Everyone. As for everything else I disagree with your assessment on health care and what you seem to see as an inevitable recovery of the economy in the near future. I don't believe either party can face this issue head on because both parties want to give the false assurance that all is well, no one has to sacrifice anything they value and bad days are pushed further and further into the future which is completely unsustainable. The problem is the system joe, its the system or the model that has become unsustainable.
No it isn't. Has the entire population played a roll? Based on that logic, I should not bear any responsiblity in paying off the debt. Because I was against everything that led to this mess from the get go. But that is not going to happen. At the moment we have two competing buget plans in Washington. The Republcian plan would shift the burden to the lower and middle classes by taking away Medicare and Medicaid. The Democrat plan shifts the burden to the wealthiest among us (defined as those earning more than 250k per year).
Good. It is what we have always done. As previously pointed it out it is the best way to solve our debt issues. And I just pointed out to you how powerful a growing economy can be to solving the nations debt woes with a real and current example. Two, no one is advocating that we should only rely on growth alone. That is the reason for this post. Who should bear the burden? That is not signficant. Gasoline prices spike for a lot of reasons unrelated to the economy (e.g. speculators) and they also fall.
Everyone will have to bear the burden but they should start with all I mentioned in previous posts but whether they will is another subject all together. Its impossible to solve this issue without cutting programs that benefit the poor or without taxing the middle class.
What is my assesment of healthcare? As for the economy it is growing now. There is nothing inevitable about it, it has happened and continues to happen. The economy is in recovery and getting better. We have been out of recession for some time now. All of this can be and has been proven time and time again. It is verifiable and real. Your refusal to acknowledge facts is just exactly what Republicans/Tea Partiers have and continue to do. The fact that the economy is now growing is not guarantee that it will continue to grow by the way. Republicans/Tea Partiers have a great opportunity to destroy the economy in the months ahead by refusing to raise the debt ceiling. I don't know what you mean by the "system" and claims that things are not sustainable.
With all due respect, that's only your assumption. You're assuming that the debt is only due to policies you didn't support, and if you look at the reality objectively, you would be forced to admit that isn't true. Bad policy was pursued by both sides of the aisle. Come on, that's not a fair representation of your opposition's position. You're way oversimplifying the issue to demonize the other side. Let's have a fair, objective, rational, and respectful discussion of the issue that entertains ideas from all sides.
You don't seem to see the flaws in Obama care. As Walker said 'imagine health care as a house, the house is on a bad foundation and the structure needs refurbishing' what Obama care does is build another wing while ignoring the structure and foundation. This economic deregulated model and using debt and consumption to grow is unsustainable. By the way where is the savings for future programs going to come from? Obama care costs money to implement and medicare and medicaid is growing in costs. It rains on republicans and democrats equally and the poor and middle class will also get wet.
No it's not, I am an Independent. I did not support the repeal of Glass-Stegal nor did I support the unfunded wars, tax cuts or expansion of entitlements that occured over the course of the last 11 years. And I have been a tax paying productive member of society the entire time..not taking one dime from government. If you think it's unfair please correct it and/or explain how it is not fair. The Republican plan kills Medicare and Medicaid by shifting the costs of those programs from government to individuals.
You know what? I don't remember people on the streets protesting Glass-Stegal and the anti-war movement was minuscule compared to those who supported the war. You are an american, you are responsible for your government and the decisions they make that affect YOU. So you cannot now sit back and say 'I didn't support...'. Its too late for that. Where are the demonstrators demanding jail time for the fraud and insisting on banking regulation? Why wasn't it demanded of Obama to set a precedence so this cannot happen again?
Not sure about "demonstrators," but Matt Taibbi has literally made a career out of issuing such calls in his Rolling Stone columns. Also, this thread needs some consideration of how monetary policy (i.e., inflation) will affect the debt/growth, and which parts of the polity will be affected in which ways by that. A major difference between individual or corporate debt and sovereign debt is that a sovereign can manipulate the value of the currency that the debt is denominated in.
I'm simply pointing out that those who disagreed with those policies didn't make themselves known on the streets. Now you have the Tea Party movement doing so and small as they are they affect policy even if they are wide of the point. I'm addressing apathy.
LOL that a good laugh. world energy demand is at or exceeding conventional sources, and unconventional sources are more expensive, stocks aren't going to get around this. Oil prices are likely to swing wildly over the next years just like Whale oil did when demand exceeded supply in the 1850's
The nominal debt will increase significantly almost every year during the next 20 but inflation will be very high over the next 20 years and inflation will significantly reduce the debt as a percentage of GDP. So according to my prediction it is the debt owners who end up paying for the debt as inflation causes the debt holders to be repaid with less valuable dollars.
