Topic: An Imaginary Budget and Debt Crisis (Read 2442 times)
Krugman is a shill... Brainless idiots are the only ones who continue to pay attention to him.
National debt and Social Security, among other topics:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/op...ting.html?_r=0
Every month, my mom receives a yellow and green benefit check for $1,600 from the Treasury. I expect she’ll keep collecting those Social Security checks for a long time. She’s crushing 50-year-olds at bridge and doing yoga. Apart from their amount, the checks look identical to the $400 checks she receives every six months on her small remaining holdings of Treasury bonds. Yet Uncle Sam’s obligation to send her the $400 checks is recorded on its books, whereas his obligation to send her the $1,600 checks is not. (I’m 63, but not collecting benefits yet.)
True, Social Security benefits could be cut by Congress and the president. But so can official debt, as Argentina’s likely default reminds us. The prospect of formal default by the United States is remote. Informal default via the inflationary, easy-money policies of the Federal Reserve since 2007, is more likely. (Social Security is pegged to inflation, so while inflation would help with our official debts to creditors, like China, it is far from a panacea.)
Social Security’s hidden debt is just a small part of the story. Two weeks ago, the Congressional Budget Office released its annual long-term budget outlook. The good news: This year’s deficit — about 3 percent of gross domestic product — is the smallest since 2007 and way down from the peak of almost 10 percent in 2009. The bad: Without action, the deficit will grow “notably larger” starting in about four years, a result of our aging population, rising health costs and the new subsidies for health insurance.
Even worse, the budget office raised what’s called the alternative fiscal scenario, the most realistic projection of fiscal outcomes absent major policy changes. Based on these estimates, I calculate that the “fiscal gap” — a yardstick of total government indebtedness that I’ve worked on with the economists Alan J. Auerbach and Jagadeesh Gokhale — was $210 trillion last year, up from $205 trillion the previous year. Thus $5 trillion was the true deficit.
The fiscal gap — the difference between our government’s projected financial obligations and the present value of all projected future tax and other receipts — is, effectively, our nation’s credit card bill. Eliminating it, would require an immediate, permanent 59 percent increase in federal tax revenue. An immediate, permanent 38 percent cut in federal spending would also suffice. The longer we wait, the worse the pain. If, for example, we do nothing for 20 years, the requisite federal tax increase would be 70 percent, or the requisite spending cut, 43 percent.
The author of this article is better off learning how modern monetary systems operate before writing such gibberish.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/op...ting.html?_r=0
Every month, my mom receives a yellow and green benefit check for $1,600 from the Treasury. I expect she’ll keep collecting those Social Security checks for a long time. She’s crushing 50-year-olds at bridge and doing yoga. Apart from their amount, the checks look identical to the $400 checks she receives every six months on her small remaining holdings of Treasury bonds. Yet Uncle Sam’s obligation to send her the $400 checks is recorded on its books, whereas his obligation to send her the $1,600 checks is not. (I’m 63, but not collecting benefits yet.)
True, Social Security benefits could be cut by Congress and the president. But so can official debt, as Argentina’s likely default reminds us. The prospect of formal default by the United States is remote. Informal default via the inflationary, easy-money policies of the Federal Reserve since 2007, is more likely. (Social Security is pegged to inflation, so while inflation would help with our official debts to creditors, like China, it is far from a panacea.)
Social Security’s hidden debt is just a small part of the story. Two weeks ago, the Congressional Budget Office released its annual long-term budget outlook. The good news: This year’s deficit — about 3 percent of gross domestic product — is the smallest since 2007 and way down from the peak of almost 10 percent in 2009. The bad: Without action, the deficit will grow “notably larger” starting in about four years, a result of our aging population, rising health costs and the new subsidies for health insurance.
Even worse, the budget office raised what’s called the alternative fiscal scenario, the most realistic projection of fiscal outcomes absent major policy changes. Based on these estimates, I calculate that the “fiscal gap” — a yardstick of total government indebtedness that I’ve worked on with the economists Alan J. Auerbach and Jagadeesh Gokhale — was $210 trillion last year, up from $205 trillion the previous year. Thus $5 trillion was the true deficit.
The fiscal gap — the difference between our government’s projected financial obligations and the present value of all projected future tax and other receipts — is, effectively, our nation’s credit card bill. Eliminating it, would require an immediate, permanent 59 percent increase in federal tax revenue. An immediate, permanent 38 percent cut in federal spending would also suffice. The longer we wait, the worse the pain. If, for example, we do nothing for 20 years, the requisite federal tax increase would be 70 percent, or the requisite spending cut, 43 percent.
Learning at least the accounting basics would do I think.
How is the U.S. different from Argentina?
How about in every possible imaginable way? The dollar is the reserve currency. People buy our debt with 0% real return. And people do so in large quantities.Which by the way had a Democrat House and Senate? Even before Obama took over?
your pathetic attempt to try and blame everyone else but Obama is amusing.
If you wanted to be honest about it you'd look at deficit changes, not debt changes.
"FORGET EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE CONSTITUTION"
by that alone you show your stupidity. The whole constitution is one document; and it all has to be taken into consideration. But you want to claim otherwise so that you can twist it to your own strange agenda.
Your stupid crap about congress making no laws about anything ever is such total typical libtard stupidity its hilarious.
You want to make the world the way you want it and anything that gets in the way is 'wrong' or 'misinterpreted' etc. of course you want to go that way; not admit that most of the debt we have right now came from your messiah Obama.
At first you said the former, now you seem to be backpedaling.
What part of the massive amount of public debt that Obama has run up do you not understand?
How is the U.S. different from Argentina?
How about in every possible imaginable way? The dollar is the reserve currency. People buy our debt with 0% real return. And people do so in large quantities.Which by the way had a Democrat House and Senate? Even before Obama took over?
your pathetic attempt to try and blame everyone else but Obama is amusing.
If you wanted to be honest about it you'd look at deficit changes, not debt changes.
"FORGET EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE CONSTITUTION"
by that alone you show your stupidity. The whole constitution is one document; and it all has to be taken into consideration. But you want to claim otherwise so that you can twist it to your own strange agenda.
Your stupid crap about congress making no laws about anything ever is such total typical libtard stupidity its hilarious.
You want to make the world the way you want it and anything that gets in the way is 'wrong' or 'misinterpreted' etc. of course you want to go that way; not admit that most of the debt we have right now came from your messiah Obama.
At first you said the former, now you seem to be backpedaling.
There is no justification at all for the size of the federal government, NONE. We could shrink it to half the size it is and most people would never notice the difference. But you and yours want that power; and nothing will stop you. Even as it inevitably will destroy the country. And then you will blame it on bush even if it comes in 50 years.
I'm in favor of a smaller government and a reduction of government spending too there pumpkin, I simply have standards when it comes to data You should try it sometime. How is the U.S. different from Argentina?
How about in every possible imaginable way? The dollar is the reserve currency. People buy our debt with 0% real return. And people do so in large quantities.Which by the way had a Democrat House and Senate? Even before Obama took over?
your pathetic attempt to try and blame everyone else but Obama is amusing.
If you wanted to be honest about it you'd look at deficit changes, not debt changes.
"FORGET EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE CONSTITUTION"
by that alone you show your stupidity. The whole constitution is one document; and it all has to be taken into consideration. But you want to claim otherwise so that you can twist it to your own strange agenda.
Your stupid crap about congress making no laws about anything ever is such total typical libtard stupidity its hilarious.
You want to make the world the way you want it and anything that gets in the way is 'wrong' or 'misinterpreted' etc. of course you want to go that way; not admit that most of the debt we have right now came from your messiah Obama.
You fool libtards are all the same. You're afraid to just come out and state your position and be shown for the complete and utter fool you are.
There is no justification at all for the size of the federal government, NONE. We could shrink it to half the size it is and most people would never notice the difference. But you and yours want that power; and nothing will stop you. Even as it inevitably will destroy the country. And then you will blame it on bush even if it comes in 50 years.
How is the U.S. different from Argentina?
How about in every possible imaginable way? The dollar is the reserve currency. People buy our debt with 0% real return. And people do so in large quantities.Which by the way had a Democrat House and Senate? Even before Obama took over?
your pathetic attempt to try and blame everyone else but Obama is amusing.
