reducing the deficit, then they could start by reducing their staff and cutting their own expenses.
    22 Jul 2011, 10:32 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4558) | Send Message
     
    Agbug -

     

    It's not me but the course of events that set the deadlines here. The danger is that August can not pass without major and possibly uncontrollable damage to the US and global economies occurring if the current deadlock is simply allowed to persist.

     

    It's obviously up to Americans to decide how best to deal with the simple fact that an August deadline exists. For what it's worth, my thoughts in that regard are set out in my earlier reply to TomasViewPoint.
    23 Jul 2011, 12:26 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Bob

     

    You are sounding rather rationale in your comment. Unfortunately both sides are committed to their vision of the future and are willing to play chicken to get it done. The first deal on the table which Obama just changed had a real good chance of passing and keeping us in a moderate position where nobody would be completely happy but we would make progress and it was manageable.

     

    Now we are heading for the abyss.
    23 Jul 2011, 12:30 AM Reply Like
  • Smarty_Pants
    , contributor
    Comments (2851) | Send Message
     
    "Would it not therefore be appropriate for a moderate raising of the debt ceiling to be agreed to by both sides, not as a solution to the fiscal and political issues in contention but rather to set the stage for the US electorate to decide those very fiscal and political issues? Would this not be both the honorable and practical way to proceed without prejudice to either side (and without painting the US and global economy into a corner of hell without a clear way out)?" - bob adamson

     

    Bob,

     

    That's what we've been doing for the past 30 years, and that's how we got into this mess in the first place. Eventually somebody's ox will be gored one way or the other.

     

    a) Raise debt ceiling - gov't keeps borrowing us into the hole ad nauseum. You can't fix the problem of too much debt by borrowing ever larger amounts to keep up appearances. Eventually doing so will ruin the dollar in toto.

     

    b) Make small cuts in spending, small tax increases, and raise the debt ceiling (aka - the middle road): This results in the same end state as a) but it might take longer and there will be fewer people with any savings left to try starting over.

     

    c) Leave the debt ceiling and cut spending to the level of 90% of revenues, using the remaining 10% to pay down the debt. This is the only workable long term solution. Problem is, we have to cut nearly $2 Trillion in current spending to get to that point. Who gets the axe? A lot of folks, that's who. And many of them are unionized government workers.

     

    We have already painted ourselves into a corner. We are now haggling over who gets cheated out of their future income and by how much.

     

    It's not pretty, but it's true.
    23 Jul 2011, 12:33 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Most young people don't realize it yet. But their worst enemy is bigger government. Lots of hopeychanger Jon Stewart clapping monkeys that have little to no idea that the entitlements of FDR will all be born off their backs in their generation, batteries for the Matrix. They are slaves of payroll plantation Big Gov redistribution and the real stupid young ones haven't waked to that fact. But one day, when they do(and they will) it will be interesting as young is pitted against old, and the old against the young.

     

    It never should have been this way. But such is the way of Washington when her end game reaches its flashpoint upon the horizon.
    23 Jul 2011, 01:04 AM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4558) | Send Message
     
    Smarty_Pants –

     

    Thank you for pointing out that my earlier comment needs clarification.

     

    Raising the debt ceiling in the circumstances I describe only serves as a bridging action to stabilize the US Federal public debt situation long enough for the Republicans and the Democrats to each seek the clear mandate of the electorate for their program. Currently such clarity of mandate does not exist and deadlock pertains. Put another way, raising the debt ceiling now to allow the Federal Government to function adequately pending the outcome of the 2012 election simply allows the electorate to decide how the current deadlock should be addressed.
    23 Jul 2011, 02:28 AM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4558) | Send Message
     
    Tomas -

     

    I'm simple trying to envision some reasonable way that both the Republicans and the Democrats, without either having to abandon their principles, can set in train a process to allow the electorate to choose which of the approaches of the two parties should be adopted nationally. Such a reasonable way would
    (a) prevent default now on commitments already undertaken by the US Government,
    (b) treat the democratic process as front and centre in decisions of such a fundamental nature, and
    (c) only defer the making of fundamental choices on policy (choices that the current political deadlock largely precludes being made now in any case) for around 18 months.
    23 Jul 2011, 02:41 AM Reply Like
  • American in Paris
    , contributor
    Comments (5504) | Send Message
     
    Obama made plenty of concessions. And don't necessarily believe Boehner's claim that Obama made changes at the last minute.

     

    The so-called deal was pathetic. There is plenty of room to raise taxes. The deal gave Republicans 90% of what they wanted. It was a bad for the Democrats.
    23 Jul 2011, 06:51 AM Reply Like
  • American in Paris
    , contributor
    Comments (5504) | Send Message
     
    Really? I guess they will be happy when student aid disappears ...

     

    What is the cost of tutition at a good private university or college these days? Between $30K and $50K a year?
    23 Jul 2011, 06:53 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Indeed, what will happen when they realize that old people are eating out the stomach lining of their future? Medicare & SS. There's no money left for anything else, and pretty soon, not even our nation's defense once the boomers are done. They must be fed at all costs.

     

    What politicians cynically know(& apparently you don't) is that the old vote, the young not so much. And so tuition subsidies will get diverted over to what really matters to WDC, propping up FDR's ponzi collapse with fresh lumber(ie, debt) even as the termites rot it out faster than its able to support it.

     

    It doesn't matter. College is overrated anyway. Tell me what you learned there besides how to roll out of bed after half a dozen bongloads the night before. College is for conformists. Its a dying industry. If they had any responsibility at all they would use their endowments for the real kids that can't afford school instead of enriching themselves. Instead, those endowments are not only tax shelters but the schools are actually using govt. subsidies(our tax money) so they don't have to dip into their endowments. Those endowments then in essence really belong to us, the taxpayers and should be redistributed back out to the income tax slave payer.
    23 Jul 2011, 11:01 AM Reply Like
  • Agbug
    , contributor
    Comments (1133) | Send Message
     
    Bob, The overriding theme in your case to get something done to get us to 2012/2013 is that this should be decided in the 2012 election where a clear mandate of the electorate can be established.

     

    Please keep in mind this is the same electorate where a townhall meeting of senior citizens discussing healthcare reform shouted "keep the government out of my healthcare". The irony of the fact that the vast majority of these individuals where on Medicare should not be over-looked.

     

    With the new Supreme Court decision to allow unfettered corporate campaign contributions, I am pretty certain I will need to be restrained from yanking the cable tv connection off of the side of my home sometime next August. We need this wake-up call of "what happens if Gram and Gramps don't get their SS check" to occur before then and get realistic about our choices.
    23 Jul 2011, 11:35 AM Reply Like
  • spald_fr
    , contributor
    Comments (2735) | Send Message
     
    Wyatt, what ever happened to that beautiful reply you had yesterday about Orwellian speak and softening it up for soft people?
    23 Jul 2011, 11:43 AM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4558) | Send Message
     
    Agbug -

     

    The bottom line is that the US Federal Legislative process is currently unable to resolve this crisis in a timely manner and therefore if there is to be a democratic solution, it must begin with recourse to the electorate. If an adult discussion cannot happen amongst elected officials, then one can only hope that the electorate will redeem the situation by acting as serious adults and, to that end, will demand a serious adult campaign that probes the issues in dispute. If that can't happen, then the US is in for bad times indeed (which takes me full circle back to my initial July 22nd comment in this discussion.
    23 Jul 2011, 12:04 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Looks like the secret SA police are at it again.

     

    Thin skin usually 'reports abuse'.
    23 Jul 2011, 12:07 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Dirnfeld
    , contributor
    Comments (1128) | Send Message
     
    Wyatt , like your thinking, what stocks do you like here or own .
    23 Jul 2011, 04:13 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Anything with a peg below one for whatever reason where the secular growth story remains intact. Check out WHR.

     

    I also like energy, both the junior E&Ps and the majors. I like the Eagle Ford exposure right now. Once we draw down troops in Iraq & Afghanistan, Iran will influence the region. We will be forced into energy independence. I like Canadian energy names & trusts.

     

    But for my core holdings I like the pipeline MLPs, the timber MLPs and the infrastructure MLPs. I like healthcare and tech as well as the sin stocks(alcohol, tobacco, gambling and firearms).

     

    I like high yield BDCs which I got into recently, especially the ones with zero debt.

     

    I like royalty trusts but am focusing more on the newer ones that haven't been played out yet.

     

    I am looking at the fear in Europe and trying to get long some of those names when prices come in.

     

    And, believe it or not, I like some of the boring regional banks.

     

    Sprinkle lightly with some boring, high yield preferreds as well as utilities.

     

    I'm bearish on consumer discretionary unless there's some game changing going on within a certain industry.
    23 Jul 2011, 04:39 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Bob

     

    The only serious adults are the ones who are saying this cannot go on and we need to cut back the size of government. Events have run their course and there is no way down except to pop the balloon. Every other adult is looking for a way out that is not painful and they still want their checks in the mail. If this is not painful then it is accomplishing nothing.
    23 Jul 2011, 07:59 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    If you pay between $30K and $50K a year for college then you are definitely stupid and college is not going to help.

     

    Sure the big brand names try to convince you that you need their brand name on your sheepskin on your wall in a nice fake wood frame made in Asia but what you really need is the knowledge and that is available in many places for motivated students.
    23 Jul 2011, 08:02 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4558) | Send Message
     
    Tomas -

     

    I don't doubt the sincerity of your position. I only note that to achieve immediately what you advocate would require that the President and his Party capitulated completely.
    23 Jul 2011, 10:39 PM Reply Like
  • Smarty_Pants
    , contributor
    Comments (2851) | Send Message
     
    "Raising the debt ceiling in the circumstances I describe only serves as a bridging action to stabilize the US Federal public debt situation long enough for the Republicans and the Democrats to each seek the clear mandate of the electorate for their program." - bob adamson

     

    Bob,

     

    Problem is, that is exactly what they say every time we get into this situation. The predictable result is that they will all "promise" to fix it later if we raise the debt limit now. So the limit is raised and they immediately forget there was ever a problem and things go right back to what caused the problem in the first place.

     

    There have been 6 times since 1980 that the US government was shut down over disagreements on either debt or budget issues. Each time the parties implemented an 'emergency' measure to keep the wheels turning while they "worked things out". Total outstanding public debt in 1980 was under $1 Trillion.

     

    Past govt shutdowns: www.palmbeachpost.com/...

     

    History of US public debt: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

     

    Fast forward 31 years and here we are again, but with public debt of $14.2 Trillion and the same problem. Nothing has changed except the size of government and the size of our debt.

     

    Color me skeptical, but I find it hard to believe that any 'temporary' measure is going to result in an actual change in the way things operate in Washington.

     

    Heck, even the so-called plans that are currently being discussed are bogus. Every political 'plan' to cut deficits relies on two things:

     

    1) raise taxes now
    2) cut spending later (we promise .... really)

     

    Why do you think the media always blather on about 10 year savings? Most of the cuts occur in the final 3 years of that period, or at least that's "the plan". The reality is that when we finally get to those last three years, the cuts are forgotten and never materialize.

     

    I appreciate your suggestion. It's what a rational person would suggest and then do. But politicians aren't rational people the way you and I would consider rational. To politicians, rational means getting votes now by promising to give stuff to people and pay for it later, then forget about 'later' and let someone else deal with the issue after you retire.

     

    The Democrats want to give stuff to the 'poor'. The Republicans want to give stuff to the 'rich'. They both expect that the taxpayer will pay for it "somehow". There will never be any valid compromise between them, or their constituent groups. Ever.