Recent prices in the US for gasoline have had very little to do with worldwide oil demand. If you have not noticed, gasoline prices in the United States has been at levels not seen since the George II administration when oil was selling for 150 dollars per barrel. Oil until recently was selling for 110 dollars perr barrel, now oil is selling for under $100 per barrel and what are you paying for gasoline? As for your long term oil price predicition, when have oil prices not swung up and down? But over the long term, oil prices are headed upward unless and until The United States adopts a sane rational long term energy policy...which is probably not very likely.
When did I say that the Patient Protection and Care Act (AKA Obamacare) was not flawed? I never made such a statement, because clearly it is flawed. But I have said that the Patient Protection and Care Act (PPCA) is better than our current system of healthcare. To be more exact, it is at least a trillion dollars better than the system it replaced per the Congressional Budget Office. No that is not true. Walker is using a false analogy. The Patient Protection and Patient Care Act (Obamacare) is not a house. It is a healthcare system which provides universal access to healthcare; spreads the costs of the system more equitabily and seeks to reduce healthcare costs by regulating it like a ultility (that means the creation an collection of metrics). The healthcare industry in the US has been to date a black box. Under Obamacare it provides the basis for the collection of metrics, something the industry have fought against tooth and nail. Because with public information, with visibility, the nation can start making more rational healthcare decisions. Where is this "economic deregulated model"? It does not exist in The United States. Healthcare in The United States is probably the most regulated industry in the country, regulated at virtually all levels of government across all fifty states. So where do you get this notion of an "deregulated model" with respect to healthcare in The United States? Additionally, Medicare is not a part of the Patient Protection and Healthcare Act. Under PPCA (Obamacare) Medicare remains a seperate program. There is nothing about the PPCA (Obamacare) that has anything to do with Medicare other than the fact that the PPCA closes the prescription drug donut hole in Medicare and removes the subsidies provided to insurance companies and drug companies added by Republicans in 2003. Yes PPCA or Obamacare does cost money to implement. But does it really matter when the bottom line is a trillion dollar savings, including the implementation costs? I don't think so. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10311/06-16-ConradLetter.htm PPCA is not a house, but it is a foundation which could support more savings and better healthcare for the citizens of this country. Unfortunately it is probably the best the US can produce given how much power special interests have over the goverment. I would prefer a universal healthcare system similar to that found in other industrial countries like Canada, Europe and Japan. But given the power of special interests in this country and the power they have over our government and our media and our people, we are damn lucky we have PPCA. I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
@Joe Is Obama care fiscally sensible? That's the question not whether its better than the current system which of course we don't know as yet. Walker didn't say Obama care was a house his analogy says its a 'wing' of a house that is built on an unsound foundation. How is obama care going to cap health care costs Joe? Deregulation timeline: http://www.google.com/#q=financial ...Cg&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=144eaa32e2599431 An in depth look at economic deregulation: http://www.openthegovernment.org/sites/default/files/otg/dereg-timeline-2009-07.pdf If you can ask such a question 'what deregulation model' then your entire assessment of what is going on is skewed because you are not even aware of what happened to allow system failure. No wonder you were not out on the streets protesting, you didn't even know it was happening!!! Bush may have tanked it but Clinton paved the way. • 1978, Marquette vs. First of Omaha – Supreme Court allows banks to export the usury laws of their home state nationwide and sets off a competitive wave of deregulation, resulting in the complete elimination of usury rate ceilings in South Dakota and Delaware, among others. • 1980, Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act – Legislation increases deposit insurance from $40,000 to $100,000, authorizes new authority to thrift institutions, and calls for the complete phase-out of interest rate ceilings on deposit accounts. • 1982, Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act – Bill deregulates thrifts almost entirely, allowing commercial lending and providing for a new account to compete with money market mutual funds. This was a Reagan administration initiative that passed with strong bi-partisan support. • 1987, FSLIC Insolvency – GAO declares the deposit insurance fund of the savings and loan industry to be insolvent as a result of mounting institutional failures. • 1989, Financial Institutions Reform and Recovery Act – Act abolishes the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and FSLIC, transferring them to OTS and the FDIC, respectively. The plan also creates the Resolution Trust Corporation to resolve failed thrifts. • 1994, Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act – This bill eliminated previous restrictions on interstate banking and branching. It passed with broad bi- partisan support. 