If you wanted to be honest about it you'd look at deficit changes, not debt changes.
"FORGET EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE CONSTITUTION"
by that alone you show your stupidity. The whole constitution is one document; and it all has to be taken into consideration. But you want to claim otherwise so that you can twist it to your own strange agenda.
Your stupid crap about congress making no laws about anything ever is such total typical libtard stupidity its hilarious.
You want to make the world the way you want it and anything that gets in the way is 'wrong' or 'misinterpreted' etc. of course you want to go that way; not admit that most of the debt we have right now came from your messiah Obama.
Do you really need the dishonesty in order to justify your dislike for his presidency?
National debt and Social Security, among other topics:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/op...ting.html?_r=0
Every month, my mom receives a yellow and green benefit check for $1,600 from the Treasury. I expect she’ll keep collecting those Social Security checks for a long time. She’s crushing 50-year-olds at bridge and doing yoga. Apart from their amount, the checks look identical to the $400 checks she receives every six months on her small remaining holdings of Treasury bonds. Yet Uncle Sam’s obligation to send her the $400 checks is recorded on its books, whereas his obligation to send her the $1,600 checks is not. (I’m 63, but not collecting benefits yet.)
True, Social Security benefits could be cut by Congress and the president. But so can official debt, as Argentina’s likely default reminds us. The prospect of formal default by the United States is remote. Informal default via the inflationary, easy-money policies of the Federal Reserve since 2007, is more likely. (Social Security is pegged to inflation, so while inflation would help with our official debts to creditors, like China, it is far from a panacea.)
Social Security’s hidden debt is just a small part of the story. Two weeks ago, the Congressional Budget Office released its annual long-term budget outlook. The good news: This year’s deficit — about 3 percent of gross domestic product — is the smallest since 2007 and way down from the peak of almost 10 percent in 2009. The bad: Without action, the deficit will grow “notably larger” starting in about four years, a result of our aging population, rising health costs and the new subsidies for health insurance.
Even worse, the budget office raised what’s called the alternative fiscal scenario, the most realistic projection of fiscal outcomes absent major policy changes. Based on these estimates, I calculate that the “fiscal gap” — a yardstick of total government indebtedness that I’ve worked on with the economists Alan J. Auerbach and Jagadeesh Gokhale — was $210 trillion last year, up from $205 trillion the previous year. Thus $5 trillion was the true deficit.
The fiscal gap — the difference between our government’s projected financial obligations and the present value of all projected future tax and other receipts — is, effectively, our nation’s credit card bill. Eliminating it, would require an immediate, permanent 59 percent increase in federal tax revenue. An immediate, permanent 38 percent cut in federal spending would also suffice. The longer we wait, the worse the pain. If, for example, we do nothing for 20 years, the requisite federal tax increase would be 70 percent, or the requisite spending cut, 43 percent.
The section that you quoted was a compilation from working with the Cato Institute; one which they didn't bother linking to. I tend not to trust studies done by authors who like to cite themselves unless I can look over their methodology myself. This author doesn't seem to be that interested in the transparency of his work and simply wants us to take his word for it. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/op...ting.html?_r=0
Every month, my mom receives a yellow and green benefit check for $1,600 from the Treasury. I expect she’ll keep collecting those Social Security checks for a long time. She’s crushing 50-year-olds at bridge and doing yoga. Apart from their amount, the checks look identical to the $400 checks she receives every six months on her small remaining holdings of Treasury bonds. Yet Uncle Sam’s obligation to send her the $400 checks is recorded on its books, whereas his obligation to send her the $1,600 checks is not. (I’m 63, but not collecting benefits yet.)
True, Social Security benefits could be cut by Congress and the president. But so can official debt, as Argentina’s likely default reminds us. The prospect of formal default by the United States is remote. Informal default via the inflationary, easy-money policies of the Federal Reserve since 2007, is more likely. (Social Security is pegged to inflation, so while inflation would help with our official debts to creditors, like China, it is far from a panacea.)
Social Security’s hidden debt is just a small part of the story. Two weeks ago, the Congressional Budget Office released its annual long-term budget outlook. The good news: This year’s deficit — about 3 percent of gross domestic product — is the smallest since 2007 and way down from the peak of almost 10 percent in 2009. The bad: Without action, the deficit will grow “notably larger” starting in about four years, a result of our aging population, rising health costs and the new subsidies for health insurance.
Even worse, the budget office raised what’s called the alternative fiscal scenario, the most realistic projection of fiscal outcomes absent major policy changes. Based on these estimates, I calculate that the “fiscal gap” — a yardstick of total government indebtedness that I’ve worked on with the economists Alan J. Auerbach and Jagadeesh Gokhale — was $210 trillion last year, up from $205 trillion the previous year. Thus $5 trillion was the true deficit.
The fiscal gap — the difference between our government’s projected financial obligations and the present value of all projected future tax and other receipts — is, effectively, our nation’s credit card bill. Eliminating it, would require an immediate, permanent 59 percent increase in federal tax revenue. An immediate, permanent 38 percent cut in federal spending would also suffice. The longer we wait, the worse the pain. If, for example, we do nothing for 20 years, the requisite federal tax increase would be 70 percent, or the requisite spending cut, 43 percent.
the REALITY is there for all that want to see it. We have huge problems coming as regards debt and deficits and we need to start handling them NOW. You and other Pollyanna's could care less as long as your messiah and his ilk stay in power.
How is the U.S. different from Argentina?
How about in every possible imaginable way? The dollar is the reserve currency. People buy our debt with 0% real return. And people do so in large quantities.Which by the way had a Democrat House and Senate? Even before Obama took over?
your pathetic attempt to try and blame everyone else but Obama is amusing.
If you wanted to be honest about it you'd look at deficit changes, not debt changes.
"FORGET EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE CONSTITUTION"
by that alone you show your stupidity. The whole constitution is one document; and it all has to be taken into consideration. But you want to claim otherwise so that you can twist it to your own strange agenda.
Your stupid crap about congress making no laws about anything ever is such total typical libtard stupidity its hilarious.
You want to make the world the way you want it and anything that gets in the way is 'wrong' or 'misinterpreted' etc. of course you want to go that way; not admit that most of the debt we have right now came from your messiah Obama.
How is the U.S. different from Argentina?
How about in every possible imaginable way? The dollar is the reserve currency. People buy our debt with 0% real return. And people do so in large quantities.Which by the way had a Democrat House and Senate? Even before Obama took over?
your pathetic attempt to try and blame everyone else but Obama is amusing.
If you wanted to be honest about it you'd look at deficit changes, not debt changes.
National debt and Social Security, among other topics:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/op...ting.html?_r=0
Every month, my mom receives a yellow and green benefit check for $1,600 from the Treasury. I expect she’ll keep collecting those Social Security checks for a long time. She’s crushing 50-year-olds at bridge and doing yoga. Apart from their amount, the checks look identical to the $400 checks she receives every six months on her small remaining holdings of Treasury bonds. Yet Uncle Sam’s obligation to send her the $400 checks is recorded on its books, whereas his obligation to send her the $1,600 checks is not. (I’m 63, but not collecting benefits yet.)
True, Social Security benefits could be cut by Congress and the president. But so can official debt, as Argentina’s likely default reminds us. The prospect of formal default by the United States is remote. Informal default via the inflationary, easy-money policies of the Federal Reserve since 2007, is more likely. (Social Security is pegged to inflation, so while inflation would help with our official debts to creditors, like China, it is far from a panacea.)
Social Security’s hidden debt is just a small part of the story. Two weeks ago, the Congressional Budget Office released its annual long-term budget outlook. The good news: This year’s deficit — about 3 percent of gross domestic product — is the smallest since 2007 and way down from the peak of almost 10 percent in 2009. The bad: Without action, the deficit will grow “notably larger” starting in about four years, a result of our aging population, rising health costs and the new subsidies for health insurance.
Even worse, the budget office raised what’s called the alternative fiscal scenario, the most realistic projection of fiscal outcomes absent major policy changes. Based on these estimates, I calculate that the “fiscal gap” — a yardstick of total government indebtedness that I’ve worked on with the economists Alan J. Auerbach and Jagadeesh Gokhale — was $210 trillion last year, up from $205 trillion the previous year. Thus $5 trillion was the true deficit.