     

    Eventually they will agree to raise the debt ceiling and the next round of "the game" will commence. Everyone will breathe a sigh of relief and go back to borrowing and spending like drunken sailors on shore leave (my apologies to any actual drunken sailors on shore leave - any problems you cause will be insignificant compared to the problems caused by our politicians).
    24 Jul 2011, 10:06 AM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4558) | Send Message
     
    Fair enough Smarty_Pants. However I was not suggesting raising the debt ceiling now as an isolated matter on its own merits. I was suggesting that this be done on the clearly expressed understanding that the core issues of fiscal management become the central issues in the upcoming election campaign. The goal would be for both sides to seek clear direction from the electorate on how to proceed going forward. That would be the most prudent and democratic way.
    24 Jul 2011, 12:41 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Democratic yes but prudent no. If there was any wisdom in our government we would not have this problem.
    24 Jul 2011, 03:54 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Bob

     

    That's like saying to someone who has borrowed money from the bank that they need to capitulate to pay it back. Hello! Anyone home?

     

    If you remove the political parties the numbers speak for themselves. Time to downsize government or go into the abyss. This is a chance to downsize with some control. Later it will be inflation and brutal cuts.
    24 Jul 2011, 03:58 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Thomas, your not going to tell me that your brain isn't polarized are you?
    25 Jul 2011, 03:40 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    One way Bob, would be for the Republicans to stop saying NO and stay in meetings until this is complete instead of grandstanding.
    25 Jul 2011, 03:42 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    The Republicans can't take YES for and answer.
    25 Jul 2011, 03:43 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Good Captain.

     

    THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING.

     

    WEAPONS OF MASS DISTRUCTION!!!

     

    YELLOW CAKE!!!!

     

    AL QAEDA IS IN CAHOOTS WITH IRAQ!!

     

    THE GOVERNMENT IS BROKE!!!

     

    DON'T RAISE TAXES ON "JOB CREATORS"
    Especially the ones that don't create jobs.

     

    MEDICARE IS BROKE!!!!

     

    SOCIAL SECURITY IS BROKE!!!!!!

     

    STARVE THE BEAST
    Err....they did that already.

     

    HOW MUCH MORE SCARY S#!+ ARE THE REPUBLICANS GOING TO COME UP WITH??? AND HOW MUCH LONGER ARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE GOING TO BELIEVE THEIR CRAP?
    25 Jul 2011, 03:51 AM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4558) | Send Message
     
    Monngie -

     

    The Republican insistence that they win outright and immediately is very troubling. How can this political crisis be ended without compromise (and how can the Republicans now move to a compromise position given their stance to date).
    25 Jul 2011, 11:07 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Bob

     

    Compromise got us to this point. Look at the numbers and the process fades into the background. The numbers tell you what needs to happen either the easy way or the hard way. It does not matter if we vote for A or B it is going to be painful.

     

    However if we manage the problem then we get some say in what our future looks like. If not then we are going to be managed and brutally so.
    25 Jul 2011, 04:14 PM Reply Like
  • Good Captain
    , contributor
    Comments (456) | Send Message
     
    Monngie,

     

    What a busy lad you have been. Your many assertions devoid of supporting substance is quite impressive. At this rate, you may yet supplant Terry330 as Obama's biggest Cheerleader.

     

    I am curious on your explanation for "the Deal" b/n Boehner and Reid. I am not opining on the Deal's merits but am instead focused on the fact that a deal may have actually been reached when the "excess baggage" (that would be the President) was out of the way. Despite the many prior comments to the contrary, it appears as though the President was in fact the obstacle. Perhaps if he maintains his busy fundraising and golf schedules, maybe real progress can be made.

     

    Your truly!
    25 Jul 2011, 05:33 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4558) | Send Message
     
    Tomas -

     

    You and I appear to be circling around the question of what 'compromise' means in this context. Clearly the deficit hawks who want a major contraction of the role of the government in the economy besides differ fundamentally from those who simply want to stabilize the current role of government and its programs and place these on a sustainable basis. It would be naive to expect that their differences could simply be 'halved down the middle' somehow or that this would be a suitable outcome in either the short or long run. I think we both agree to this point.

     

    Where we may differ is that I don't see a fight to the proverbial death over the next few weeks (in the context of the debt ceiling issue) for a winner take all solution as the way forward from the economic perspective, from the democratic perspective or as a practical approach to actually deciding which of these fundamentally incompatible approaches should be followed as public policy on an ongoing basis. A Mexican standoff now simply risks an economic crisis and credit crunch which would leave both sides in this debate with a much worse context in which to carry on their vendetta.

     

    The nature of the compromise I think necessary in this setting therefore is not one where either side abandons its basic position on the issues. Rather, both would agree that the proper setting for settling the debate is the upcoming election and not a game of chicken over some detail of spending and taxation of this moment. This is a compromise of process and not of principle.

     

    In the absence of such a capacity to pick the correct context for a final showdown on the fundamental questions there is a very real possibility that the fiscal situation of national State and local governments will all be undercut significantly, the economy will be set back and the political atmosphere further poisoned to no good end. This would not help resolve matters to the satisfaction of either political camp or the American people and it would only make resolving a whole array of public policy issues increasingly difficult.

     

    By all means have a showdown, but in the proper time and circumstance - the upcoming election.
    25 Jul 2011, 07:15 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3653) | Send Message
     
    "Clearly the deficit hawks who want a major contraction of the role of the government in the economy besides differ fundamentally from those who simply want to stabilize the current role of government and its programs and place these on a sustainable basis."

     

    Bob, the above is a fantasy claim. Please show proof that a contraction of government is proposed.
    25 Jul 2011, 07:57 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Bob

     

    You made me smile with your comment as I can just see the coming election. Typically an election is where promises are made for more spending and tax cuts. Neither party wants this to be in the election as citizens want to know what the government is going to do for them not taking away. We all want to hear YES we can give you more money through a check and/or lower taxes and frankly that is a very human emotion.

     

    We have a clear lack of leadership. If being a government official only is about giving away money then it is no wonder we are at $14 Trillion in debt and going higher.

     

    You want compromise then let's call our creditors like the Chinese, the Japanese and other parties and tell them to take a haircut.

     

    Utlimately I believe we will try to kick the can down the road because it is much easier for politicians to do that versus cut spending in a real way. Just look at the negotiation now. It is not about cutting spending by itself. It is about moving the debt to $16 Trillion plus and cutting the spending. That is a joke. How can you be really cutting spending when the debt keeps going up?

     

    This is the dilemma that some of our founding fathers feared which is that in a democracy people could vote for whatever benefits they wanted thereby bankrupting the country through their excessive demands.
    25 Jul 2011, 08:10 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4558) | Send Message
     
    Cincinnatus -

     

    My reading of the positions being advanced by the Republicans is that deficits arise because the Federal, State and local governments try to do too many things that should be left to the private sector and therefore that the deficit gap should not be closed to even the smallest degree by raising government revenue, especially by raising taxes, but rather by cutting back government expenditures. Given the scope of cuts in expenditure, this line of reasoning suggests, major program cuts and not merely increased efficiency in administration is needed. Further, many of these advocates see the demise of many of the social and other public programs in question as an intrinsically positive outcome. Have I missed something?
    25 Jul 2011, 08:19 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3653) | Send Message
     
    If you say you want to increase spending by 20%, and I say no we should only increase it by 5%, does that constitute a "major contraction in the role of government".
    25 Jul 2011, 08:38 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4558) | Send Message
     
    Cincinnatus -

     

    The answer to your question is 'no'. However, are you really saying that this is all that is involved here?
    25 Jul 2011, 08:53 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3653) | Send Message
     
    They're speaking of cuts in the sense of reductions in proposed increases. That's the language of the federal bureacracy. If they want a 15% increase and they only get 12%, they whine about it being a 20% cut which makes it sound like they've really suffered and tightened their belt when in fact they've received a substantial increase. I doubt that there's been a contraction in the federal government in the last 100 years.

     

    Note that they're talking about reducing the projected deficit over ten years, not the national debt itself (hence the need to raise the debt limit). The amounts I've seen of $1.5 trillion of deficit reduction over ten years isn't even ambitious - that fact that it's considered ambitious speaks volumes to just how screwed up we are and the urgency for real action.
    26 Jul 2011, 01:12 AM Reply Like
  • tigersam
    , contributor
    Comments (1711) | Send Message
     
    I said this before Obama should not have invited radical party to WH for negotiations. You can negotiate with radicals. Just use executive order to increase the debt limit. He has the authority.
    22 Jul 2011, 07:54 PM Reply Like
  • Tom Armistead
    , contributor
    Comments (5427) | Send Message
     
    Republicans never negotiated in good faith. They are far more interested in creating a disaster and blaming it on Obama than they are in doing what is right for the country.

     

    Their approach has been brazenly manipulative, calculated to create a crisis where none had to be. It is fundamentally dishonest, since their party created the deficit mess to begin with, by running two unnecessary wars, reducing taxes for everyone, but especially the rich, and spending like drunken sailors on a pork riddled homeland security apparatus. Not to mention the refusal to regulate any form of financial malfeasance, regardless of how blatant, egregious and pernicious it may have been. Think CDS, CDOs, fraud generally, the likes of Bernie Madoff.

     

    George Bush, in a fit of ideological purity, vetoed any suggestion that Lehman be bailed out, in order to prevent what occurred, a cataclysmic collapse of the financial system. It was not until an adult took office that the resulting crisis of confidence was corrected, and orderly function restored to the financial system.

     

    The likes of Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich perfected a system designed to leverage any minute advantage into the ability to destabilize the system. It started with the rule of the majority of the majority, meaning one hanging chad gave them the right to govern the US without consulting anyone else. We have seen the results of that.

     

    Now they are working on the rule of the minority of the minority, whereby a few of the ideologically pure attempt to dictate to the rest of the nation. They have an agenda - the hell with the elderly, the disabled, the children of the middle and lower classes, those who paid into social security all their lives, those who work, save and invest, but cannot get ahead in an economy and financial system where the deck is stacked against them.

     

    Don't forget the Koch brothers, checkbook in hand, spreading propaganda and funding candidates to advance their secret and hidden agenda of poverty for the masses. As if by taking away any remaining vestige of a social safety net, and impoverishing 98% of our population, we could compete with the Chinese in income inequality, the degradation of the environment, and the exploitation of labor.

     

    I hope they rot in hell.
    22 Jul 2011, 08:25 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    TA

     

    You apparently have been bitter a long time. You must have steam coming off your head. That was a heck of a rant. You forgot to blame the Reps for global warming, 911, Radical Islam, divorce rates, bastard children, road rage, Hurricaine Katrina, mortgage defaults, Blockbuster and Borders going out of business, hangnails and PMS.

     

    Madoff was likely a Dem which makes sense since he liked to take money from other people as he was pretending to help them and spend it on himself or give to his cronies.

     

    Come off the ledge big fella and take your meds.
    22 Jul 2011, 08:49 PM Reply Like
  • Tom Armistead
    , contributor
    Comments (5427) | Send Message
     
    It would be more appropriate for you to address the facts than to indulge in a personal attack on me.
    22 Jul 2011, 08:55 PM Reply Like
  • Phill Stone
    , contributor
    Comments (78) | Send Message
     
    How eloquent. Fox News Kool-Aide drinkers, yes- the ones on the lower end of multi-millions of dollars, listen up. You can still find redemption.

     

    And Tom, personal attacks are what these guys do best since their actual stance is ridiculous.. just ask mitch mcconnell.
    22 Jul 2011, 08:55 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3165) | Send Message
     
    Tom,

     

    Unfortunately for every Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, etc there are an equal number of idiots on the Democratic side.

     

    Our problem is that both political parties have been bought and paid for. I never noticed Chuck Schumer railing against the getting rid of Glass-Steagall? and I believe that was orchestrated by Summers and Rubin along with folks like Schumer.

     

    Lets face it - the whole DC crowd is complicant in this fiasco.

     

    Our government has been captured by the triumvirate of the financial elite, bureaucrats, and politicians. It works only in their interest and the common man is simply a statistic or part of the Macroeconomic issues of the day. But if one of the financial elite is threatened, then lets bail them out. If money doesn't exist to pay bureaucrat's pensions... lets bail them out. Of course, we're using taxpayer's money to bail them out. But hey thats ok.