1996, Fed Reinterprets Glass-Steagall – Federal Reserve reinterprets the Glass-Steagall Act several times, eventually allowing bank holding companies to earn up to 25 percent of their revenues in investment banking. • 1998, Citicorp-Travelers Merger – Citigroup, Inc. merges a commercial bank with an insurance company that owns an investment bank to form the world’s largest financial services company. • 1999, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act – With support from Fed Chairman Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Rubin and his successor Lawrence Summers, the bill repeals the Glass-Steagall Act completely. • 2000, Commodity Futures Modernization Act – Passed with support from the Clinton Administration, including Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, and bi-partisan support in Congress. The bill prevented the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from regulating most over-the-counter derivative contracts, including credit default swaps. • 2004, Voluntary Regulation – The SEC proposes a system of voluntary regulation under the Consolidated Supervised Entities program, allowing investment banks to hold less capital in reserve and increase leverage. • 2007, Subprime Mortgage Crisis – Defaults on subprime loans send shockwaves throughout the secondary mortgage market and the entire financial system. • December 2007, Term Auction Facility – Special liquidity facility of the Federal Reserve lends to depository institutions. Unlike lending through the discount window, there is no public disclosure on loans made through this facility. • March 2008, Bear Stearns Collapse – The investment bank is sold to JP Morgan Chase with assistance from the Federal Reserve. • March 2008, Primary Dealer Facilities – Special lending facilities open the discount window to investment banks, accepting a broad range of asset-backed securities as collateral. • July 2008, Housing and Economic Recovery Act – Provides guarantees on new mortgages to subprime borrowers and authorizes a new federal agency, the FHFA, which eventually places Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship. • September 2008, Lehman Brothers Collapse – Investment bank files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. • October 2008, Emergency Economic Stabilization Act – Bill authorizes the Treasury to establish the Troubled Asset Relief Program to purchase distressed mortgage-backed securities and inject capital into the nation’s banking system. Also increases deposit insurance from $100,000 to $250,000. • Late 2008, Money Market Liquidity Facilities – Federal Reserve facilities created to facilitate the purchase of various money market instruments. • March 2009, Public-Private Investment Program – Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner introduces his plan to subsidize the purchase of toxic assets with government guarantees. You have no idea what I am trying to say? I'm saying that the republicans and democrats have the same mistress (wall street) and I'm saying you are dreaming if the american people are not going to pay from this out of their own dwindling finances and loss of social services and lowered standard of living.
You just don't like the answers Lucy. The answers are there for someone with a mind to find them. The answers were there in my last post. The letter from the CBO discussed the cost savings. Your refusal to acknowledge same does not mean they don't exist. LOL, we were talking about your references to deregulation in the healthcare industry Lucy, we were not talking about deregulation of all industries. Now you are opening the conversation up to the financial and other industries. The discussion Lucy was healthcare...one of them minor details. Two when have I advocated deregulation of industry? Never. Appropriate regulation of industry is needed. Regulation which promotes competition is a good thing. Regulation to restrict competition for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many is generally a bad thing (e.g. US healthcare industry).
@Joe What we haven't been through this before? You haven't read any of my previous posts? Or are you also incapable of understanding this statement: "Is Obama care fiscally sensible? That's the question not whether its better than the current system which of course we don't know as yet." We are discussing economics are we not? Don't you like answering questions? Why didn't you answer this: How is obama care going to cap health care costs Joe? Joe: The answers were there in my last post. The letter from the CBO discussed the cost savings. Your refusal to acknowledge same does not mean they don't exist. Bullshit! You misrepresented or misunderstood the analogy and now you want to back away from it. Obama care is only an addition to an already defunct unsustainable system, not the house itself. Joe: LOL, we were talking about your references to deregulation in the healthcare industry Lucy, That may have been what you were discussing but it wasn't what I referred to. I wrote: This economic deregulated model and using debt and consumption to grow is unsustainable. What part of 'economic deregulated model' did you confuse with health care? I'm referring to the economy which is what your thread is about. You shouldn't use the 'LOL' in response to a post unless you're sure the joke isn't on you.
I do like answering questions, I just don't like repeating myself. We do know the PPCA (Obamacare) is better that what we currently have on a number of fronts. PPCA allows access to the healthcare system for every American that is a huge step forward. As for cost reductions resulting from PPCA, I refer you to my previous post which included a letter from the CBO which explained the cost savings. If you are interested in knowing the answer, I suggest you read the previous posts. OH, Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I am not backing away from anything. PPCA (Obamacare) is a huge step forward for this country. Never before in the history of this country has every American had access to affordable healthcare. So you may not think that is signficant. But to millions of Americans who have lost their healthcare because of affordability or insurability issues, it is a very signficant step forward. As previously stated I have never supported the kind of irresponsible deregulation advocated by the Republican/Tea Party. But I am still perplexed by the notion of "economic deregulated model". Republicans are not pushing for total deregulation either. They are just pushing for deregultation that favors their financial sponsors...there is no model or consistency to it other than he who has the cash makes the rules. Additionally this thread is not about the economy but rather the nation's debt and who should pay for it. It is not about the economy in general. And there is nothing wrong with debt or consumption so long as they are not taken to extremes.