The fiscal gap — the difference between our government’s projected financial obligations and the present value of all projected future tax and other receipts — is, effectively, our nation’s credit card bill. Eliminating it, would require an immediate, permanent 59 percent increase in federal tax revenue. An immediate, permanent 38 percent cut in federal spending would also suffice. The longer we wait, the worse the pain. If, for example, we do nothing for 20 years, the requisite federal tax increase would be 70 percent, or the requisite spending cut, 43 percent.
The section that you quoted was a compilation from working with the Cato Institute; one which they didn't bother linking to. I tend not to trust studies done by authors who like to cite themselves unless I can look over their methodology myself. This author doesn't seem to be that interested in the transparency of his work and simply wants us to take his word for it. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/op...ting.html?_r=0
Every month, my mom receives a yellow and green benefit check for $1,600 from the Treasury. I expect she’ll keep collecting those Social Security checks for a long time. She’s crushing 50-year-olds at bridge and doing yoga. Apart from their amount, the checks look identical to the $400 checks she receives every six months on her small remaining holdings of Treasury bonds. Yet Uncle Sam’s obligation to send her the $400 checks is recorded on its books, whereas his obligation to send her the $1,600 checks is not. (I’m 63, but not collecting benefits yet.)
True, Social Security benefits could be cut by Congress and the president. But so can official debt, as Argentina’s likely default reminds us. The prospect of formal default by the United States is remote. Informal default via the inflationary, easy-money policies of the Federal Reserve since 2007, is more likely. (Social Security is pegged to inflation, so while inflation would help with our official debts to creditors, like China, it is far from a panacea.)
Social Security’s hidden debt is just a small part of the story. Two weeks ago, the Congressional Budget Office released its annual long-term budget outlook. The good news: This year’s deficit — about 3 percent of gross domestic product — is the smallest since 2007 and way down from the peak of almost 10 percent in 2009. The bad: Without action, the deficit will grow “notably larger” starting in about four years, a result of our aging population, rising health costs and the new subsidies for health insurance.
Even worse, the budget office raised what’s called the alternative fiscal scenario, the most realistic projection of fiscal outcomes absent major policy changes. Based on these estimates, I calculate that the “fiscal gap” — a yardstick of total government indebtedness that I’ve worked on with the economists Alan J. Auerbach and Jagadeesh Gokhale — was $210 trillion last year, up from $205 trillion the previous year. Thus $5 trillion was the true deficit.
The fiscal gap — the difference between our government’s projected financial obligations and the present value of all projected future tax and other receipts — is, effectively, our nation’s credit card bill. Eliminating it, would require an immediate, permanent 59 percent increase in federal tax revenue. An immediate, permanent 38 percent cut in federal spending would also suffice. The longer we wait, the worse the pain. If, for example, we do nothing for 20 years, the requisite federal tax increase would be 70 percent, or the requisite spending cut, 43 percent.
National debt and Social Security, among other topics:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/op...ting.html?_r=0
Every month, my mom receives a yellow and green benefit check for $1,600 from the Treasury. I expect she’ll keep collecting those Social Security checks for a long time. She’s crushing 50-year-olds at bridge and doing yoga. Apart from their amount, the checks look identical to the $400 checks she receives every six months on her small remaining holdings of Treasury bonds. Yet Uncle Sam’s obligation to send her the $400 checks is recorded on its books, whereas his obligation to send her the $1,600 checks is not. (I’m 63, but not collecting benefits yet.)
True, Social Security benefits could be cut by Congress and the president. But so can official debt, as Argentina’s likely default reminds us. The prospect of formal default by the United States is remote. Informal default via the inflationary, easy-money policies of the Federal Reserve since 2007, is more likely. (Social Security is pegged to inflation, so while inflation would help with our official debts to creditors, like China, it is far from a panacea.)
Social Security’s hidden debt is just a small part of the story. Two weeks ago, the Congressional Budget Office released its annual long-term budget outlook. The good news: This year’s deficit — about 3 percent of gross domestic product — is the smallest since 2007 and way down from the peak of almost 10 percent in 2009. The bad: Without action, the deficit will grow “notably larger” starting in about four years, a result of our aging population, rising health costs and the new subsidies for health insurance.
Even worse, the budget office raised what’s called the alternative fiscal scenario, the most realistic projection of fiscal outcomes absent major policy changes. Based on these estimates, I calculate that the “fiscal gap” — a yardstick of total government indebtedness that I’ve worked on with the economists Alan J. Auerbach and Jagadeesh Gokhale — was $210 trillion last year, up from $205 trillion the previous year. Thus $5 trillion was the true deficit.
The fiscal gap — the difference between our government’s projected financial obligations and the present value of all projected future tax and other receipts — is, effectively, our nation’s credit card bill. Eliminating it, would require an immediate, permanent 59 percent increase in federal tax revenue. An immediate, permanent 38 percent cut in federal spending would also suffice. The longer we wait, the worse the pain. If, for example, we do nothing for 20 years, the requisite federal tax increase would be 70 percent, or the requisite spending cut, 43 percent.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/op...ting.html?_r=0
Every month, my mom receives a yellow and green benefit check for $1,600 from the Treasury. I expect she’ll keep collecting those Social Security checks for a long time. She’s crushing 50-year-olds at bridge and doing yoga. Apart from their amount, the checks look identical to the $400 checks she receives every six months on her small remaining holdings of Treasury bonds. Yet Uncle Sam’s obligation to send her the $400 checks is recorded on its books, whereas his obligation to send her the $1,600 checks is not. (I’m 63, but not collecting benefits yet.)
True, Social Security benefits could be cut by Congress and the president. But so can official debt, as Argentina’s likely default reminds us. The prospect of formal default by the United States is remote. Informal default via the inflationary, easy-money policies of the Federal Reserve since 2007, is more likely. (Social Security is pegged to inflation, so while inflation would help with our official debts to creditors, like China, it is far from a panacea.)
Social Security’s hidden debt is just a small part of the story. Two weeks ago, the Congressional Budget Office released its annual long-term budget outlook. The good news: This year’s deficit — about 3 percent of gross domestic product — is the smallest since 2007 and way down from the peak of almost 10 percent in 2009. The bad: Without action, the deficit will grow “notably larger” starting in about four years, a result of our aging population, rising health costs and the new subsidies for health insurance.
Even worse, the budget office raised what’s called the alternative fiscal scenario, the most realistic projection of fiscal outcomes absent major policy changes. Based on these estimates, I calculate that the “fiscal gap” — a yardstick of total government indebtedness that I’ve worked on with the economists Alan J. Auerbach and Jagadeesh Gokhale — was $210 trillion last year, up from $205 trillion the previous year. Thus $5 trillion was the true deficit.
The fiscal gap — the difference between our government’s projected financial obligations and the present value of all projected future tax and other receipts — is, effectively, our nation’s credit card bill. Eliminating it, would require an immediate, permanent 59 percent increase in federal tax revenue. An immediate, permanent 38 percent cut in federal spending would also suffice. The longer we wait, the worse the pain. If, for example, we do nothing for 20 years, the requisite federal tax increase would be 70 percent, or the requisite spending cut, 43 percent.
How is the U.S. different from Argentina?
How about in every possible imaginable way? The dollar is the reserve currency. People buy our debt with 0% real return. And people do so in large quantities.Which by the way had a Democrat House and Senate? Even before Obama took over?
your pathetic attempt to try and blame everyone else but Obama is amusing.
I'm trying to understand this. Are you saying that "congress shall make no law" has a full stop after it? As in congress shall actually make no laws, rather than not making laws in reference to the context of the first amendment?
CLEARLY the original intent of the Founding Fathers was thata) there would be no state religion as was status quo everywhere else at that time
b) no ones religion would be controlled or bothered or interfered with in any way
c) now human sacrifice and such were clearly against OTHER laws and would not be considered religion connected
d) when you consider how many of them constantly made some reference to god in just about everything they did it is also clear that there was no intent to remove the 10 commandments from courtrooms, prohibit mangers and so on in public squares, etc.
sadly the COURTS have proceeded to do what the Founding Fathers made sure the CONGRESS could not do.
That is why I would word it this way
"Congress shall make no laws; and the Courts shall make no rulings"
Anything else would be left up to the STATES.