     

    Government is the problem - whether its being run by Republicans or Democrats. And until we find a few statesmen to tell the people the truth and then drastically shrink the size of government, we'll continue to see our country decline.
    22 Jul 2011, 09:31 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3653) | Send Message
     
    Tom, there aren't any facts there. All you have are character attacks and vague insinuation without substance directed at your usual targets. You're simply trying to defend a system that has you pillaging future generations until you meet your maker. Sadly it's been working for far too long and will likely continue.
    22 Jul 2011, 09:32 PM Reply Like
  • Tom Armistead
    , contributor
    Comments (5427) | Send Message
     
    You have clearly identified one aspect of the problem - the role of the financial elite, bureaucrats and politicians.

     

    However, to simply make a blanket assertion that drastically shrinking the government will resolve the issues is missing the point.

     

    The government is too small in the areas that relate to prudential regulation of the financial system, and too large in certain other areas, the Dept of Defense would be one of them. Certainly the areas of government should be controlling fraud, waste and abuse have been starved to that death.

     

    I personally believe that if existing tax laws were rigidly enforced, and fraud, waste and abuse removed from government, that the budget could be balanced and the government would be able to perform whatever functions a majority of citizens feel it should be doing. Certainly if existing loopholes and preferences were removed that would be possible.

     

    Meanwhile, the Republican insistence on walking away from the table rather than doing the work speaks volumes about their motivation. They want trouble.
    22 Jul 2011, 09:45 PM Reply Like
  • Tom Armistead
    , contributor
    Comments (5427) | Send Message
     
    I paid into social security all my life. When it was originated it was, of necessity, unfunded. The taxes I paid conferred benefits on the victims of the Depression, who had no opportunity to save for retirement, since there were no jobs. They also paid in part for retirement for those who fought in WWII, Korea, etc.

     

    At this point in time, social security is allegedly funded through 2040. Problem, small problem, the money is not there in cash, it's been borrowed. So who is pillaging whom? I paid for those who went before me, and for myself. Where is the money?

     

    That money was spent on needless wars over oil or personal vendettas on the part of the peanut brained Bush II. It was spent on waste and fraud in government, on pork barrel projects, on bridges to nowhere, on COngressional double dip retirements and Cadillac healthcare plans, to name a few things. So who is pillaging whom?

     

    To go back to the Depression, it was caused by unregulated excess in the financial markets, fraud and waste and abuse beyond comprehension. So laws were passed and we had many years of well-regulated markets, until the ideologues on the far right saw to it the deregulatlion undid the protections created generations ago.

     

    So we have come full circle. This time, we should make those pay who caused the problem. That would be the Financialists on Wall Street, the CDS manipulators, the naked short-sellers, the rumor mongers, etc. Then we can reregulate the economy and financial system, and clean up the mess.

     

    It is my good fortune that the Great Recession did not deprive me of my retirement. Nor has age deprived me of my wits. I know a bunch of criminal fraudsters when I see them, I don't like it, and I speak my mind, and tell the truth as I see it.
    22 Jul 2011, 10:37 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3165) | Send Message
     
    How can you say the government is too small? Somehow Glass-Steagall worked for 60+ years with a small bureaucracy to regulate the industry.

     

    Instead of following the recommendation of one of the few good guys we have left - Volker - and breaking up the TLTF banks and reimplementing Glass-Steagall - Obama and Dodd and Frank simply add tens of thousands to the government agencies and 2000 pages of nonsense - All of which does NOT solve the problem.

     

    Existing tax laws need to be scrapped. Get rid of all deductions - make everyone pay something - keep the code progressive. No exceptions. No carried interest. No fake farmers. No corporate welfare. No subsidized electric cars or solar panels. Zilch. Then the government isn't picking the winners and losers. All rich people pay their share, and everyone contributes (and feels some ownership).

     

    My father was lower middle-class most of his life - he paid federal income taxes every year. He's amazed that today half the people pay nothing and the government is sending him money.

     

    Also, a clean simple tax code would cut the lobbyist influence in half overnight and we could gut the evil IRS!
    22 Jul 2011, 10:54 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3817) | Send Message
     
    Stop paying un-wed mothers more and more money for each additional chick they hatch... Get Joe Blow off his hiney and make him dig a ditch for three hots and a cot instead of giving him 99 weeks of unemployment to play XBox (i.e. "look for a job") and eat Pizza Hut payed for with his EBT.

     

    Don't raise my taxes. I don't get anything for them (besides those rights granted to me in the DoI) as it is.
    22 Jul 2011, 11:47 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Downsize the Fed Government now. Hopefully this point is clear.
    23 Jul 2011, 12:35 AM Reply Like
  • Smarty_Pants
    , contributor
    Comments (2851) | Send Message
     
    "I personally believe that if existing tax laws were rigidly enforced, and fraud, waste and abuse removed from government, that the budget could be balanced and the government would be able to perform whatever functions a majority of citizens feel it should be doing." - Tom Armistead

     

    You've never worked with anyone in the government before, have you Tom?

     

    I have, and you will never be able to remove the fraud, waste, and abuse in the system. That IS the system. The only way a bureaucrat can be certain to avoid trouble is to do as little as possible most of the time.

     

    Did you know that government program managers receive poor ratings if they finish a contract under budget? It's true. They are punished for finishing the work and having money left over. Conversely, they are rewarded with promotions and raises if they can justify adding people to their staff for whatever reason. Even if they don't really need any more people to get the job done.

     

    The rules currently in place encourage waste as a matter of routine.
    23 Jul 2011, 12:45 AM Reply Like
  • used_to_be_a_Republican
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    I agree 100%, ( though the last line is a bit harsh); they bribed the middle class to go along with drastic tax cuts for the rich, so now practically no-one is paying an adequate amount. There should be a law that there must be a 10% surtax ( as in the Vietnam days) to pay for any war - meaning there should have been a 20% tax increase instead of Bush's cuts. The surtax would fend of the Cheney types of the world who make lots of money for himself and his cronies from the military-industrial complex in the stock market (again pretty low tax rate).
    23 Jul 2011, 02:44 AM Reply Like
  • Origa
    , contributor
    Comments (545) | Send Message
     
    Madoff, was a prime speaker of less and less regulation and getting government off his back.

     

    You know the result of that policy.
    23 Jul 2011, 04:35 AM Reply Like
  • Joe Morgan
    , contributor
    Comments (1500) | Send Message
     
    Your desperation is showing, I hope you have a plan B, because your welfare checks are going to be over....

     

    The Honorable John Boehner did the right thing, no more taxes or default.....
    23 Jul 2011, 07:50 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    I actually agree about your idea on how there needs to be some skin in the game on future wars. A surtax or a war bond buying program. It would put pressure on the Pentagon and that would be great. Wars would then be more precise & necessary as public opinion was in direct correlation to funding. Today wars are financed through foreign debt creation. Used to be that wars were financed through American holders of bonds themselves.

     

    But that was all before the hippies crapped on our parade. I doubt we would find any war nowadays worth fighting. It would take a Chinese carrier group and a dozen subs idling off the coast of San Diego with ICBMs trained & ready to go to get any of us motivated anymore for 'defense'.

     

    And defense is probably the only thing the Constitution permitted in terms of Congressional spending in relation to the size of overall allocation. Yes, there are other forms of spending but they are small in relation to defense. Don't tell that to an FDR left wing turbo lib nutter though. 'General welfare', HAHAHAHAHAHA! Psssst. C'mere libiot. If you understood history and exegesis, you'd understand that 'general welfare' meant American reputation abroad, not cheesy handouts for votes.
    23 Jul 2011, 11:24 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3653) | Send Message
     
    "I paid into social security all my life."

     

    Yes, and as an accountant you knew it was a pyramid scheme that had those that were in early as in your case making out like bandits, while the generations after you are getting no return, or are getting completely screwed (pretty much anyone 40ish or younger).

     

    It's your good fortune that there are enough American's now living off the taxpayer teat as you are that you'll likely continue to succeed in voting yourself the contents of somebody else's wallet. You might not want to be throwing around terms like "criminal," lest folks start to notice your role in this.
    23 Jul 2011, 12:00 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Fraud is present with or without regulation. They are masters of deception. Enron, MCI and Andersen Consulting were under Clinton's term if I recall correctly.
    23 Jul 2011, 10:46 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Actually the wars are over in a few months. We just hang around for ever and build schools, strip malls and throw cash around. That is nation building which should come out of the State Department so we could see how much we are spending.
    24 Jul 2011, 12:30 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    I really don't want to venture into hell, but, with the proper gear, for a short period of time, and some divine help, I might consider helping to turn the compost pile they deserve to be in down there.
    25 Jul 2011, 04:00 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Tom Armistead,

     

    Thomas's view is a classic SA Right wing conservative response. Talking points for SA. Your bitter, come of the ledge, take your meds.

     

    It couldn't be because the NOT SO FISCALLY REPUBLICANS have been trying to starve the beast for 50 years and they may have just accomplished it.

     

    It couldn't be because they lie all the freaking time.

     

    It couldn't be that they are adept at creating crisis out of nothing. (Iraq, weapons of mass distruction, yellow cake, Al Qaeda in Iraq)

     

    It couldn't be that they gutted regulations that would have prevented or mitigated the financial crisis.

     

    It couldn't be that the say not to everything even if you give them 98% of what they ask for.

     

    Yes, Thomas, take your meds and I'll take mine. It couldn't possible be all that Sh!+.
    25 Jul 2011, 04:07 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Way to go Tom Armistead!!!!!!

     

    Way to go.
    25 Jul 2011, 04:11 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Criminal is mild!!!!

     

    They are treasonous!!!!!!!

     

    And I don't give a rat ass who notices!!!

     

    I suspect Tom doesn't either.
    25 Jul 2011, 04:13 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Tell your crazy s#!+ to the warriors getting their asses shot off everyday.
    25 Jul 2011, 04:19 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Nothing honorable about NOT GOVERNING.
    25 Jul 2011, 04:20 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Mon

     

    You should get paid for your drivel because I would be embarrassed to say it is anything other than high school debate club emotional outbursts. For all I know you are paid for this garbage. At best what you say is irrelevant to the issues at hand.
    25 Jul 2011, 04:36 PM Reply Like
  • Archman Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (2470) | Send Message
     
    The real solutions that have to be implemented will never be implemented.

     

    Welfare in this country is out of control.
    Crime relating to unemployment theft, disability theft, benefit theft is out of control.
    The government is bought and paid for by the elites who will make anyone "disappear" should you get in their way.
    Our moral culture has collapsed and has traded quality for stupidity and crime.

     

    We need such radical change and upheaval that I do not see it happening.

     

    The simple fact of the matter is:
    The majority of Americans have sold their lazy ass souls for cheap reality TV, trinkets that they feel make them "look" wealthy, non accumulation of wealth because the government has been taking care of them to this point, etc.
    Just wait until all the social services end and can longer be paid for. Watch how fast our pathetic population cries out for their mommy and daddy to take care of them. They will try and eat their I-pads and find it doesn't taste very good.

     

    The people will first turn on each other, then however they will all wake up as if freed from a really bad dream. Hopefully they will all surround our capital before the criminals on both sides of the aisle escape and give them all exactly what has been coming for the past few decades.........JUSTICE.
    22 Jul 2011, 08:58 PM Reply Like
  • sickofthehype
    , contributor
    Comments (426) | Send Message
     
    Remember fall 2008. If we don't bail them out the entire financial system will implode and will be an utter catastrophe...

     

    Same drama, different year.

     

    The problem is we have only two choices in the US. One stupid party or another stupid party, take your pick. They're a lot more alike than most would choose to believe, and while the public stand behind their chosen side, whether A or B, the government finds new ways to steal, spend, and borrow.
    22 Jul 2011, 08:59 PM Reply Like
  • merlendale
    , contributor
    Comments (90) | Send Message
     
    Obama:
    - ignored his appointed debt commission
    - put forth a budget that not only ignored the issue, but increased the debt and was voted down 97-0 by the senate
    - now decides to get involved, but has still not put forth a plan with any specifics
    - routinely criticizes republican plans while never putting forth one of his own
    What an excellent example of poor leadership and a one-term president.
    22 Jul 2011, 08:59 PM Reply Like
  • merlendale
    , contributor
    Comments (90) | Send Message
     
    Refreshing that Obama actually cares about the debt problem. He ignored his appointed debt commission's recommendations. He put forth a budget in Feb that didn't pay down a penny of debt and was voted down 97-0 in the senate. Now at the 11th hour he gets involved, but has yet to put forth a proposal with any specificity. For those of you complaining about the republicans, at least they put forth a plan. All Obama and Reid have put forth are speeches. Please show a proposal by Obama or Reid. Horrible leadership. One term president.
    22 Jul 2011, 08:59 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3653) | Send Message
     
    At this point I think you can say Obama has a plan. It's to continue borrowing and spending without a budget to hold him accountable. The same thing a child given mommy and daddy's credit card would do lacking any idea of what is meant by a budget or credit card limit.
    22 Jul 2011, 09:38 PM Reply Like
  • warrenrial
    , contributor
    Comments (559) | Send Message
     
    You will note that Obama did not come up with a plan of his own. So the Republicans have to come up with a plan and the plan does suit Obama. Obama needs Boehner and he knows it because Boehner holds the ticket to Obama's re-election.
    22 Jul 2011, 09:06 PM Reply Like
  • Phill Stone
    , contributor
    Comments (78) | Send Message
     
    LOL you're a fool! Boehner doesn't hold jack $h!t when it comes to obama's re-election.. if anything hes contributing to it (notice the polls that say the american ppl realize congress, aka repubs, are to blame for this debt limit issue of failure to come to a deal)

     

    you need to get your facts straight before you post cause you sound like an idiot.
    22 Jul 2011, 09:14 PM Reply Like
  • Tom Armistead
    , contributor
    Comments (5427) | Send Message
     
    Boehner and the ideologues of the Republican party are giving Obama exactly what he needs politically - the reputation of being "the adult in the room."
    22 Jul 2011, 09:18 PM Reply Like
  • warrenrial
    , contributor
    Comments (559) | Send Message
     
    My facts are straight and the democrats can't accept the fact Boehner holds the key.
    22 Jul 2011, 09:22 PM Reply Like
  • warrenrial
    , contributor
    Comments (559) | Send Message
     
    You mean man child.
    22 Jul 2011, 09:54 PM Reply Like
  • Tom Armistead
    , contributor
    Comments (5427) | Send Message
     
    Boehner is reputed to have a drinking problem:

     

    www.huffingtonpost.com...

     

    Obama exerted considerable restraint, by not explaining that Boehner couldn't take the pressure, got drunk, copped a resentment, threw a tantrum, and walked out of the talks.

     

    So now Obama is the sober adult in the room.
    22 Jul 2011, 09:57 PM Reply Like
  • 2PP
    , contributor
    Comments (349) | Send Message
     
    Tom, you are a hack. Smearing Boehner and quoting the Huffingtonpost.com as fact? You would get more accurate information from a Mad magazine.
    22 Jul 2011, 11:42 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3817) | Send Message
     
    How much credence would you give to links I threw out from Fox News? That's what I thought. HuffPo is as much to the left as you think Fox is to the right.
    22 Jul 2011, 11:58 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    By your logic Obama will put the economy in the tank to win re-election. That is the epitome of the selfish ego-centric politician that fills WDC and sells our country down the river. He is no better than anyone else in that cess pool.
    23 Jul 2011, 12:03 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    At this point, based on Tom's retarded spittle-down-the-chin talk, I am going to have to rethink his investment ideas as well. Especially if they come from the same clay skull.
    23 Jul 2011, 01:21 AM Reply Like
  • 867046
    , contributor
    Comments (398) | Send Message
     
    You mean in contrast to the gentle, respectful verbal treatment the CINC gets in the comments section?
    23 Jul 2011, 02:31 AM Reply Like
  • retire early
    , contributor
    Comments (51) | Send Message
     
    Who cares who is a drunk or not? I think we can all agree we know more than a few intelligent drunks as well as more than a few sober fools. Point is, Boehner is acting the fool.
    23 Jul 2011, 02:43 AM Reply Like
  • Tom Armistead
    , contributor
    Comments (5427) | Send Message
     
    Wyatt,

     

    If you would have listened to me on Unitrin (UTR) and done the risk reversal call spread, you could have turned $303 into $4,280 over the course of 123 days.

     

    Even just buying the stock would have given you an internal rate of return of 81.47%.

     

    I give away my investment ideas: I don't give advice; I just write about what I'm doing today, and invite the reader to consider the information I develop and the thought process I apply to it.

     

    The nation's financial problems are relatively simple: the government has spent more than it raised by taxes for 10 years now. If the process continues, it will eventually become necessary to either raise taxes to a level the American people will not tolerate, reduce government services to a level the American people will not tolerate, or to print enough money to make up the difference.

     

    Over the past 50 years, the level of service provided by government has increased, primarily in the Medicaid/Medicare area, while Federal income taxes have declined, especially in the upper brackets.

     

    The answers are equally simple: some combination of increased taxes and reduced services will have to be discovered, on which a majority of the American people can agree. We have to raise the bridge or lower the water.

     

    The simple fact is, that a well-orgainized minority is attempting to dictate to the majority, holding the national welfare hostage, and resorting to blackmail in the name of some bizarre brand of far right ideology. Boehner wants everyone to come to Ayn Rand and drink the Kool-Aid.

     

    Supporting his brand of ideology is equivalent to speculating in foreign currency or penny stocks - it will cost you, and if you persist in it, it will bankrupt you.

     

    I hope you availed yourself of the opportunity to buy some KMGB back when I wrote it up at 13.69, since it has since been as high as 20.69. Further, I hope you sold while it was above the target price I set, which was 20. I'm trying to help you.

     

    Now would be a good time for you to reconsider an ideological thought process that will impoverish the nation in the interest of ideological purity. You can do better.
    23 Jul 2011, 06:12 AM Reply Like
  • enigmaman
    , contributor
    Comments (2686) | Send Message
     
    Tom- You said " the government has spent more than it raised by taxes for 10 years now.
    AGREED

     

    If the process continues, it will eventually become necessary to either raise taxes to a level the American people will not tolerate,
    WE ARE THERE NOW- most dont pay Fed income tax and they will refuse to pay anymore:)

     

    reduce government services to a level the American people will not tolerate,
    HEADED THERE NOW

     

    or to print enough money to make up the difference.
    WORKING ON IT VIGOROUSLY

     

    Then you go on to say concerning these matter" We have to raise the bridge or lower the water"

     

    Raising taxes has a long term negative multiplier (1-3) affect on GDP, worse during a recession.

     

    Reining in government spending has a short term negative affect (4-5 qtrs) on GDP while reining in entitlement spending will have a long term positive affect on GDP benefiting all Americans.

     

    Our Republic cannot survive when there are more people who do not pay income tax then do, when more and more people are recipients of any form of gov. entitlements, when thrift and saving are penalized (tax code) and spending encouraged

     

    FDR spoke directly to the issue of entitlements only one year after SS was in-acted because recipients were complaining it wasn't enough to live on. In short he said SS was only a safety net, not a substitute for individual personal responsibility.

     

    Talk of raising taxes has to stop because its not a long term solution, getting control of and reducing Government spending is.

     

    Its as you say "that simple"
    23 Jul 2011, 08:02 AM Reply Like
  • Tom Armistead
    , contributor
    Comments (5427) | Send Message
     
    Take a look at a 50 year history of tax rates.

     

    When the rates were higher, growth in GDP was fine, and the nation prospered.

     

    Now that we have held rates at an unsustainably low level for 10 years, GDP growth is inadequate to sustain prosperity.

     

    We tried reducing taxes to unsustainably low levels. It did not work. So let's go back to what worked.
    23 Jul 2011, 08:37 AM Reply Like
  • enigmaman
    , contributor
    Comments (2686) | Send Message
     
    Tom- so what your now saying in response is that, our problem is one of unsustainable low tax rates and not over spending. But wasn't and isnt the problem that while taxes were lowered spending continued to rise. You reference 50 yr tax history with a positive tilt though you do not reference % of government spending to GDP during that same time period. Are you saying that the spending thats resulted was all necessary, and if not what %, was not and how would that change your assumptions. I would suspect the % of entitlements and gov spending were small in relation to over all tax revenue during the bulk of time refernced. Unlike you Im no accountant but It would be interesting to determine during that same 50 years if government spending and entitlements were equal to today what the result would have been. Would we have been better off or worse, would we have been the world leader or just another France?

     

    One other point, if we were able to determine when the scale tipped and began to work against us we could clearly determine the point of equilibrium (taxes and spending)
    23 Jul 2011, 09:00 AM Reply Like
  • Tom Armistead
    , contributor
    Comments (5427) | Send Message
     
    I think if you look at the big picture Medicare/Medicaid is the game changer. Very sadly, the majority of a person's medical expenses occur during the final two years of life. Huge sums are spent to defer the inevitable. Nobody wants to talk about it. Everybody wants somebody else to take care of Grandma for those last few years.

     

    So the huge advances in medical technology are a blessing. But when Medicare and Medicaid were first implemented nobody knew of what the cost of the advanced technology would be, premiums were not collected and put in trust. In its own way, it doesn't matter, since politicians would have borrowed and spent the money anyway.

     

    Add the demographics of the baby boom to the costly technology developed over the past 50 years, stir that into Medicare/Medicaid and you have something that is very hard to pay for.

     

    Maybe we should be training an awful lot of paramedics, or requiring some of those MBA types to use their smarts to become doctors. Maybe we have to accept that there are costs associated with the indefinite extension of the human life span, and finally make a value judgment in dollars and cents what are those last few gasps of air worth?
    23 Jul 2011, 09:12 AM Reply Like
  • enigmaman
    , contributor
    Comments (2686) | Send Message
     
    Tom- were you replying to me because you didn't respond to my last post.

     

    Concerning your current post, simply determine "equilibrium" between taxation and representation. IMO the key to better government is "term limits" we dont benefit from career politicians sucking off the Teat of the taxpayer, makes for ineffective slothful government.
    23 Jul 2011, 09:53 AM Reply Like
  • kingcozzi
    , contributor
    Comments (127) | Send Message
     
    Tom,

     

    I agree with your opinion on Obama, Boehner is an obstable to prosperity. However, I have been reading your articles for quite some time and there is no need to be arrogant, just because you made a few good calls doesn't mean you should be acting cocky. From what I recall the majority of your calls have lost money. I am in no way hating on you. I am just saying don't act cocky when there is nothing to be cocky about.
    23 Jul 2011, 11:30 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Come on Tommy. List your failures here too. We're all adults here. Nothing wrong with winning, but let's see the other side also.
    23 Jul 2011, 11:32 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    "I think if you look at the big picture Medicare/Medicaid is the game changer. Very sadly, the majority of a person's medical expenses occur during the final two years of life. Huge sums are spent to defer the inevitable. Nobody wants to talk about it. Everybody wants somebody else to take care of Grandma for those last few years. "

     

    True which is why our medical spending per capita as a percentage is higher than most other countries. Call it fear of death, superstition or the rise of the HMOs training all of us how to put off the inevitable a few more months(or years) but its an estate drainer.