NOT THE FEDERAL COURTS
Only a totally ignorant moron would not understand that the Founding Fathers meant all these issues were meant to be settled by the STATES individually
their NIGHTMARE was a powerful federal government- which is what we have now.
In essence, you appear to be saying congress shall make no laws about anything ever. I need to know if that's what you actually mean.
I'm trying to understand this. Are you saying that "congress shall make no law" has a full stop after it? As in congress shall actually make no laws, rather than not making laws in reference to the context of the first amendment?
CLEARLY the original intent of the Founding Fathers was thata) there would be no state religion as was status quo everywhere else at that time
b) no ones religion would be controlled or bothered or interfered with in any way
c) now human sacrifice and such were clearly against OTHER laws and would not be considered religion connected
d) when you consider how many of them constantly made some reference to god in just about everything they did it is also clear that there was no intent to remove the 10 commandments from courtrooms, prohibit mangers and so on in public squares, etc.
sadly the COURTS have proceeded to do what the Founding Fathers made sure the CONGRESS could not do.
That is why I would word it this way
"Congress shall make no laws; and the Courts shall make no rulings"
Anything else would be left up to the STATES.
NOT THE FEDERAL COURTS
Only a totally ignorant moron would not understand that the Founding Fathers meant all these issues were meant to be settled by the STATES individually
their NIGHTMARE was a powerful federal government- which is what we have now.
I'm trying to understand this. Are you saying that "congress shall make no law" has a full stop after it? As in congress shall actually make no laws, rather than not making laws in reference to the context of the first amendment?
I used to think you were more intelligent than this, but you're obviously a troll. Can you offer proof of this 'record' pace? Try this: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/
Oh, and remember the 'Grand Bargain'? The GOP refused to raise taxes as part of the compromise.
Govt debt has increased 99.8% since Obama took office.Oh, and remember the 'Grand Bargain'? The GOP refused to raise taxes as part of the compromise.
Are you trying to tell me he's responsible for everything good that's happened since his election, but Bush is responsible for everything bad?
Krugman's editorial
http://online.barrons.com/news/artic...43323337920154
How Krugman Fudged the Truth on U.S. Debt
By mentioning only the baseline projection from the Congressional Budget Office, he downplayed the potentially dangerous growth of U.S. debt as a percentage of GDP.
Last week, I reported that the Congressional Budget Office's recently released "2014 Long-Term Budget Outlook" warned "the fiscal ship of state is in danger of hitting an iceberg" ("New Warning on U.S.'s Gathering Debt Storm," July 21). Readers asked me how New York Times columnist Paul Krugman could cite the same study and conclude that the agency's projections are "distinctly non-alarming" ("The Fiscal Fizzle," the New York Times, July 20).
The key difference is that Krugman reported only one of the estimates from the CBO for the possible trajectory of the debt-to-gross-domestic-product ratio between now and the late-2030s. He cited only the agency's "extended baseline" scenario, which put the ratio above 100% by the late 2030s from the current 74%. He did not mention that the CBO study also presented its "extended alternative fiscal scenario," which projected that by the late-2030s, the debt-to-GDP ratio would climb above 180%.
EVEN THE BASELINE SCENARIO, which assumes that "current laws governing taxes and spending will remain generally unchanged," can hardly be characterized as "distinctly non-alarming." It shows, for example, that if current laws aren't changed, the debt-to-GDP ratio will continue to climb, from 106% in 2039, to 126% by 2050, to 147% by 2060. By neglecting to mention this, Krugman manages to dismiss the scary number by pointing out that by 2039, the debt would be "no higher, as a percentage of GDP, than the debt America had at the end of World War II."
The CBO itself makes this comparison, but then points out that, unlike at the end of World War II, the debt would still be on an "upward path," a "trajectory [that] ultimately would be unsustainable."
But as mentioned, Krugman's main omission in his column was to leave out the far scarier extended alternative fiscal scenario, which puts the debt-to-GDP ratio at more than 180% by 2039. The omission gives readers the impression that the baseline was the CBO's only projected figure.
As I pointed out in my write-up, the extended alternative is more realistic than the baseline scenario. The CBO is obligated to release baseline projections, but the problem with assuming that current laws will remain unchanged is that it's not the way the budget process works in the real world of Washington, where laws are altered routinely.
It's part of the budgetary game to arrange matters so as to minimize the long-term effects of tax and spending provisions. To choose the most glaring example: the perennial plan, codified in law, to cut doctor's fees paid by Medicare. The baseline scenario assumes the cuts will take place, while the alternative scenario knows otherwise; the cuts have always been rescinded in a maneuver now dubbed the "doc fix."
There are also about 70 "expiring tax provisions" that grant tax favors to lobbying groups. Again, to minimize the long-term effects on the budget, they are routinely set up to expire, but they are almost always extended. The baseline must assume these provisions will expire, but the extended-alternative scenario more realistically assumes they indeed will continue.
Also, as the CBO study explains, "In the extended baseline, total federal spending for everything other than the major health-care programs, Social Security, and net interest declines to a smaller percentage of GDP than has been the case for more than 70 years." In contrast, in the extended alternative, the agency assumes that this spending would "rise by 2024 to its average as a percentage of GDP over the past two decades." That's more plausible than the extended baseline -- and we may even wonder if it would be still more plausible to assume the same rise in this spending even before 2024.
IN A FOLLOW-UP BLOG POST, Krugman responded to readers by acknowledging a Wall Street Journal op-ed that presents the extended-alternative scenario. He made a brief, dismissive reference to the numbers (pointing out, irrelevantly, that "well over half of the projected spending…has nothing to do with entitlements"), and ironically faulted the writer of the op-ed for omitting to mention that he is not reporting the baseline numbers.
But there is no coverup; the op-ed makes the distinction clear. It was Krugman who engaged in a glaring omission by reporting the CBO results while ignoring the extended-alternative projections.
http://online.barrons.com/news/artic...43323337920154
How Krugman Fudged the Truth on U.S. Debt
By mentioning only the baseline projection from the Congressional Budget Office, he downplayed the potentially dangerous growth of U.S. debt as a percentage of GDP.
Last week, I reported that the Congressional Budget Office's recently released "2014 Long-Term Budget Outlook" warned "the fiscal ship of state is in danger of hitting an iceberg" ("New Warning on U.S.'s Gathering Debt Storm," July 21). Readers asked me how New York Times columnist Paul Krugman could cite the same study and conclude that the agency's projections are "distinctly non-alarming" ("The Fiscal Fizzle," the New York Times, July 20).
The key difference is that Krugman reported only one of the estimates from the CBO for the possible trajectory of the debt-to-gross-domestic-product ratio between now and the late-2030s. He cited only the agency's "extended baseline" scenario, which put the ratio above 100% by the late 2030s from the current 74%. He did not mention that the CBO study also presented its "extended alternative fiscal scenario," which projected that by the late-2030s, the debt-to-GDP ratio would climb above 180%.
EVEN THE BASELINE SCENARIO, which assumes that "current laws governing taxes and spending will remain generally unchanged," can hardly be characterized as "distinctly non-alarming." It shows, for example, that if current laws aren't changed, the debt-to-GDP ratio will continue to climb, from 106% in 2039, to 126% by 2050, to 147% by 2060. By neglecting to mention this, Krugman manages to dismiss the scary number by pointing out that by 2039, the debt would be "no higher, as a percentage of GDP, than the debt America had at the end of World War II."
The CBO itself makes this comparison, but then points out that, unlike at the end of World War II, the debt would still be on an "upward path," a "trajectory [that] ultimately would be unsustainable."
But as mentioned, Krugman's main omission in his column was to leave out the far scarier extended alternative fiscal scenario, which puts the debt-to-GDP ratio at more than 180% by 2039. The omission gives readers the impression that the baseline was the CBO's only projected figure.
As I pointed out in my write-up, the extended alternative is more realistic than the baseline scenario. The CBO is obligated to release baseline projections, but the problem with assuming that current laws will remain unchanged is that it's not the way the budget process works in the real world of Washington, where laws are altered routinely.
It's part of the budgetary game to arrange matters so as to minimize the long-term effects of tax and spending provisions. To choose the most glaring example: the perennial plan, codified in law, to cut doctor's fees paid by Medicare. The baseline scenario assumes the cuts will take place, while the alternative scenario knows otherwise; the cuts have always been rescinded in a maneuver now dubbed the "doc fix."