     

    Other countries with socialized medicine simply don't have the tools or resources to prop up granny in her bed and toss the dead weight around to keep the bed sores from emerging as much as we do. I bet the use of morphine is much higher and introduced much earlier on in the process in other countries. And the sick part is that I'm sure the state has a say in many of those decisions. Here in America, our bent has always tilted more towards individual freedom. Thus, the trend of using 'extreme measures', unlike in France where they lower the shotgun on 'em like a horse with a bum leg.
    23 Jul 2011, 11:39 AM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13579) | Send Message
     
    Wyatt:

     

    Regardless of whether fear of death plays a role here, as a consequence of our ever-enlarging atheistic society, the other reality is that "death with dignity" can't be permitted because there's no big bucks in it. That grandma's coffers are emptied in her last few months isn't an accident, or even the demand of her kids; it's a planned business event, implemented by medical providers.
    23 Jul 2011, 11:47 AM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4558) | Send Message
     
    Wyatt -

     

    You're letting your biases do your thinking for you here. It is the case as much in all the other advanced modern countries that have universal public health service delivery that care for the dying elderly, especially in their last couple of years of life, is a huge and growing cost factor. There isn't, however, the hidden euthanasia epidemic in those countries in response to this fact. Actually, life expectancy is now generally longer and the gap is growing in those countries as compared to the US. This is certainly the case in Canada where I live.
    23 Jul 2011, 12:21 PM Reply Like
  • Tom Armistead
    , contributor
    Comments (5427) | Send Message
     
    Wyatt & kingcozzi, I did an article, a wrap-up of my 2010 wins and losses early this year - wins far outnumbered losses. I'm a value investor, speculative at times, and make heavy use of leverage. My 2009 picks performed equally well, it not better. For the two years in question that type of approach was bound to make a lot of money.

     

    Here's a link: seekingalpha.com/artic...

     

    For 2011 results so far have been mixed, with RDN as a loss leader. I wrote up a serious loss on LDK, discussing the lack of DD that got me on the hook for it. Financials and insurance companies are out of vogue, for the simple fact that they require a normal recovery of the economy and financial system, and the restoration of confidence in the markets.

     

    I am heavily invested in the market, based on my faith that reason and logic will prevail in what is building up to be a debacle on the debt ceiling.

     

    With irresponsible hack politicians doing their best to bring on Armegeddon, my strategy and picks will underperform. If they succeed in turning an economic recovery that should be a walk in the park into a Bataan Death March, my picks and my portfolio will suffer accordingly.

     

    kingcozzi, I'm sorry but I enjoy being a litlle cocky in this case. Mr. Junker has been impugning my reasoning powers, to put it mildly, based on my political persuasions, and because he's familiar with some of my thinking about stocks, I think it's a good way demonstrating my logical abilities.

     

    When writing about stocks that don't have a lot of analysts covering them, I try to do a workmanlike job of presenting the facts, which may be useful to investors who are interested in small or mid caps.

     

    For stocks that are larger and have a lot of professional coverage, I try to come up with a new way of looking at them, something that may help the reader form his own opinion, and something that he will not get from reading professional analyst reports.

     

    Options is a popular topic, I've used them for seven years and I've done the work to present useful information and opinions on some of the basic strategies such as covered calls or selling puts that are sometimes not available elsewhere.

     

    My point is, you don't have to agree with me, either on picking stocks, or developing options strategies, or politics, for that matter. However, I have valid points of view, and hopefully I can make you think some of these situations through more carefully, to help you achieve better investment results.

     

    23 Jul 2011, 12:22 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4558) | Send Message
     
    Tack -

     

    You are correct that we all too often pretend that we can cheat the decline of aging and the certainty of dying. This does distort the role of medicine and the expense entailed in public and private health care delivery alike. I doubt, however, that religious adherence or the lack thereof plays a significant role in this when the population as a whole is considered.
    23 Jul 2011, 12:30 PM Reply Like
  • lowemoran
    , contributor
    Comments (130) | Send Message
     
    There has been talk that Obama uses drugs: 

     

    "he used marijuana and cocaine ("maybe a little blow".) Oddly enough, he writes that he didn't try heroin because -- wait for it -- he didn't like the pusher who was selling it. (Weren't there any other reasons?)"...

     

    realchange.org/oba...
    23 Jul 2011, 02:20 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Tom, I appreciate your write ups. I have even used them more & more to help get me interested in off-beat points of view about how the market prices in risk and sometimes leaves the door wide open for opportunities. Your political drivel however is another matter. I don't look at the government as a force for good. I don't even look at it as a source for neutral. I don't even look at it as a 'necessary evil'. I look at 90% of all government as an absolute waste on the body politic, an economic drag and out-n-out unashamed graft. Its not even a necessary evil. Most of it isn't even necessary, and thus all that is left is ... evil.
    23 Jul 2011, 04:55 PM Reply Like
  • 260805
    , contributor
    Comments (12) | Send Message
     
    Bob,
    You make me proud to be a Canadian.

     

    Unfortunately,discussing our "socialized"(translation- communistic)... medical system is a waste of time with many Americans.With Republicans-don't bother!

     

    Not only are the elderly well looked after here, our medical costs per person are about 60% vs the U.S.
    Maybe running a private healthcare system for profit is why your
    costs are so high?

     

    John McCain stated after a trip to Canada;

     

    "My Canadian friends all tell me how bad the medical system is!"

     

    First of all his friends would not be "average Joe's" but people of
    means who would expect to be moved to the head of the line.

     

    Nobody,including his rich friends, can buy this priviledge, hence our system is bad!
    23 Jul 2011, 09:08 PM Reply Like
  • Tom Armistead
    , contributor
    Comments (5427) | Send Message
     
    Wyatt, thank you for your kind words on my investment ideas.

     

    On politics, economics, etc., I like to go a few rounds in the debating club, but really I'm here at SA to sharpen my investment skills.

     

    It's unlikely that we wil ever go back to a time when there were no judges in Israel, and every man did what was right in his own eyes. Nor for that matter is there much chance that any government will provide perfect justice and a fair shake for everyone, or perform its appointed functions efficiently.

     

    So at some point we will do better for ourselves if we look to our investments carefully. It's pretty clear that the conduct of fiscal, monetary and regulatory policy, and the thinking of our fellow investors, creates considerable instability and turmoil.

     

    The investment task ultimately involves adjusting our thinking and investments in ways that deal with that reality constructively, to preserve our wealth or advance our investment objectives.
    23 Jul 2011, 09:08 PM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (560) | Send Message
     
    "Nobody,including his rich friends, can buy this priviledge, hence our system is bad!"
    No, they just come to the US instead
    www.theglobeandmail.co.../
    23 Jul 2011, 09:22 PM Reply Like
  • coddy0
    , contributor
    Comments (1182) | Send Message
     
    260805
    costs per person are about 60% vs the U.S.
    ======================...
    In country where was born cost per person I guess about 1% vs. U.S.
    Do you have P/V (price per value) data for Canada ?.
    People with similar with me regarding place of birth, who unlike me settled in Canada telling different tales than you

     

    Also
    The Barbarian Invasions www.imdb.com/title/tt0.../
    Medical treatment line does not collaborate with your story.

     

    Disclosure:
    I like Marie-Josée Croze in this movies
    23 Jul 2011, 09:23 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4558) | Send Message
     
    260805 -

     

    I note that others try to knock the health care plans in each of the Provinces by noting that some Canadians seek medical treatment in the US.

     

    Canadians do travel to the US, India, Malaysia and other destinations for medical treatment in some cases. A significant part to this travel to the US is the result of Canadian health authorities sending patients to US facilities, and paying for the services there. This is a cost saving measure for these authorities as it forestalls the need to enhance occasional peak or rarely used specialist capacity locally. Canadian residents, like many US residents, also as individuals at their own cost travel abroad for medical treatment for a variety of valid reasons and this is not necessarily a basis for claiming that health care is intrinsically or generally better in such other places. Likewise numerous US citizens travel to Edmonton in Alberta for eye surgery or to Spain or Italy for stem cell related treatments because of the advanced techniques available in each of these niche situations.

     

    Even where it is not one of these niche situations, many US and Canadian residents travel to India, Mexico or Malaysia for surgery at their own cost because they have reason to believe they will receive quality service, sooner and at lower cost than would be the case back in their home countries. We do not conclude from this that the Indian, Mexico and Malaysian health care systems are generally superior to those available in North America.
    23 Jul 2011, 10:54 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4558) | Send Message
     
    260805 -

     

    I note that others like kcr357 try to knock the health care plans in each of the Provinces by noting that some Canadians seek medical treatment in the US.

     

    Canadians do travel to the US, India, Malaysia and other destinations for medical treatment in some cases. A significant part to this travel to the US is the result of Canadian health authorities sending patients to US facilities, and paying for the services there. This is a cost saving measure for these authorities as it forestalls the need to enhance occasional peak or rarely used specialist capacity locally. Canadian residents, like many US residents, also as individuals at their own cost travel abroad for medical treatment for a variety of valid reasons and this is not necessarily a basis for claiming that health care is intrinsically or generally better in such other places. Likewise numerous US citizens travel to Edmonton in Alberta for eye surgery or to Spain or Italy for stem cell related treatments because of the advanced techniques available in each of these niche situations.

     

    Even where it is not one of these niche situations, many US and Canadian residents travel to India, Mexico or Malaysia for surgery at their own cost because they have reason to believe they will receive quality service, sooner and at lower cost than would be the case back in their home countries. We do not conclude from this that the Indian, Mexico and Malaysian health care systems are generally superior to those available in North America.
    23 Jul 2011, 10:56 PM Reply Like
  • 260805
    , contributor
    Comments (12) | Send Message
     
    Danny Williams is a mega rich Canadian who can do what he wants with his millions.Be it the right or wrong choice it really does not matter for people like him.It's only money.

     

    I am sure he got absolute privileged super service down there!

     

    Probably is a friend of John McCains.
    23 Jul 2011, 11:08 PM Reply Like
  • GotLife
    , contributor
    Comments (1336) | Send Message
     
    Phil,

     

    SA is not Yahoo or Politico but an investment board. Please present your ideas on finance and investing. Also, please avoid making denigrating comments about others. Calling others an idiot or a fool may be appropriate on the other boards but the discussions and critical thinking on SA should convince you that there are few of them here. And, even if they were fools and idiots, would calling them such somehow raise their IQ or enrich your own?

     

    In general, it is a good tact in life. The three P's - be polite, be pleasant, be prompt.
    24 Jul 2011, 12:13 AM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (560) | Send Message
     
    The reason he came to the US was a mitrial valve replacement; in Miami it is able to be done with a small incision. In Canada they must crack open the chest cavity, adding a lot of strain to the body while undergoing heart surgery. It has nothing to do with cost saving, the procedure is simply not available in Canada. Any articles on Americans going to Canada for the superior healthcare? I can't find any. I can't argue for or against Canada's system as I haven't used it, nor can any Canadians do the same, yet there is no shortage of Canadians spouting off about how their system is superior because it costs less. If you check WHY Americans go abroad for healthcare, cost comes up much more as a motive than superior care. Just for reference, what surgery were you talking about in edmonton?
    Here's another
    the rich can't preferential treatment when they need it, but neither can anyone else.
    articles.cnn.com/2009-...
    24 Jul 2011, 12:14 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    "The adult in the room"

     

    I believe you are quoting MSNBC verbatim and they are lapdogs. Bring something original and not just talking points.

     

    There are few adults in our political system so that does not fit anyone that I have seen.
    24 Jul 2011, 12:33 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3653) | Send Message
     
    Bob, again you ignore the demographics as you did with education. There isn't a gap if you look at the same demographic groups.

     

    And in Canada healthcare is rationed by placing folks in long waiting lists where some of them die while waiting, particularly if they're elderly. Many Canadians of course (including your politicians) come to the US for care. Stossel did a show some years back on Canadian healthcare and he presented one example where a guy came to the US for a heart condition after sitting in a waiting list and not being able to get in for tests. He was seen by an American doctor immediately and as soon as the doctor saw him he rushed him to the hospital for immediate surgery. The guy had a condition that the doctor claimed might have taken the guy's life at any moment.

     

    Stossel's blog is here with more info:
    abcnews.go.com/2020/St...

     

    "People line up for care. Some of them die. That's what happens," Dr. David Gratzer says of Canada's health care system.

     

    Gratzer, a Canadian doctor, thought Canada's government health care system was great -- until he started treating patients.

     

    --

     

    You're correct that the Canadian system does control cost, but it does so by rationing and denying healthcare, particularly to those judged to be in the last years of life, just as is the case in the UK. Realistically that does have to happen in any system because the technology to extend life has progressed much faster than our ability to pay for it, but don't pretend that the Canadian system isn't cutting costs by denying care.
    24 Jul 2011, 01:01 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3653) | Send Message
     
    kcr, no you won't find Americans traveling to Canada for healthcare. As Bob mentions some travel to Canada for the lasik type eye surgery treatments. What Bob didn't mention though is vision care in Alberta is not government single payer - it's handled through private insurance (often as in the US provided through employers). The result is vision care is more up to the level that it is in the US. I'm not sure given the Canadian dollar is up against the US dollar these days that one can save much by going for lasik in Canada though.
    24 Jul 2011, 01:21 AM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4558) | Send Message
     
    kcr357 -

     

    Actually both the American and the Canadian systems of health care delivery have their advantages and weaknesses. The advantage of the American system is the high quality of advanced services available, albeit at high cost to the individual, in a very timely manner. This provides the well to do and those employed in professional or senior management positions in companies prepared to offer such employees and their families with first class services in a timely fashion. The weakness of that system is the large number of persons who lack more than rudimentary coverage, the bureaucratic nature of processing claims under the welter of insurance plans, the gaps in eligibility and coverage even for many who can afford health insurance, lack of doctors and other health professionals to serve many rural and inner city populations. In short, the unevenness and diminishing quality of service as one moves down the socioeconomic ladder or if one has certain pre-existing conditions. Further, the total cost to both the public sector and the individual is much higher than elsewhere amongst the advanced modern nations

     

    The Canadian system does generally provide high quality service to all sectors of society in all areas of Canada. Persons are not excluded from coverage by reason of pre-existing conditions, the doctor-patient relationship is preserved from outside interference, patients are not reluctant to seek necessary care by reason of cost and payment for services is paradoxically less impacted by bureaucratic red tape than is the case in corresponding US service situations. The cost to both the public purse and the individual is generally much lower than in the US.

     

    Advanced technology and techniques are not lacking (for example, mitrial valve replacement through small incision is available in several Provinces) and is not reserved for those that can pay. The weakness of the system is that backlogs develop for some procedures of a non life threatening, non emergency nature because health care expenditures are channeled on a priority basis to allow more serious health needs to be met well and expeditiously. Backlogs of a more serious nature, usually resolved through reallocation or enhancements in resources within a few months, can also arise from time to time. It is a challenge to the Provinces and the Federal Government of Canada to control the growth in health care costs without increasing the likelihood that backlogs arise or continue.

     

    Life expectancy is not only a function of the nature and scope of health care systems. That said, the following three links set out the respective life expectancies across the UK, the US and Canada.

     

    www.guardian.co.uk/new...

     

    www.washingtonpost.com...

     

    www40.statcan.ca/l01/c...
    24 Jul 2011, 02:29 AM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4558) | Send Message
     
    Cincinnatus -

     

    I think in my recent response to kcr357 that I address most of your comments addresses to me. In particular, the three links at the conclusion of that response deal with many of the demographic issues in the UK, US and Canada for comparative purposes.

     

    It is true that the life expectancy profiles are not broken down by ethnicity and cultural origin.
    24 Jul 2011, 02:53 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Bob

     

    What is not measured at all is how the US subsidizes medical care for the rest of the globe as we overpay so they can underpay. So the comparison of US costs versus any other country is not apples to apples. If the US wants to lower our costs immediately we should demand that all pharma and medical device companies charge the same amounts for the products in the US as they do elsewhere in the world. That is we get most favored nation. And while we are at it give us a refund for the last 5 years of overcharging Americans.

     

    Then you would see prices rise globally and people die standing in line by the score in all these wonderful socialist health care systems.

     

    Let's level the playing field before we start comparing.
    24 Jul 2011, 09:45 AM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4558) | Send Message
     
    Tomas -

     

    You are correct to note that the US has historically given its pharma and medical device companies a very sweet deal indeed. It is, of course, up to the US to decide if it gets value for this cost.
    24 Jul 2011, 10:00 AM Reply Like
  • Smarty_Pants
    , contributor
    Comments (2851) | Send Message
     
    "Maybe we have to accept that there are costs associated with the indefinite extension of the human life span, and finally make a value judgment in dollars and cents what are those last few gasps of air worth?" - Tom

     

    I assume that when you use the term "we" you mean the government? Hasn't that been the net effect of Medicare and Medicaid? The government now gets to decide whether your life is "worth it" any more?

     

    Before Medicaid and Medicare, when old people got sick THEY were the ones who decided whether to spend their money on treatment, in effect making the very judgment on the value of their life which you are proposing "we" might need to begin making.

     

    Maybe Grandma would have chosen to die at home in her bed so her grandkids could go to college rather than spend all her money trying to live an extra 6 months, likely in great discomfort.

     

    I'm always amazed at how easily people insert themselves (or the government) into a position to run the lives of others via the use of the term "we". It's Grandma's life and it's Grandma's money. Why not butt out and let HER make the decisions?
    24 Jul 2011, 10:27 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Bob

     

    That value will come out of the hide of every other country including 3rd world countries without a hut to live in and countries like Canada that fool themselve into thinking socialism works as they receive an indirect subsidy from the US.
    24 Jul 2011, 04:05 PM Reply Like
  • Herr Hansa
    , contributor
    Comments (3080) | Send Message
     
    "If the US wants to lower our costs immediately we should demand that all pharma and medical device companies charge the same amounts for the products in the US as they do elsewhere in the world."

     

    That doesn't sound like a free market economy to me. It also sounds like you want the government to step in an accomplish this. Ironic.

     

    Claims from the big companies are that costs are high in the US because litigation costs are very high in the US, which also implies that insurance is expensive. Quite likely the prices are also at what the market will pay, and if there was less demand that might slightly lower drug and medical expenses.
    24 Jul 2011, 04:35 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4558) | Send Message
     
    Tomas -

     

    I truly fail to see how Canada has received a subsidy in this matter (or a subsidy from the US ever on any matter whatsoever).

     

    This would be like saying that the US and the rest of the world received a subsidy form Canada through Canada's development of a variety of rape seed plant from which humanly edible oil (yes, Canola - which is actually a play on 'Canada oil') could be commercially produced. The same could be said about several varieties of hard winter wheat developed by Canadian Government researchers.
    24 Jul 2011, 06:24 PM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (560) | Send Message
     
    Here is an article which has a lot of info relating to what we are discussing-www.nytimes.com/2006/1...
    24 Jul 2011, 06:40 PM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (560) | Send Message
     
    and thank you for the canadian low acid oil, it is my fav. after olive. The best for cooking with high temps as well.
    24 Jul 2011, 06:43 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Bob

     

    The pricing in the US is set by the marketplace and includes the recovery of the R&D investment of the pharma and device companies which can be billions of dollars. When US companies export they run into price controls from other countries so they must recover R&D and profit margin in the US. In poor countries the drugs or devices are sold at lower price points and are just additional revenue. Countries with price controls also include 1st world countries like Canada so either they decline to export or accept less in revenue.

     

    Hence the US carries all the other countries.
    25 Jul 2011, 12:00 AM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4558) | Send Message
     
    Tomas -

     

    The better interpretation is that the US pharma and device companies essentially price their products in the US so as to cover their total costs and some profit from those sale. Having covered the bulk of their production costs, they then can achieve further profits abroad even if their selling prices abroad are well below those in the US.

     

    Bottom line, the US pharma and device companies would not sell to Canadian and other foreign buyers if this did not add to their profit.
    25 Jul 2011, 02:01 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    2PP, he may be a hack, but, he's right. The chemical tanning covers up his red nose.
    25 Jul 2011, 04:24 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    The difference is HuffPo tells the truth. Fox does know the definition of truth. See what's going on in the UK.
    25 Jul 2011, 04:25 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3653) | Send Message
     
    Bob, you haven't addressed them. You throw out the life expectancy canard without noting that that's an issue of demographics, not quality of healthcare. The Canadian system would collapse if there were a large Hispanic immigrant population as is the case of California and Texas which comprises 20% of the US population and both are 40% Hispanic.

     

    Again below is the Statistics Canada link.
    www12.statcan.ca/engli...

     

    Note that even in absolute terms Alberta has little in the way of minorities, and relative to the US population is effectively monoethnic. One of the points of note here is you present Alberta as an example (as you did with the education discussion), which happens to be the most conservative of provinces and tends towards private market solutions, as in the vision care example you gave, as opposed to government take-overs.

     

    As far as availability of care, as the Stossel piece points out it's not good in Canada. Lack of doctors with 1.7 million without access to a regular doctor, long waiting lists to get in for diagnosis and treatment, below US standards for all but the most routine of treatments. Keep in mind this is all going on within a country that is booming now with an economy that is commodity and export driven. To take your Alberta example it's now known as the "Saudi Arabia of Oil Sands". Any fall in the Canadian boom is going to see a Canadian healthcare system stretched to the limit.
    25 Jul 2011, 02:40 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3653) | Send Message
     
    Canada receives a subsidy because the US consumer bears the R&D cost. If it were not for the US consumer bearing this cost you wouldn't have these products in Canada. The Canola oil example is a disingenuous red herring because as you well know the US doesn't cap what Canadian producers may charge for Canola oil. It's a comical comparison to make.
    25 Jul 2011, 02:46 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4558) | Send Message
     
    Cincinnatus -

     

    You sometimes seem obsessed by the Hispanic influx issue (A bit like the outcry in what is now Canada when the Irish famine refugees, from which I'm partly descended, appeared in great numbers and within 20 years constituted the largest ethnic group in what is now Ontario and New Brunswick and the second largest one in what is now Quebec besides the French). I assure you that Canada has a large population of new immigrants from across the world and that First Nations people, from whom I'm partly descended, are the fastest growing population group through birth. All this is especially evident in the major urban centres (although this fact is obscured when one looks a Province wide statistics).

     

    In sum, we in Canada face the challenge of meeting the needs of these substantial diverse population, are doing so willingly and are generally being successfully.

     

    Unfortunately, I am unaware of ready sources of demographic analysis to substantiate my claims to your satisfaction.
    25 Jul 2011, 03:03 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Bob

     

    You are repeating my point but coming at if from another angle. But the overriding point is that other countries do not pay the true cost of these medicines or devices.
    25 Jul 2011, 04:39 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4558) | Send Message
     
    Tomas -

     

    If the US chooses to subsidize this industry by allowing companies in this field to charge higher prices domestically than abroad, why should Canadians and others also subsidize those companies? This all arises because of choices the US Government and consumers are choosing to make and would change if the US Government and consumers demanded world competitive pricing domestically. The US manufacturers would then lower US prices and probably raise foreign prices selectively. The US companies would probably lose some market share abroad to foreign competitors but they are well situated to compete globally.

     

    In short, the US is enabling US companies to compete on price in foreign markets by allowing those companies to inflate their domestic US prices. Foreign consumers gain; US consumers lose; Foreign companies lose somewhat: US companies have an advantage in the foreign export market. This could all be changed if the US so wanted.
    25 Jul 2011, 07:32 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3653) | Send Message
     
    Bob, what I have an obsession with is the honest presentation of data which you decline to do. What you'd rather do is play the race card when the data doesn't back up your claims. This is a demographics issue and the Statistics Canada data is quite clear. There is little in the way of minorities, particularly in Alberta the source of your example. If you're going to start playing a game of the Irish decendants are different than English decendants then that's a game you can play in the US as well. It's just not relevant to the demographic groups that are the real source of the divergences.
    25 Jul 2011, 08:13 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Bob

     

    That is not an accurate potrayal. What US companies face is price controls in other countries forcing them to raise prices in the US. Many of these drugs don't even have competition.