There are also about 70 "expiring tax provisions" that grant tax favors to lobbying groups. Again, to minimize the long-term effects on the budget, they are routinely set up to expire, but they are almost always extended. The baseline must assume these provisions will expire, but the extended-alternative scenario more realistically assumes they indeed will continue.
Also, as the CBO study explains, "In the extended baseline, total federal spending for everything other than the major health-care programs, Social Security, and net interest declines to a smaller percentage of GDP than has been the case for more than 70 years." In contrast, in the extended alternative, the agency assumes that this spending would "rise by 2024 to its average as a percentage of GDP over the past two decades." That's more plausible than the extended baseline -- and we may even wonder if it would be still more plausible to assume the same rise in this spending even before 2024.
IN A FOLLOW-UP BLOG POST, Krugman responded to readers by acknowledging a Wall Street Journal op-ed that presents the extended-alternative scenario. He made a brief, dismissive reference to the numbers (pointing out, irrelevantly, that "well over half of the projected spending…has nothing to do with entitlements"), and ironically faulted the writer of the op-ed for omitting to mention that he is not reporting the baseline numbers.
But there is no coverup; the op-ed makes the distinction clear. It was Krugman who engaged in a glaring omission by reporting the CBO results while ignoring the extended-alternative projections.
I used to think you were more intelligent than this, but you're obviously a troll. Can you offer proof of this 'record' pace? Try this: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/
Oh, and remember the 'Grand Bargain'? The GOP refused to raise taxes as part of the compromise.
The liberals didn't want to simply raise taxes, they wanted to raise taxes on the successful only while expanding social programs. They were really not proposing anything that would actually cut the deficit Oh, and remember the 'Grand Bargain'? The GOP refused to raise taxes as part of the compromise.
I used to think you were more intelligent than this, but you're obviously a troll. Can you offer proof of this 'record' pace? Try this: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/
Oh, and remember the 'Grand Bargain'? The GOP refused to raise taxes as part of the compromise.
Oh, and remember the 'Grand Bargain'? The GOP refused to raise taxes as part of the compromise.
How is the U.S. different from Argentina?
At least in these subjects:1. US have developed and sophisticated financial markets with a lot of liquidity
2. US have their federal debt denominated in their own currency while Argentine crisis happened because their debt was denominated in dollars.
It's a simple fact that both the democrats and the republicans are destroying the US. What baffles me is that you idiots buy into their shit and fight eachother instead of turning on them and installing a governing party that will actually try to serve the people.
How is the U.S. different from Argentina?
How about in every possible imaginable way? The dollar is the reserve currency. People buy our debt with 0% real return. And people do so in large quantities.How is the U.S. different from Argentina?
How about in every possible imaginable way? The dollar is the reserve currency. People buy our debt with 0% real return. And people do so in large quantities.How is the U.S. different from Argentina?
How about in every possible imaginable way? The dollar is the reserve currency. People buy our debt with 0% real return. And people do so in large quantities.
How is the U.S. different from Argentina?
Argentina.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/argen...LEFTTopStories
Argentina Teeters on Default as Talks Collapse
Setback Sends Argentine Shares Down in After-Hours Trading
Argentina teetered on the brink of its second default in 13 years after talks with bondholders collapsed late Wednesday.
The setback, after glimmers of hope in recent days that a last-minute agreement could be reached, immediately sent Argentine stocks plunging in after-hours trading.
Still, there remained the possibility that talks could resume and a deal could eventually be reached.
At a press conference after talks with a court-appointed mediator ended Wednesday, Argentine Economy Minister Axel Kicillof, who had led the country's delegation to New York, said "we won't sign an agreement that would compromise Argentina's future." A spokeswoman later said negotiations would continue, without giving a timetable.
"Default is not a mere 'technical' condition, but rather a real and painful event that will hurt real people," said Daniel Pollack, the mediator, in a statement late Wednesday. He added, "The full consequences of default are not predictable, but they certainly are not positive."
The development is the latest turn in a yearslong battle between Argentina and a small group of hedge funds that have demanded full payment for bonds the country defaulted on in 2001. Argentina has refused to pay, despite an order by a U.S. District Court judge requiring it to pay the hedge funds. The issue came to a head Wednesday as Argentina missed a deadline to make a payment it owed to other bondholders, because the court order had prevented such a move.
Mr. Pollack, who had been trying to broker a deal between the two sides, said the country would "imminently" be in default. Standard & Poor's Ratings Services had earlier Wednesday declared Argentina in default on some of its bonds.
A default would pressure an economy already mired in recession, potentially leading to higher inflation and a weaker currency. The breakdown of negotiations also complicates President Cristina Kirchner's efforts to stabilize the economy ahead of elections next year.
Wednesday marked the end of a 30-day grace period for Argentina to make a $539 million interest payment to the holders of $29 billion of the country's restructured bonds that was due on June 30. A ruling by U.S. District Judge Thomas Griesa prevents Argentina from paying its restructured bondholders until the hedge funds, also known as the holdout creditors, are compensated. The holdout creditors are owed about $1.5 billion.
Mr. Kicillof hinted on Wednesday that a private-sector solution was a possibility, apparently referring to a proposal by a group of Argentine banks to offer a $250 million guarantee to the holdouts. The idea would be to give the hedge funds a financial incentive to ask Judge Griesa to suspend his ruling until the end of the year and allow payment of holders of the other bonds.
A default could shave as much as one percentage point off growth this year, said Martin Redrado, former governor of Argentina's central bank. Analysts said it would also fuel inflation, which some economists already estimate to be close to 40%, and deepen the country's recession. It could roil the country's financial markets, ending a period of relative calm in the peso's exchange rate and Argentine bond prices.
The economic damage from a prolonged default could prove politically costly for Mrs. Kirchner, who is trying to stabilize a shaky economy and win influence for her party ahead of presidential and congressional elections in October 2015.
Even if Argentina reaches a deal with holdouts, it likely won't be enough on its own to right the country's finances, said Roberto Sifon-Arevalo, head of the Latin America sovereign group at S&P.
A deal "would definitely be a good thing. I don't think that it would automatically be a solution, or a dramatic game-changer," he said. "The macroeconomic environment in the country has deteriorated significantly. It's weak and getting weaker. This situation certainly does not help."
The immediate impact to debt markets outside Argentina is expected to be limited. Argentina has been relatively isolated from global financial markets since its default in 2001, and the country's legal battles with its creditors are unprecedented and have dragged on in U.S. courts for years. In 2001, the country's bonds made up 20% of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.'s widely followed emerging-market debt index. Now, they are only 1.3% of the index, signaling little chance that another default would rattle the global economy.
"I don't think this is going to have much repercussion outside of Argentina," said Clyde Wardle, a senior currency strategist with HSBC Holdings PLC.
However, the case has raised questions about the power of U.S. courts to adjudicate cases involving sovereign nations and their creditors.
The concerns stem from the controversial 2012 ruling made by Judge Griesa, who has presided over disputes between Argentina and its creditors for more than a decade. He ruled that Argentina isn't allowed to pay the bondholders who accepted the country's restructuring offers since its 2001 default, unless it also pays the holdouts, who have refused those offers.
Lawyers said the ruling marked the first time a U.S. judge had issued such an injunction on the so-called "pari passu" clause, which states that all bondholders must be treated equally.
The U.S. government has called Judge Griesa's ruling "impermissibly broad" and said it could undermine U.S. foreign relations. The International Monetary Fund warned that Judge Griesa's ruling could make it easier for a handful of creditors to disrupt other debt restructurings. "There is a cost to the world," IMF Chief Economist Olivier Blanchard said last week.
Analysts say Wednesday's developments will likely rock Argentine markets on Thursday, as the country's stocks and bonds had rallied this week on hopes that the two sides would reach a deal and avert default. Investors said they had been encouraged by marathon talks on Tuesday and Wednesday between Argentine officials and a court-appointed mediator, as well as a proposal by Argentine banks to pay the holdout creditors.
"The market reaction won't be positive," said Brian Joseph, head trader at local brokerage Puente. "There were big expectations of a deal. This isn't good news."