     

    Agree with your point that we should pass laws around MFN treatment for US citizens. Canada and many other countries will be shocked at the result.
    25 Jul 2011, 08:18 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3653) | Send Message
     
    "The US manufacturers would then lower US prices and probably raise foreign prices selectively."

     

    Which they would do but for the issue of price controls in Canada that you keep ignoring.
    25 Jul 2011, 08:18 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Also, since the profits are made offshore, on the backs of the American people, they can claim these profits offshore and keep it offshore. Kind of like they are doing with trillions of dollars that once again the American people help them accrue.
    25 Jul 2011, 09:43 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3653) | Send Message
     
    Monngie, leave it to you to go on the attack and completely confuse issues. If GM produces cars in Canada and makes a profit selling them there, then they're perfectly within their rights to keep the profits there. That has nothing to do with countries imposing price controls in order to shift the burden of costs onto citizens of other countries, a discriminatory act that should be prohibited.
    26 Jul 2011, 01:26 AM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4558) | Send Message
     
    Cincinnatus -

     

    Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that the US Government follows similar practices to those to which you object when negotiating with drug companies for drugs to treat armed forces personnel and veterans. I understand that some US HMOs and private health insurance plans follow analogous strategies to contain costs.

     

    An important point here is that no one forces a drug company to conclude an agreement to sell at a preferred rate. It is true, however, that governments, service providers and insurers use their control of buying power to negotiate preferred pricing.
    26 Jul 2011, 02:13 AM Reply Like
  • rwdurham
    , contributor
    Comments (67) | Send Message
     
    Depending on how much has been bought on margin, this could be a very dark Monday!
    22 Jul 2011, 09:06 PM Reply Like
  • Tom Armistead
    , contributor
    Comments (5427) | Send Message
     
    There has been talk that Boehner drinks too much:

     

    www.huffingtonpost.com...

     

    Perhaps the negotiations were getting in the way of his drinking. Maybe he just wanted to sip a little of his favorite merlot at any of his various watering holes.
    22 Jul 2011, 09:23 PM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (560) | Send Message
     
    Hey, he has a disease. I thought you guys were the compassionate ones?
    22 Jul 2011, 10:36 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Tom

     

    Is this more of your facts that I should respond to?

     

    You are a research machine. How can I keep up? I need to go out to Huffpo for the hard news.
    23 Jul 2011, 12:05 AM Reply Like
  • Tom Armistead
    , contributor
    Comments (5427) | Send Message
     
    You could use a search engine - Google or Yahoo will do - type in "Boehner drinking problem", follow the links and read the articles. They don't all come from the Huffington Post.

     

    You could follow the links to the interviews where Boehner starts crying. This guy can get worked up to where he cries when interviewed.

     

    You could note his his complexion and the look of his eyes and form your own impression.
    23 Jul 2011, 05:35 AM Reply Like
  • lowemoran
    , contributor
    Comments (130) | Send Message
     
    There has been talk that Obama uses drugs:

     

    "he used marijuana and cocaine ("maybe a little blow".) Oddly enough, he writes that he didn't try heroin because -- wait for it -- he didn't like the pusher who was selling it. (Weren't there any other reasons?)"...

     

    www.realchange.org/oba...
    23 Jul 2011, 09:56 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3653) | Send Message
     
    More of Tom's character attacks. Tom I thought by your statement much earlier that you would be against character attacks? Or is it that you're just for hypocrisy?

     

    Try a search on "Obama Kenyan citizenship". I guess that proves Obama is Kenyan. Correct? Or maybe it just proves someone is getting pretty senile?
    23 Jul 2011, 12:18 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Tommy

     

    Lighten up. You are in too deep emotionally and you accuse Boehner of being emotional. Pot meet kettle.
    24 Jul 2011, 09:47 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Can't attack Boehner's character.......he has none.
    25 Jul 2011, 09:53 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3165) | Send Message
     
    What is sad about the whole "negotiation" is that it doesn't even scratch the surface!

     

    Where is the debate about making SS retirement age 70 or 72.

     

    Where is the debate about whether we close 2 Federal Agencies or 4?

     

    Where is the debate about whether or not we cut 150 Billion a year from Defense spending or 75 Billion?

     

    That would actual be a negotiation. It would represent that our political class has identified the problem and wants to deal with it.

     

    Right now, we have one side that wants to talk about cuts but proposes a budget that doesn't balance the budget until 2065. The other side just wants to keep spending like drunken sailors and not bother with a budget. Just raise taxes on that guy named rich. If he sells 10 or 20 of his jets everything will be fine.

     

    What happened to the "home of the free and the land of the brave".

     

    Now we seem to be the "home of the government check and land of the entitled".
    22 Jul 2011, 09:36 PM Reply Like
  • Agbug
    , contributor
    Comments (1133) | Send Message
     
    Am I missing something here on who sets the legislative agenda?

     

    From Wikipedia, "Article one of the Constitutions states; Section Seven deals with legislative procedure, providing that all bills for revenue must originate in the House of Representative. The section also introduces the veto power of the President of the United States, and describes its powers and limitations."

     

    As much as so many would like to blame Obama for, well for pretty much everything, until the House and Senate send him a bill and he vetoes it, he's only a cheerleader on the sidelines. That's the way I learned it in high school so long ago.
    22 Jul 2011, 10:01 PM Reply Like
  • Tom Armistead
    , contributor
    Comments (5427) | Send Message
     
    That's how it works.
    22 Jul 2011, 10:03 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3165) | Send Message
     
    I believe the House has passed a budget bill this year. The Senate has not (despite being required to by law)

     

    I believe that last year (when both houses were held by Democrats) that neither the House nor the Senate passed budgets.

     

    And where was the outcry about that?

     

    I would agree that Obama is pretty much a cheerleader. He's supposed to be the quarterback and the team captain.... But its much easier to just jump around on the sidelines, chanting nice slogans, and waving pom-poms.
    22 Jul 2011, 10:47 PM Reply Like
  • Agbug
    , contributor
    Comments (1133) | Send Message
     
    The outcry was Rick Sentelli on CNBC, and the Tea Party was born and came into being in the 2010 elections. Now we have divided government as a result. That threw the whole system out of whack and I for one am not surprised by this drama. Many predicted it would come down to this.

     

    I've asked myself, why, no matter what party is "in power" things don't ever really change that much? Same un-ending wars, same bailouts, same handouts, same studies of why it's dark at night, lower taxes for everyone, yea. The logical answer is "Because there really isn't much difference between them." My cheerleader comment was not meant to be derisive of Obama. Cheerleader, captain, each one is on the sidelines cheering the players on. This is by design and I think it's actually working for a change, now that the tea party shook up the status quo.

     

    I think it's great that this is such a popular topic. It's about time.
    23 Jul 2011, 01:38 AM Reply Like
  • 867046
    , contributor
    Comments (398) | Send Message
     
    Ag,

     

    One of the realities of republican triangulation is that for many reasons, Obama had to kill OBL in order to wind down Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Otherwise they would play the national security scare card again.
    23 Jul 2011, 02:25 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    I like division in government, rancor, shut downs, impasses. It means the fools are in the straitjacket, which is always good, even here with the debt ceiling. 'Not getting a deal done' is fine by me. What is a default, technical or no? If we miss the interest on a bond payment, it would cause a panic. Okay, fine. Now what? Treasury issuance would dry up. Fine, now what? Interest rates would rise. Aha. Now that's starting to sound great for a change. What happens if interest rates rise? It means government can't spend anymore. Awwww, well that's just sad isn't it? Government can't spend. So sad.

     

    Meanwhile the market takes a huge dumper. Okay, fine. But we work through it. Might take a few years, but we finally get to taste the medicine and work it out of the system as government shrinks faster than an Olson twin's ass.

     

    Sorry govt stiff. But yeah, you suck. You're fired!

     

    Meanwhile the strong survive. We rebuild. C'mon lefties, I thought you believed in Darwin. Here's your dream come true, unfolding right before your eyes. Take care of yourselves... for once.

     

    Go watch Mad Max. Relearn all those wonderful little boy scout lessons again. How to make a fire, tie a knot and fire a 22 LR round downrange into a 10 by 10 piece of scratch paper from 100 yards.

     

    Buh bye government. You suck! Freedom. Why is it so threatening to everyone? Sorry lefties. But find your own way. To me, I'd rather have anarchy than the path we're on now to total control. Give me liberty or....(fill in the blank).

     

    Please default. Please?
    23 Jul 2011, 11:53 AM Reply Like
  • Herr Hansa
    , contributor
    Comments (3080) | Send Message
     
    You should move to Somalia. They haven't had a functioning government in 20 years.

     

    I think what you forget is that when interest rates rise, the rates on loans, many based upon the 10 year note, also rise. This increases borrowing costs for all businesses. Profits go down. Earnings go down. I'll let you figure out the rest of that path.
    23 Jul 2011, 01:49 PM Reply Like
  • Agbug
    , contributor
    Comments (1133) | Send Message
     
    Not only does it indicate the Feds are in a straight jacket and hamstrung, much as the original framers of the Constitution intended, IMO as I learned in civics in high school, rising interest rates would also provide some investment alternative to those individuals that practiced thrift and savings. They (me and many more like me) are being severely penalized for doing what should have been the right thing. I have benefitted in PM's, though I would rather not have to. Many individuals are just not in a position to take this route. I have to keep a German Shephard around to warn me to go get my other German thing. I'd rather keep it in the bank.

     

    The government is promoting consumption before production. Or consumption here and production in some other country maybe. Either way, I'm with Wyatt on this one. We are living in a depression masked by deficits and ZIRP.
    23 Jul 2011, 02:19 PM Reply Like
  • Rookie IRA Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (2640) | Send Message
     
    Haiti also has no effective government and an excellent climate.
    23 Jul 2011, 05:00 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    I know. You've lobbed the Somalia card again and again. I've shot it down again and again. You bore me.

     

    As far as rates rising, that's good. Borrowing costs that were too low is what got us into bubble formation. Increase the borrowing costs, fine. It would be welcomed. Profits go down. Earnings go down. For awhile. Yes, for awhile.

     

    Then, government shrinks & exits. Government is finally forced to contract. Great. And then we can start the process again of what Americans used to be good at, namely being novel, creative and industrious.

     

    We can do this the hard way or the organic, natural way. We can lower taxes now, keep them low and cut government spending simultaneously. Or, we can raise taxes and keep government spending where it is... forever and be stuck with low growth... forever.

     

    I would rather we took the hit and forced government to contract so that the private sector could finally come and pick up the pieces. As it stands, government will keep the blood drain on the neck of private industry and growth will be a slow creep. Its Munchausen By Proxy where our mother is giving us just enough rat poison not to kill us, but to keep us sick & immobile.
    23 Jul 2011, 05:03 PM Reply Like
  • Herr Hansa
    , contributor
    Comments (3080) | Send Message
     
    Actually, that's the first time I ever mentioned Somalia. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.

     

    Take a look at the wind-down of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Private industry is stepping in, but slowly, and not all at once. It seems you have this incredible impatience about you that wants things all at once. Perhaps that is that "fast food mentality" mentioned in the news. ;-)

     

    Why not push for privatization? That would seem to solve all your desires. Take each Federal Government entity, and privatize it.

     

    My personal feeling is that there are just too many people. Perhaps it's that marvelous health care system. Unfortunately people just do not die fast enough, or it would solve the unemployment issue, and make funding Social Security and Medicare far less of a problem.