There are many investors who have actually bet on an Argentine default through so-called credit default swaps, but it could be days before those investors find out whether they can collect on their bets. Decisions about CDS payouts are made by a panel convened by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, a financial trade group. There are $20.7 billion of CDS outstanding on Argentine government debt, according to Depository Trust & Clearing Corp.
The idea of default isn't much of a concern for many Argentines, who have lived through much greater crises over the decades and are adept at adapting to economic setbacks.
"We talk about this as if it's something normal. I'm not losing any sleep over it," said Juan Chamale, 36, who works at a Kodak store in downtown Buenos Aires. "We're very used to this kind of thing and have learned to take it in stride."
Argentina's default in 2001 led to the country's worst economic slump since the Great Depression. At the time, it was the largest sovereign default in history and triggered dozens of lawsuits against Argentina by creditors around the world.
After years of contentious talks, the country persuaded approximately 93% of its bondholders to take heavily discounted restructured bonds in exchanges held in 2005 and 2010. But a small group of investors refused to take the new bonds, with many suing in U.S. courts for full repayment. These included hedge funds led by Elliott Management Corp.'s NML Capital Ltd. and Aurelius Capital Ltd.
U.S. courts had jurisdiction over these lawsuits because Argentina had agreed in some of its bond contracts to resolve any disputes under New York law.
After Argentina denounced several U.S. court rulings awarding judgments to creditors and consistently refused to pay the holdouts, Judge Griesa issued his unprecedented 2012 ruling that barred Argentina from paying its restructured bondholders until it pays the holdouts.
For the next two years, Argentina tried every legal avenue to appeal the decision. But the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Judge Griesa's ruling, and the U.S. Supreme Court in June declined to hear Argentina's appeal.
Meanwhile, the holdout hedge funds chased Argentine assets around the globe in an attempt to get paid. NML seized an Argentine navy training vessel in 2012 and this year tried to block the country from launching a pair of satellites. Other creditors attempted to seize the presidential plane in 2007.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/argen...LEFTTopStories
Argentina Teeters on Default as Talks Collapse
Setback Sends Argentine Shares Down in After-Hours Trading
Argentina teetered on the brink of its second default in 13 years after talks with bondholders collapsed late Wednesday.
The setback, after glimmers of hope in recent days that a last-minute agreement could be reached, immediately sent Argentine stocks plunging in after-hours trading.
Still, there remained the possibility that talks could resume and a deal could eventually be reached.
At a press conference after talks with a court-appointed mediator ended Wednesday, Argentine Economy Minister Axel Kicillof, who had led the country's delegation to New York, said "we won't sign an agreement that would compromise Argentina's future." A spokeswoman later said negotiations would continue, without giving a timetable.
"Default is not a mere 'technical' condition, but rather a real and painful event that will hurt real people," said Daniel Pollack, the mediator, in a statement late Wednesday. He added, "The full consequences of default are not predictable, but they certainly are not positive."
The development is the latest turn in a yearslong battle between Argentina and a small group of hedge funds that have demanded full payment for bonds the country defaulted on in 2001. Argentina has refused to pay, despite an order by a U.S. District Court judge requiring it to pay the hedge funds. The issue came to a head Wednesday as Argentina missed a deadline to make a payment it owed to other bondholders, because the court order had prevented such a move.
Mr. Pollack, who had been trying to broker a deal between the two sides, said the country would "imminently" be in default. Standard & Poor's Ratings Services had earlier Wednesday declared Argentina in default on some of its bonds.
A default would pressure an economy already mired in recession, potentially leading to higher inflation and a weaker currency. The breakdown of negotiations also complicates President Cristina Kirchner's efforts to stabilize the economy ahead of elections next year.
Wednesday marked the end of a 30-day grace period for Argentina to make a $539 million interest payment to the holders of $29 billion of the country's restructured bonds that was due on June 30. A ruling by U.S. District Judge Thomas Griesa prevents Argentina from paying its restructured bondholders until the hedge funds, also known as the holdout creditors, are compensated. The holdout creditors are owed about $1.5 billion.
Mr. Kicillof hinted on Wednesday that a private-sector solution was a possibility, apparently referring to a proposal by a group of Argentine banks to offer a $250 million guarantee to the holdouts. The idea would be to give the hedge funds a financial incentive to ask Judge Griesa to suspend his ruling until the end of the year and allow payment of holders of the other bonds.
A default could shave as much as one percentage point off growth this year, said Martin Redrado, former governor of Argentina's central bank. Analysts said it would also fuel inflation, which some economists already estimate to be close to 40%, and deepen the country's recession. It could roil the country's financial markets, ending a period of relative calm in the peso's exchange rate and Argentine bond prices.
The economic damage from a prolonged default could prove politically costly for Mrs. Kirchner, who is trying to stabilize a shaky economy and win influence for her party ahead of presidential and congressional elections in October 2015.
Even if Argentina reaches a deal with holdouts, it likely won't be enough on its own to right the country's finances, said Roberto Sifon-Arevalo, head of the Latin America sovereign group at S&P.
A deal "would definitely be a good thing. I don't think that it would automatically be a solution, or a dramatic game-changer," he said. "The macroeconomic environment in the country has deteriorated significantly. It's weak and getting weaker. This situation certainly does not help."
The immediate impact to debt markets outside Argentina is expected to be limited. Argentina has been relatively isolated from global financial markets since its default in 2001, and the country's legal battles with its creditors are unprecedented and have dragged on in U.S. courts for years. In 2001, the country's bonds made up 20% of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.'s widely followed emerging-market debt index. Now, they are only 1.3% of the index, signaling little chance that another default would rattle the global economy.
"I don't think this is going to have much repercussion outside of Argentina," said Clyde Wardle, a senior currency strategist with HSBC Holdings PLC.
However, the case has raised questions about the power of U.S. courts to adjudicate cases involving sovereign nations and their creditors.
The concerns stem from the controversial 2012 ruling made by Judge Griesa, who has presided over disputes between Argentina and its creditors for more than a decade. He ruled that Argentina isn't allowed to pay the bondholders who accepted the country's restructuring offers since its 2001 default, unless it also pays the holdouts, who have refused those offers.
Lawyers said the ruling marked the first time a U.S. judge had issued such an injunction on the so-called "pari passu" clause, which states that all bondholders must be treated equally.
The U.S. government has called Judge Griesa's ruling "impermissibly broad" and said it could undermine U.S. foreign relations. The International Monetary Fund warned that Judge Griesa's ruling could make it easier for a handful of creditors to disrupt other debt restructurings. "There is a cost to the world," IMF Chief Economist Olivier Blanchard said last week.
Analysts say Wednesday's developments will likely rock Argentine markets on Thursday, as the country's stocks and bonds had rallied this week on hopes that the two sides would reach a deal and avert default. Investors said they had been encouraged by marathon talks on Tuesday and Wednesday between Argentine officials and a court-appointed mediator, as well as a proposal by Argentine banks to pay the holdout creditors.
"The market reaction won't be positive," said Brian Joseph, head trader at local brokerage Puente. "There were big expectations of a deal. This isn't good news."
There are many investors who have actually bet on an Argentine default through so-called credit default swaps, but it could be days before those investors find out whether they can collect on their bets. Decisions about CDS payouts are made by a panel convened by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, a financial trade group. There are $20.7 billion of CDS outstanding on Argentine government debt, according to Depository Trust & Clearing Corp.
The idea of default isn't much of a concern for many Argentines, who have lived through much greater crises over the decades and are adept at adapting to economic setbacks.
"We talk about this as if it's something normal. I'm not losing any sleep over it," said Juan Chamale, 36, who works at a Kodak store in downtown Buenos Aires. "We're very used to this kind of thing and have learned to take it in stride."
Argentina's default in 2001 led to the country's worst economic slump since the Great Depression. At the time, it was the largest sovereign default in history and triggered dozens of lawsuits against Argentina by creditors around the world.
After years of contentious talks, the country persuaded approximately 93% of its bondholders to take heavily discounted restructured bonds in exchanges held in 2005 and 2010. But a small group of investors refused to take the new bonds, with many suing in U.S. courts for full repayment. These included hedge funds led by Elliott Management Corp.'s NML Capital Ltd. and Aurelius Capital Ltd.
U.S. courts had jurisdiction over these lawsuits because Argentina had agreed in some of its bond contracts to resolve any disputes under New York law.
After Argentina denounced several U.S. court rulings awarding judgments to creditors and consistently refused to pay the holdouts, Judge Griesa issued his unprecedented 2012 ruling that barred Argentina from paying its restructured bondholders until it pays the holdouts.
For the next two years, Argentina tried every legal avenue to appeal the decision. But the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Judge Griesa's ruling, and the U.S. Supreme Court in June declined to hear Argentina's appeal.
Meanwhile, the holdout hedge funds chased Argentine assets around the globe in an attempt to get paid. NML seized an Argentine navy training vessel in 2012 and this year tried to block the country from launching a pair of satellites. Other creditors attempted to seize the presidential plane in 2007.
There is not (and never in recent history has there been) a debt crisis in the US.Anyone saying otherwise gives you a good idea of who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.
Do you believe that the U.S. is immune to a situation a la Argentina in 2001? The Fourth Circuit also issued an opinion today on the same exact issue, but found that the statute was ambiguous and sided with the Obama administration, saying that the statute can be interpreted to authorize subsidies for insurance purchased on federal exchanges. Finding ambiguity in the statute is not a pretty big stretch; it's an outright sham.
Here's the language:
Quote
The premium assistance amount determined under this subsection with respect to any coverage month is the amount equal to the lesser of—
(A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 [1] of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 [1] of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
That conclusion came from stringing together text from four or five different areas, liberal use of the words "so it could only mean," and much hand waving.
Article I, Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
"False Alarm" eh?....NY Times is such Marxist rubbish. Obama's deficits are being financed by inflationary Fed money printing, which causes prices to rise.
Have you bought meat or milk lately? Coffee? Chocolate? Cereal? Have you noticed the price jumps and shrinking packages?? Or is that a "false alarm?
P.S. You would have DOUBLE the income tax rate to cover Obamas's annual Trillion dollar debts
Have you bought meat or milk lately? Coffee? Chocolate? Cereal? Have you noticed the price jumps and shrinking packages?? Or is that a "false alarm?
P.S. You would have DOUBLE the income tax rate to cover Obamas's annual Trillion dollar debts
Don't think it will be too long before they include a wealth tax.
"False Alarm" eh?....NY Times is such Marxist rubbish. Obama's deficits are being financed by inflationary Fed money printing, which causes prices to rise.
Have you bought meat or milk lately? Coffee? Chocolate? Cereal? Have you noticed the price jumps and shrinking packages?? Or is that a "false alarm?
P.S. You would have DOUBLE the income tax rate to cover Obamas's annual Trillion dollar debts
Have you bought meat or milk lately? Coffee? Chocolate? Cereal? Have you noticed the price jumps and shrinking packages?? Or is that a "false alarm?
P.S. You would have DOUBLE the income tax rate to cover Obamas's annual Trillion dollar debts
The Fiscal Fizzle
Quote
For much of the past five years readers of the political and economic news were left in little doubt that budget deficits and rising debt were the most important issue facing America. Serious people constantly issued dire warnings that the United States risked turning into another Greece any day now. President Obama appointed a special, bipartisan commission to propose solutions to the alleged fiscal crisis, and spent much of his first term trying to negotiate a Grand Bargain on the budget with Republicans.
That bargain never happened, because Republicans refused to consider any deal that raised taxes. Nonetheless, debt and deficits have faded from the news. And there’s a good reason for that disappearing act: The whole thing turns out to have been a false alarm.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/21/opinion/Paul-Krugman-An-Imaginary-Budget-and-Debt-Crisis.html?&_r=0That bargain never happened, because Republicans refused to consider any deal that raised taxes. Nonetheless, debt and deficits have faded from the news. And there’s a good reason for that disappearing act: The whole thing turns out to have been a false alarm.
This from Krugman? Lol. The same guy who thought the internet would have only as much impact as a fax machine and opines about bitcoin (and other things) without having even a teaspoon of knowledge.
The lap dog of the authoritarians?
You are right. Krugman advocated a "housing bubble" in his column, got one, had it burst, and then claimed he didn't say what he said. And yet the so-called intellectuals still follow the guy.
Krugman is the worst of the worst, doing anything he can to support the authoritarians and their policies to control everyone so that they throw him a bone once in a while. He is intellectually dishonest and should be ashamed of himself for selling out freedom for his own power and self-aggrandizement.
The Fiscal Fizzle
Quote
For much of the past five years readers of the political and economic news were left in little doubt that budget deficits and rising debt were the most important issue facing America. Serious people constantly issued dire warnings that the United States risked turning into another Greece any day now. President Obama appointed a special, bipartisan commission to propose solutions to the alleged fiscal crisis, and spent much of his first term trying to negotiate a Grand Bargain on the budget with Republicans.
That bargain never happened, because Republicans refused to consider any deal that raised taxes. Nonetheless, debt and deficits have faded from the news. And there’s a good reason for that disappearing act: The whole thing turns out to have been a false alarm.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/21/opinion/Paul-Krugman-An-Imaginary-Budget-and-Debt-Crisis.html?&_r=0That bargain never happened, because Republicans refused to consider any deal that raised taxes. Nonetheless, debt and deficits have faded from the news. And there’s a good reason for that disappearing act: The whole thing turns out to have been a false alarm.
This from Krugman? Lol. The same guy who thought the internet would have only as much impact as a fax machine and opines about bitcoin (and other things) without having even a teaspoon of knowledge.
The lap dog of the authoritarians?
Its easy for people to dog him because he's visible. Like when people say Tom Cruise can't act.
His trade theory won a prize so thats a pretty remarkable achievement.
I do disagree w his view of money as exogenous
The Fiscal Fizzle
Quote
For much of the past five years readers of the political and economic news were left in little doubt that budget deficits and rising debt were the most important issue facing America. Serious people constantly issued dire warnings that the United States risked turning into another Greece any day now. President Obama appointed a special, bipartisan commission to propose solutions to the alleged fiscal crisis, and spent much of his first term trying to negotiate a Grand Bargain on the budget with Republicans.
That bargain never happened, because Republicans refused to consider any deal that raised taxes. Nonetheless, debt and deficits have faded from the news. And there’s a good reason for that disappearing act: The whole thing turns out to have been a false alarm.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/21/opinion/Paul-Krugman-An-Imaginary-Budget-and-Debt-Crisis.html?&_r=0That bargain never happened, because Republicans refused to consider any deal that raised taxes. Nonetheless, debt and deficits have faded from the news. And there’s a good reason for that disappearing act: The whole thing turns out to have been a false alarm.
This from Krugman? Lol. The same guy who thought the internet would have only as much impact as a fax machine and opines about bitcoin (and other things) without having even a teaspoon of knowledge.
The lap dog of the authoritarians?
There is not (and never in recent history has there been) a debt crisis in the US.Anyone saying otherwise gives you a good idea of who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.
Do you believe that the U.S. is immune to a situation a la Argentina in 2001? The Fourth Circuit also issued an opinion today on the same exact issue, but found that the statute was ambiguous and sided with the Obama administration, saying that the statute can be interpreted to authorize subsidies for insurance purchased on federal exchanges. Finding ambiguity in the statute is not a pretty big stretch; it's an outright sham.
Here's the language:
Quote
The premium assistance amount determined under this subsection with respect to any coverage month is the amount equal to the lesser of—
(A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 [1] of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 [1] of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
That conclusion came from stringing together text from four or five different areas, liberal use of the words "so it could only mean," and much hand waving.
"Congress shall make no law"
you are really stupid enough to think there are exceptions to that EXACT WORDING?
Now why would only that amendment be worded in that way and not the other 8 dealing with individual rights?
There is not (and never in recent history has there been) a debt crisis in the US.Anyone saying otherwise gives you a good idea of who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.
Do you believe that the U.S. is immune to a situation a la Argentina in 2001? The Fourth Circuit also issued an opinion today on the same exact issue, but found that the statute was ambiguous and sided with the Obama administration, saying that the statute can be interpreted to authorize subsidies for insurance purchased on federal exchanges. Finding ambiguity in the statute is not a pretty big stretch; it's an outright sham.