     

    P.S. - Please read with a little sarcasm and humor.
    24 Jul 2011, 02:25 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Wyatt will be the first to whine when everything goes to hell in a handbasket.
    25 Jul 2011, 10:14 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    If your bored Wyatt, go to Somalia. There's a lot of excitement in trying to keep your ass alive for one more minute while looking for your next meal.

     

    Bon Voyage
    25 Jul 2011, 10:16 PM Reply Like
  • Agbug
    , contributor
    Comments (1133) | Send Message
     
    Since I raised the issue, here's the text of the actual Article 1;

     

    Clause 1: Bills of revenue “
    All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

     

    Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law." end of clause.

     

    That would indicate that Boenher and Reid own this little problem for now. Obama might as well go play a round.
    22 Jul 2011, 10:22 PM Reply Like
  • Origa
    , contributor
    Comments (545) | Send Message
     
    The Real problem in this bill, is the sentence

     

    "If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law"

     

    "two thirds", the US is most likely the only nation on Earth that require this. It should be changed.
    23 Jul 2011, 04:48 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    I'd make the threshold to pass even higher. Unlike you, I'm not a fan of 'change' or lots-of-fun new laws for that matter. Most new laws suck. They are burdens. There should be a law that for every new law, 10 old laws must be killed. I don't like all these neato ideas that government comes up with. The less of them the better. The less agreement they have, the better. Then there's less the chance that they have to control me, steal from me or destroy me.
    23 Jul 2011, 11:58 AM Reply Like
  • Origa
    , contributor
    Comments (545) | Send Message
     
    So you agree on change is important but also, it should be controlled.

     

    The No change idea, will not work, the Arab nations have revolted and thrown dictators out of the door.

     

    You dont like the laws that washington produce, so would a suggestion that a senate commitee beeing established, so, concerns, must be adressed before a law is passed.

     

    Would that be a change you would like, or should there be added something to it before it is acceptable?
    23 Jul 2011, 12:50 PM Reply Like
  • Adult
    , contributor
    Comments (18) | Send Message
     
    This is the plan :

     

    1. If Obama don't accept GOP's budget plan,US will defualt,whole world go down with US,Obama won't be re-elected.

     

    2. If Obama accept GOP's budget plan,the poor (huge amout of voters) will suffer,Obama won't be re-elected.

     

    GOP always has perfect plan !
    22 Jul 2011, 10:26 PM Reply Like
  • Good Captain
    , contributor
    Comments (456) | Send Message
     
    You forgot the other alternative Adult:

     

    If the GOP jointly kicks the can down the road w/ Obama (per the Democrats' plan), both one and two occur probably sometime in '12 or after. Most importantly (from your perspective) I don't know who wins in '12, sorry.

     

    I find it very illuminating that most of those arguing for the "blank check" approach (i.e.., raising the debt ceiling w/ out major structural changes) seem most passionate about the upcoming Presidential election in '12 and who wins than the substantive logic supporting the position itself.
    23 Jul 2011, 12:07 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Trouble with that is that the American people are smarter than that "sometimes".

     

    They know who to blame and the GOP is walking around with a big "budget crisis target" on their backs.
    25 Jul 2011, 10:23 PM Reply Like
  • Marlin Keith DeBramaletta
    , contributor
    Comments (262) | Send Message
     
    House Speaker Boehner is respected because he has been delegated by his Congressional peers as the House Speaker. With much admiration the debt ceiling debate would be more in lines with a Congressional budgetary committee or appropriations committee. Boehner's input matters, but the Gang of Six has the political spotlight, and they are senior to his junior, and they pitched a plan. The contingency plan is a short term raise, and the court system will battle with a President who has Harvard Law to his credentials with the highest executive political position.
    22 Jul 2011, 11:53 PM Reply Like
  • Rose_Colored_Glasses
    , contributor
    Comments (955) | Send Message
     
    Why doesn't anyone ask the President why he voted against raising the debt ceiling when he was a Senator from the Corrupt State of Illinois? All of a sudden it is a good idea?
    23 Jul 2011, 12:29 AM Reply Like
  • retire early
    , contributor
    Comments (51) | Send Message
     
    So you imply that Illinois is corrupt yet no other states are? Talking about rose colored glasses....
    23 Jul 2011, 05:59 AM Reply Like
  • tigersam
    , contributor
    Comments (1711) | Send Message
     
    All countries are corrupt except US. You need to travel Rose.
    23 Jul 2011, 06:06 AM Reply Like
  • Rose_Colored_Glasses
    , contributor
    Comments (955) | Send Message
     
    I live and work in Mexico Tiger. The reason I single out Illinois is that they currently have 2 governors either in jail or headed to jail. I know of no other state that has achieved this.
    23 Jul 2011, 08:38 AM Reply Like
  • tigersam
    , contributor
    Comments (1711) | Send Message
     
    Rose:

     

    That proves the point. If you are corrupt you go to prison in US. You are Mexico then I got a question for you. Mexico is blessed with same natural resources as US. People there are smart as US. Why these people are crossing the borders and want to come to US. And the answer is US is the land of braves and opportunity.
    23 Jul 2011, 12:06 PM Reply Like
  • 2PP
    , contributor
    Comments (349) | Send Message
     
    What does your point have to do with the systemic corruption in the state of Illinois? Particularly Cook County?
    23 Jul 2011, 07:38 PM Reply Like
  • GotLife
    , contributor
    Comments (1336) | Send Message
     
    Isn't a Daley Chief of Staff, a Jarrett chief advisor, a Rahm former Chief of Staff? A Tony Rezko sitting in jail waiting for the Guv he supported to become a cell mate?

     

    Corrupt Illinois politics seems pretty relevant to me.
    24 Jul 2011, 12:31 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    The point is the crooks went to jail. The system worked. The politicians were corrupt not the system or the state.

     

    Come on 2PP and Rose, you two are smart.......aren't you?
    25 Jul 2011, 10:30 PM Reply Like
  • Marlin Keith DeBramaletta
    , contributor
    Comments (262) | Send Message
     
    This was reassuring if credible. www.huffingtonpost.com... I would love to see the actual receipts to be 100% sure.
    23 Jul 2011, 12:52 AM Reply Like
  • 867046
    , contributor
    Comments (398) | Send Message
     
    "The current (congressional) oath was enacted in 1884: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
    23 Jul 2011, 01:45 AM Reply Like
  • rwkoch
    , contributor
    Comments (18) | Send Message
     
    I don't like what I am hearing. It seems that the senate and house can get nothing done. Maybe the repulican/democrat thing is not working as they can agree on nothing. Just wait until election time and we need to clean house and start over.
    23 Jul 2011, 02:42 AM Reply Like
  • valueinvestor123
    , contributor
    Comments (327) | Send Message
     
    If you want real change then you need to vote for Ron Paul. Do not let the mainstream media tell you that he cannot win. They only tell you that so that you will vote the status quo. Let others raise billions. In the end, votes matter and if enough people vote for Ron Paul than he can win.
    23 Jul 2011, 07:30 AM Reply Like
  • enigmaman
    , contributor
    Comments (2686) | Send Message
     
    The Rep. and Dem. seemed to agree on a plan for debt reduction and additional tax rev. but Obama refused to accept the terms at the 11th hour because he wanted more and wanted it in plain sight. Meaning, any tax revenue generated would need to be shown coming as a result of tax rate increases on the rich (Obama Pts) not just from a reworking of the tax code (Rep. Pts) This is where the discussion fell apart.

     

    Obama clearly over played his hand and now tries to blame the Republicans. He suggested that discussion notes will verify the Rep killed the debate, the Rep disagree. So lets see the notes to determine who is actually working to undermine these important debt ceiling talks.
    23 Jul 2011, 07:31 AM Reply Like
  • Rookie IRA Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (2640) | Send Message
     
    I don´t know. See here for a summary of the different proposals.

     

    www.telegraph.co.uk/fi...

     

    It is always a case of the devil being in the details. Just saying ¨Medicare cutbacks´´ is one thing, but detailing how they are to be implemented is another.

     

    Bottom line is that the US is in the process of becoming a poorer nation and we are all going to have to tighten our belts in one way or another. The negotiations are a process of discovering the fairest outcome and the one that offers the best long term outcome, or the least damaging long term outcome, depending on how you look at it.
    23 Jul 2011, 12:27 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Nah. I'm so tired of this cliche that 'the US is in the process of becoming a poorer nation.' We're in the process of changing what cannot be sustained, or more like forced into it(thank God), but America is different. We find a way. Let me explain it for you.

     

    If medicare dried up, it would be the best thing to happen for this country. If social security was disbanded, it would also be the best thing to happen to this country. Don't be so short sighted.

     

    Medicare is what is causing health premiums to inflate. So is medicaid. These are not free market programs. They are destroying healthcare. Price and wage controls never work even as they didn't in the old Soviet Union. Get rid of them. These programs are killing old people by already rationing care. Get the free market back into the game. If there was no longer any paystub coercion, just GONE, think about that for a minute, the employer now would be very incentivized(and could afford it) to offer their own healthcare. Also hospitals could lower their costs as price controls went away. 'Insurance' wouldn't be necessary to offset the losers(higher health risks) with the winners(never see the doctor). Competition could bloom. HMOs wouldn't be necessary anymore. They were created to mitigate risk in the first place. Now we're derisking the entire industry. Malpractice reform would bring the costs down also. Get government and its nod to the BAR out of the healthcare system. It is destroying our economy.

     

    Moving on....

     

    Social security is starving seniors, after robbing them their entire lives at gunpoint(try to tell your employer you want to opt out, go ahead try it, heh). Now they are taking it out with no more YOY COLAs ad perpetuum. Robbed twice and hope you die, then they don't have to pay the person at all. Robbed three times.

     

    The farce of SS is giving people the false impression that they don't have to take personal responsibility. Government will take care of your retirement(along with everything else). And so they are turned into irresponsible consumers in the meantime, putting that tab on society to care of them. Besides, its a ponzi. Look at how successful Chile was when they reformed their program. Look at Estonia. Look at the success of personal responsibility, small government involvement and freedom in countries that turn their retirement systems into personal individual pension accounts that are not controlled by politicians. Those programs are flush, solvent and create long term wealth and security. Meanwhile we are impoverishing Americans, starving old people and saying the program is great(lie). Why is our government even in the business of stealing from grandma and grandpa? Where is this in the Constitution again? We could have been the wealthiest country on the planet if we just didn't divert from the original document. FDR has been taking his VIG on every American ever since. Meanwhile our politicians have raided from the 'general fund', turning it into a banal tax(this was court manipulation) and robbing the trust.

     

    We could do this all day with everything the government tries to do, which is enslave us, make us poorer etc.

     

    And even when one side merely mentions reform of these programs they are shouted down. Bush Jr. only wanted to make 2% of SS private, and even then it would have been in a controlled account. And Nancy Pelosi hysterically shrieked then. My God people, please read about Chile. Educate yourselves. Our government is sick, corrupt and on the take.
    23 Jul 2011, 05:24 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    When you step back and think about it the job of a politician is to enslave you because only then do they have power. In the US the enslavement comes from a co-dependent relationship. I give my vote and you give me money.
    24 Jul 2011, 12:50 AM Reply Like
  • Duude
    , contributor
    Comments (3384) | Send Message
     
    House democrats are almost 100% against any trimming of entitlements. Any bill will have to be acceptable to 80% of House Republicans. Obama's eleventh hour moving of the goal posts, yet again, was at the request of House democrats. Its no wonder we can't get this done. Obama's team has failed to negotiate in good faith. By all accounts it appears they want Congress to raise the debt ceiling but with no cuts at all. That's the position they started with back in January 2011.
    23 Jul 2011, 08:37 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    There's a false assumption made and propagated by the media that if government can't do something for you, then you're helpless. That if a government program is reduced or eradicat