Here's the language:
Quote
The premium assistance amount determined under this subsection with respect to any coverage month is the amount equal to the lesser of—
(A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 [1] of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 [1] of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
That conclusion came from stringing together text from four or five different areas, liberal use of the words "so it could only mean," and much hand waving.
There is not (and never in recent history has there been) a debt crisis in the US.Anyone saying otherwise gives you a good idea of who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.
Do you believe that the U.S. is immune to a situation a la Argentina in 2001? The Fourth Circuit also issued an opinion today on the same exact issue, but found that the statute was ambiguous and sided with the Obama administration, saying that the statute can be interpreted to authorize subsidies for insurance purchased on federal exchanges. Finding ambiguity in the statute is not a pretty big stretch; it's an outright sham.
Here's the language:
Quote
The premium assistance amount determined under this subsection with respect to any coverage month is the amount equal to the lesser of—
(A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 [1] of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 [1] of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
That conclusion came from stringing together text from four or five different areas, liberal use of the words "so it could only mean," and much hand waving.
There is not (and never in recent history has there been) a debt crisis in the US.Anyone saying otherwise gives you a good idea of who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.
Do you believe that the U.S. is immune to a situation a la Argentina in 2001? The Fourth Circuit also issued an opinion today on the same exact issue, but found that the statute was ambiguous and sided with the Obama administration, saying that the statute can be interpreted to authorize subsidies for insurance purchased on federal exchanges. Finding ambiguity in the statute is not a pretty big stretch; it's an outright sham.
Here's the language:
Quote
The premium assistance amount determined under this subsection with respect to any coverage month is the amount equal to the lesser of—
(A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 [1] of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 [1] of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
There is not (and never in recent history has there been) a debt crisis in the US.Anyone saying otherwise gives you a good idea of who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.
"delicate balance"
Oh yes... the "delicate balance" of our ongoing large scale ground war, a US Congress full of Republicans constantly threatening to shut down government, civil wars across the Middle East, and a re-igniting Palestinian conflict, a suspected spying being confirmed.
Yeah, bro! We better be really careful not to upset things.
Oh yes... the "delicate balance" of our ongoing large scale ground war, a US Congress full of Republicans constantly threatening to shut down government, civil wars across the Middle East, and a re-igniting Palestinian conflict, a suspected spying being confirmed.
Yeah, bro! We better be really careful not to upset things.
He is right. The debt ceiling crises are completely artificial in nature .....
No, he is wrong. If anything upsets the delicate balance we have right now, all of the debt will immediately be a huge problem. The fact that central banks have kept interest rates at zero or negative rates, and have continued massive bond buying programs, hides the problem. In no rational world should Italy and France be able to borrow at their current rates. But what else can Krugman say? He has unclean hands. He advocated for this interest rate environment. So now every column he writes is designed to hide the issues it is creating. Just last week he argued the rich are the only ones clamoring for higher inflation and rates as they are being punished by lower rates because of their large bond holdings. He wrote this column two months after saying that the stock market boom is disproportionately benefiting the rich. The man has no credibility.
He is right. The debt ceiling crises are completely artificial in nature .....
The Fiscal Fizzle
Quote
For much of the past five years readers of the political and economic news were left in little doubt that budget deficits and rising debt were the most important issue facing America. Serious people constantly issued dire warnings that the United States risked turning into another Greece any day now. President Obama appointed a special, bipartisan commission to propose solutions to the alleged fiscal crisis, and spent much of his first term trying to negotiate a Grand Bargain on the budget with Republicans.
That bargain never happened, because Republicans refused to consider any deal that raised taxes. Nonetheless, debt and deficits have faded from the news. And there’s a good reason for that disappearing act: The whole thing turns out to have been a false alarm.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/21/opinion/Paul-Krugman-An-Imaginary-Budget-and-Debt-Crisis.html?&_r=0That bargain never happened, because Republicans refused to consider any deal that raised taxes. Nonetheless, debt and deficits have faded from the news. And there’s a good reason for that disappearing act: The whole thing turns out to have been a false alarm.
This from Krugman? Lol. The same guy who thought the internet would have only as much impact as a fax machine and opines about bitcoin (and other things) without having even a teaspoon of knowledge.
The lap dog of the authoritarians?
I wouldn't say that it is a false alarm, as the GOP is still trying to cut the deficit, however Obama and his liberal friends are trying to tie any budget negotiations to make it so that any deal would include the furthering of crazy liberal policies.
It was not Obama that was trying to get our fiscal house in order, it was the GOP when they took over control of the House and took away Democrats supermajority of the Senate. Democrats had control of both chambers of congress for two years and could have fixed our fiscal problems, but instead spent trillions in deficit spending for "stimulus"
It was not Obama that was trying to get our fiscal house in order, it was the GOP when they took over control of the House and took away Democrats supermajority of the Senate. Democrats had control of both chambers of congress for two years and could have fixed our fiscal problems, but instead spent trillions in deficit spending for "stimulus"
The Fiscal Fizzle
Quote
For much of the past five years readers of the political and economic news were left in little doubt that budget deficits and rising debt were the most important issue facing America. Serious people constantly issued dire warnings that the United States risked turning into another Greece any day now. President Obama appointed a special, bipartisan commission to propose solutions to the alleged fiscal crisis, and spent much of his first term trying to negotiate a Grand Bargain on the budget with Republicans.
That bargain never happened, because Republicans refused to consider any deal that raised taxes. Nonetheless, debt and deficits have faded from the news. And there’s a good reason for that disappearing act: The whole thing turns out to have been a false alarm.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/21/opinion/Paul-Krugman-An-Imaginary-Budget-and-Debt-Crisis.html?&_r=0That bargain never happened, because Republicans refused to consider any deal that raised taxes. Nonetheless, debt and deficits have faded from the news. And there’s a good reason for that disappearing act: The whole thing turns out to have been a false alarm.
This from Krugman? Lol. The same guy who thought the internet would have only as much impact as a fax machine and opines about bitcoin (and other things) without having even a teaspoon of knowledge.
The lap dog of the authoritarians?
Isn't it surprising people still read what this Krugman wrote? He is always on the wrong side on almost every important issue.
Seeing as BTC is at $620 and not $10.. he is probably wrong.
The Fiscal Fizzle
Quote
For much of the past five years readers of the political and economic news were left in little doubt that budget deficits and rising debt were the most important issue facing America. Serious people constantly issued dire warnings that the United States risked turning into another Greece any day now. President Obama appointed a special, bipartisan commission to propose solutions to the alleged fiscal crisis, and spent much of his first term trying to negotiate a Grand Bargain on the budget with Republicans.
That bargain never happened, because Republicans refused to consider any deal that raised taxes. Nonetheless, debt and deficits have faded from the news. And there’s a good reason for that disappearing act: The whole thing turns out to have been a false alarm.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/21/opinion/Paul-Krugman-An-Imaginary-Budget-and-Debt-Crisis.html?&_r=0That bargain never happened, because Republicans refused to consider any deal that raised taxes. Nonetheless, debt and deficits have faded from the news. And there’s a good reason for that disappearing act: The whole thing turns out to have been a false alarm.
This from Krugman? Lol. The same guy who thought the internet would have only as much impact as a fax machine and opines about bitcoin (and other things) without having even a teaspoon of knowledge.
The lap dog of the authoritarians?
When Obama's budget failed 413-2, it's not exactly fair to blame the republicans.
The Fiscal Fizzle
Quote
For much of the past five years readers of the political and economic news were left in little doubt that budget deficits and rising debt were the most important issue facing America. Serious people constantly issued dire warnings that the United States risked turning into another Greece any day now. President Obama appointed a special, bipartisan commission to propose solutions to the alleged fiscal crisis, and spent much of his first term trying to negotiate a Grand Bargain on the budget with Republicans.
That bargain never happened, because Republicans refused to consider any deal that raised taxes. Nonetheless, debt and deficits have faded from the news. And there’s a good reason for that disappearing act: The whole thing turns out to have been a false alarm.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/21/opinion/Paul-Krugman-An-Imaginary-Budget-and-Debt-Crisis.html?&_r=0 That bargain never happened, because Republicans refused to consider any deal that raised taxes. Nonetheless, debt and deficits have faded from the news. And there’s a good reason for that disappearing act: The whole thing turns out to have been a false alarm.
Jump to: