|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
a pure insurance system does not cover pre existing conditions. however, the function of a healthcare system does. if you want a system that is insurance based, yet you want the system to fulfill some bare minimum functions like covering for disabled/pre-existing conditions, then the insurance system just has to be modified to accommodate. there's no slavish attachment to the sanctity of pure insurance.
|
On October 02 2013 01:02 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 00:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 02 2013 00:26 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On October 02 2013 00:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 01 2013 16:51 acker wrote:On October 01 2013 14:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:It sounds like the 44% number is relative to all spending and specifically for August. Also, the article made a point of: The BPC does not see it likely there will be an actual default on bond payments. That's still really bad news, you know -.- Furthermore, it's relative to all federal spending, not relative to all spending. Also, see below. Yes, all federal government (i.e. the thing we're discussing) spending. Not just spending on creditors or whatever you wrote. On October 01 2013 14:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
The Treasury doesn't contradict me, so why do I need a source to contradict the Treasury? The Treasury wrote that meeting cash commitments =/= new spending. That doesn't contradict what I wrote. The Treasury does, in fact, contradict you. Read further. Failing to increase the debt limit would have catastrophic economic consequences. It would cause the government to default on its legal obligations – an unprecedented event in American history. Your definition of "default" isn't particularly useful, as it's limited to bondholders. Even if you pay back everyone who physically holds US Treasuries, the Treasury would still be obligated to pay money to everyone it owes money to. That's still considered a default. What I fail to see is how you don't think this would be catastrophic for the US Economy. What you're arguing in full seriousness, paying back bondholders while failing to raise the debt ceiling, was so unrealistic that only Bachmann supported it (and for less than a week!). Early on in this discussion I asked what definition of creditor / default you were using. You said that your definition was the same as mine. Apparently not!! Anyways, yes, given enough time a failure to increase the debt ceiling will result in a default of some kind. How much that matters depends on what kind of default it is and how people react to it. We defaulted twice in the 70's (the Nixon shock and a delayed payment in '79) and no one gives enough of a shit to even mention that any more (or any of the other defaults). Regardless, as I said to another poster, the longer this goes on the worse it will be. My point wasn't that this is somehow good or even OK, my point was that the Treasury has tools to avoid a default in the event that the debt ceiling isn't raised. Those tools have limits, but, they exists, and so we shouldn't be freaking out over a default. Are social security payments a legal obligation? Are payments to contractors and employees under contracts legal obligations? The answer, obviously, is yes those are legal obligations. Your definition of "default" as strictly "default on treasury bill payments" is ridiculous. The word default includes any default on any legally obligated payment. If the FEDGOV defaults on a contract to pay, that is a default whether it is on a treasury bill or not. If the government is 10 days late on a $100 phone bill did it 'default'? Yes. When I don't pay my rent on time, I am in default on my contract. When people don't pay their mortgages, the banks repossess their houses because they have defaulted on their mortgage contracts. This should feel obvious in your mind.
Yeah, not paying your mortgage results in foreclosure. What happens if you pay your phone bill 10 days late? The same thing? No! They're different things with different consequences. You can lump them together if you want, or you can not lump them together if you want. It depends on what you want to talk about.
The financial system won't collapse if the government pays a vendor late (common occurrence). It might if it defaults on its bonds. That's an important distinction, and I don't think it's ridiculous at all to focus on it.
|
Arguing that pre-existing conditions ought to be covered is missing the point. Nobody is arguing that those people ought to be "told to fuck off". All xDaunt and others are saying is that it's silky to consider it insurance. If we pay fir peoples pre-existing conditions that's not insurance because we knew it was going to happen. It's just a social service at that point (and a good one imo)
|
United States41989 Posts
By the way xDaunt was I correct in thinking you advocated a single payer provision of the basic fundamentals of public health with optional insurance companies operating in a fully private capitalist system for those who want them a few pages ago?
|
Yawn, I don't care what you call it. Seems like a pointless semantic discussion.
|
Norway28558 Posts
medical conditions can be "kinda pre-existing" and "kinda not". like, you can say someone is predisposed for cancer. that doesn't mean cancer is a pre-existing condition for them, it just means they're more likely to get it. and then it means that an insurance company which runs its operation purely based on profit margins will either charge someone predisposed for serious health effects astronomical sums to insure them, or just ignore them completely. it's still insurance, just that if you allow insurance companies to operate based on pure free-market principles, then they completely fail to also play a role beneficial to society. And generally I think it's awesome that people can make money, even a lot of money. As long as there's some degree of relation between that income and societal benefit gained from whatever it is they do.
|
On October 02 2013 01:51 DoubleReed wrote:
Yawn, I don't care what you call it. Seems like a pointless semantic discussion.
Congratulations, the proper conclusion has been reached!
|
On October 02 2013 01:48 KwarK wrote:
By the way xDaunt was I correct in thinking you advocated a single payer provision of the basic fundamentals of public health with optional insurance companies operating in a fully private capitalist system for those who want them a few pages ago?
Basically, yes, but it's not really single payer if private insurance is involved.
|
United States41989 Posts
On October 02 2013 01:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 01:48 KwarK wrote:
By the way xDaunt was I correct in thinking you advocated a single payer provision of the basic fundamentals of public health with optional insurance companies operating in a fully private capitalist system for those who want them a few pages ago? Basically, yes, but it's not really single payer if private insurance is involved.
Would you characterise the NHS as not single payer? We have a thriving private health insurance sector.
|
On October 02 2013 01:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 01:02 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On October 02 2013 00:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 02 2013 00:26 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On October 02 2013 00:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 01 2013 16:51 acker wrote:On October 01 2013 14:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:It sounds like the 44% number is relative to all spending and specifically for August. Also, the article made a point of: The BPC does not see it likely there will be an actual default on bond payments. That's still really bad news, you know -.- Furthermore, it's relative to all federal spending, not relative to all spending. Also, see below. Yes, all federal government (i.e. the thing we're discussing) spending. Not just spending on creditors or whatever you wrote. On October 01 2013 14:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
The Treasury doesn't contradict me, so why do I need a source to contradict the Treasury? The Treasury wrote that meeting cash commitments =/= new spending. That doesn't contradict what I wrote. The Treasury does, in fact, contradict you. Read further. Failing to increase the debt limit would have catastrophic economic consequences. It would cause the government to default on its legal obligations – an unprecedented event in American history. Your definition of "default" isn't particularly useful, as it's limited to bondholders. Even if you pay back everyone who physically holds US Treasuries, the Treasury would still be obligated to pay money to everyone it owes money to. That's still considered a default. What I fail to see is how you don't think this would be catastrophic for the US Economy. What you're arguing in full seriousness, paying back bondholders while failing to raise the debt ceiling, was so unrealistic that only Bachmann supported it (and for less than a week!). Early on in this discussion I asked what definition of creditor / default you were using. You said that your definition was the same as mine. Apparently not!! Anyways, yes, given enough time a failure to increase the debt ceiling will result in a default of some kind. How much that matters depends on what kind of default it is and how people react to it. We defaulted twice in the 70's (the Nixon shock and a delayed payment in '79) and no one gives enough of a shit to even mention that any more (or any of the other defaults). Regardless, as I said to another poster, the longer this goes on the worse it will be. My point wasn't that this is somehow good or even OK, my point was that the Treasury has tools to avoid a default in the event that the debt ceiling isn't raised. Those tools have limits, but, they exists, and so we shouldn't be freaking out over a default. Are social security payments a legal obligation? Are payments to contractors and employees under contracts legal obligations? The answer, obviously, is yes those are legal obligations. Your definition of "default" as strictly "default on treasury bill payments" is ridiculous. The word default includes any default on any legally obligated payment. If the FEDGOV defaults on a contract to pay, that is a default whether it is on a treasury bill or not. If the government is 10 days late on a $100 phone bill did it 'default'? Yes. When I don't pay my rent on time, I am in default on my contract. When people don't pay their mortgages, the banks repossess their houses because they have defaulted on their mortgage contracts. This should feel obvious in your mind. Yeah, not paying your mortgage results in foreclosure. What happens if you pay your phone bill 10 days late? The same thing? No! They're different things with different consequences. You can lump them together if you want, or you can not lump them together if you want. It depends on what you want to talk about. The financial system won't collapse if the government pays a vendor late (common occurrence). It might if it defaults on its bonds. That's an important distinction, and I don't think it's ridiculous at all to focus on it.
I agree that different payment defaults have different consequences. Too bad the defaults will be random. See the treasury doesn't actually have the ability to choose which payments to default on because its database doesn't work that way. Thus, those hard hitting defaults will occur no matter what. The treasury doesn't have the option of only defaulting on the equivalent of its phone bills. It is going to default on critical stuff, at random, with little ability to track it. See page 17, the "prioritization" section.
http://bipartisanpolicy.org/library/staff-paper/debt-limit
|
On October 02 2013 02:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 01:57 xDaunt wrote:On October 02 2013 01:48 KwarK wrote:
By the way xDaunt was I correct in thinking you advocated a single payer provision of the basic fundamentals of public health with optional insurance companies operating in a fully private capitalist system for those who want them a few pages ago? Basically, yes, but it's not really single payer if private insurance is involved. Would you characterise the NHS as not single payer? We have a thriving private health insurance sector.
In common parlance, yeah, it is single payer. It is kind of a misnomer though.
|
On October 02 2013 02:10 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 01:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 02 2013 01:02 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On October 02 2013 00:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 02 2013 00:26 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On October 02 2013 00:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 01 2013 16:51 acker wrote:On October 01 2013 14:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:It sounds like the 44% number is relative to all spending and specifically for August. Also, the article made a point of: The BPC does not see it likely there will be an actual default on bond payments. That's still really bad news, you know -.- Furthermore, it's relative to all federal spending, not relative to all spending. Also, see below. Yes, all federal government (i.e. the thing we're discussing) spending. Not just spending on creditors or whatever you wrote. On October 01 2013 14:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
The Treasury doesn't contradict me, so why do I need a source to contradict the Treasury? The Treasury wrote that meeting cash commitments =/= new spending. That doesn't contradict what I wrote. The Treasury does, in fact, contradict you. Read further. Failing to increase the debt limit would have catastrophic economic consequences. It would cause the government to default on its legal obligations – an unprecedented event in American history. Your definition of "default" isn't particularly useful, as it's limited to bondholders. Even if you pay back everyone who physically holds US Treasuries, the Treasury would still be obligated to pay money to everyone it owes money to. That's still considered a default. What I fail to see is how you don't think this would be catastrophic for the US Economy. What you're arguing in full seriousness, paying back bondholders while failing to raise the debt ceiling, was so unrealistic that only Bachmann supported it (and for less than a week!). Early on in this discussion I asked what definition of creditor / default you were using. You said that your definition was the same as mine. Apparently not!! Anyways, yes, given enough time a failure to increase the debt ceiling will result in a default of some kind. How much that matters depends on what kind of default it is and how people react to it. We defaulted twice in the 70's (the Nixon shock and a delayed payment in '79) and no one gives enough of a shit to even mention that any more (or any of the other defaults). Regardless, as I said to another poster, the longer this goes on the worse it will be. My point wasn't that this is somehow good or even OK, my point was that the Treasury has tools to avoid a default in the event that the debt ceiling isn't raised. Those tools have limits, but, they exists, and so we shouldn't be freaking out over a default. Are social security payments a legal obligation? Are payments to contractors and employees under contracts legal obligations? The answer, obviously, is yes those are legal obligations. Your definition of "default" as strictly "default on treasury bill payments" is ridiculous. The word default includes any default on any legally obligated payment. If the FEDGOV defaults on a contract to pay, that is a default whether it is on a treasury bill or not. If the government is 10 days late on a $100 phone bill did it 'default'? Yes. When I don't pay my rent on time, I am in default on my contract. When people don't pay their mortgages, the banks repossess their houses because they have defaulted on their mortgage contracts. This should feel obvious in your mind. Yeah, not paying your mortgage results in foreclosure. What happens if you pay your phone bill 10 days late? The same thing? No! They're different things with different consequences. You can lump them together if you want, or you can not lump them together if you want. It depends on what you want to talk about. The financial system won't collapse if the government pays a vendor late (common occurrence). It might if it defaults on its bonds. That's an important distinction, and I don't think it's ridiculous at all to focus on it. I agree that different payment defaults have different consequences. Too bad the defaults will be random. See the treasury doesn't actually have the ability to choose which payments to default on because its database doesn't work that way. Thus, those hard hitting defaults will occur no matter what. The treasury doesn't have the option of only defaulting on the equivalent of its phone bills. It is going to default on critical stuff, at random, with little ability to track it. See page 17, the "prioritization" section. http://bipartisanpolicy.org/library/staff-paper/debt-limit
Yeah I've heard that. I'm not sure I buy it. They should be able to manually sort the database even if the software won't do it automatically.
|
On October 02 2013 02:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 02:10 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On October 02 2013 01:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 02 2013 01:02 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On October 02 2013 00:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 02 2013 00:26 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On October 02 2013 00:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 01 2013 16:51 acker wrote:On October 01 2013 14:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:It sounds like the 44% number is relative to all spending and specifically for August. Also, the article made a point of: The BPC does not see it likely there will be an actual default on bond payments. That's still really bad news, you know -.- Furthermore, it's relative to all federal spending, not relative to all spending. Also, see below. Yes, all federal government (i.e. the thing we're discussing) spending. Not just spending on creditors or whatever you wrote. On October 01 2013 14:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
The Treasury doesn't contradict me, so why do I need a source to contradict the Treasury? The Treasury wrote that meeting cash commitments =/= new spending. That doesn't contradict what I wrote. The Treasury does, in fact, contradict you. Read further. Failing to increase the debt limit would have catastrophic economic consequences. It would cause the government to default on its legal obligations – an unprecedented event in American history. Your definition of "default" isn't particularly useful, as it's limited to bondholders. Even if you pay back everyone who physically holds US Treasuries, the Treasury would still be obligated to pay money to everyone it owes money to. That's still considered a default. What I fail to see is how you don't think this would be catastrophic for the US Economy. What you're arguing in full seriousness, paying back bondholders while failing to raise the debt ceiling, was so unrealistic that only Bachmann supported it (and for less than a week!). Early on in this discussion I asked what definition of creditor / default you were using. You said that your definition was the same as mine. Apparently not!! Anyways, yes, given enough time a failure to increase the debt ceiling will result in a default of some kind. How much that matters depends on what kind of default it is and how people react to it. We defaulted twice in the 70's (the Nixon shock and a delayed payment in '79) and no one gives enough of a shit to even mention that any more (or any of the other defaults). Regardless, as I said to another poster, the longer this goes on the worse it will be. My point wasn't that this is somehow good or even OK, my point was that the Treasury has tools to avoid a default in the event that the debt ceiling isn't raised. Those tools have limits, but, they exists, and so we shouldn't be freaking out over a default. Are social security payments a legal obligation? Are payments to contractors and employees under contracts legal obligations? The answer, obviously, is yes those are legal obligations. Your definition of "default" as strictly "default on treasury bill payments" is ridiculous. The word default includes any default on any legally obligated payment. If the FEDGOV defaults on a contract to pay, that is a default whether it is on a treasury bill or not. If the government is 10 days late on a $100 phone bill did it 'default'? Yes. When I don't pay my rent on time, I am in default on my contract. When people don't pay their mortgages, the banks repossess their houses because they have defaulted on their mortgage contracts. This should feel obvious in your mind. Yeah, not paying your mortgage results in foreclosure. What happens if you pay your phone bill 10 days late? The same thing? No! They're different things with different consequences. You can lump them together if you want, or you can not lump them together if you want. It depends on what you want to talk about. The financial system won't collapse if the government pays a vendor late (common occurrence). It might if it defaults on its bonds. That's an important distinction, and I don't think it's ridiculous at all to focus on it. I agree that different payment defaults have different consequences. Too bad the defaults will be random. See the treasury doesn't actually have the ability to choose which payments to default on because its database doesn't work that way. Thus, those hard hitting defaults will occur no matter what. The treasury doesn't have the option of only defaulting on the equivalent of its phone bills. It is going to default on critical stuff, at random, with little ability to track it. See page 17, the "prioritization" section. http://bipartisanpolicy.org/library/staff-paper/debt-limit Yeah I've heard that. I'm not sure I buy it. They should be able to manually sort the database even if the software won't do it automatically.
Imagine that they actually had a fully functional "prioritization" power. It would be the most dictatorial thing in this country's history. It would end our constitutional order. The president could, at a whim, choose what bills to pay and which not to pay when over the debt ceiling. If such a "prioritization" power existed, I theorize that the president could simply eliminate all payments to congressional districts held by Republicans for instance.
|
I'm a little tied up at the moment and can't browse through this thread, but what will the effects be on the US with its government shutting down? I can assume some things like immediate budget cuts and public services like DMV shutting down and Visas getting delayed, but what are the more serious issues?
|
On October 02 2013 00:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Early on in this discussion I asked what definition of creditor / default you were using. You said that your definition was the same as mine. Apparently not!!
Now you're making stuff up. We never agreed on the definition of a default, only that of a creditor.
On October 02 2013 00:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Anyways, yes, given enough time a failure to increase the debt ceiling will result in a default of some kind. How much that matters depends on what kind of default it is and how people react to it. We defaulted twice in the 70's (the Nixon shock and a delayed payment in '79) and no one gives enough of a shit to even mention that any more (or any of the other defaults).
Of course we don't care about it any more, the 70s were forty years ago; we barely gave two shits about something as large as the Great Depression until 2007! Moreover, the 70s had a ton of stuff going on in it other than the default. That doesn't mean that debt ceiling failures are not important.
On October 02 2013 00:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Regardless, as I said to another poster, the longer this goes on the worse it will be. My point wasn't that this is somehow good or even OK, my point was that the Treasury has tools to avoid a default in the event that the debt ceiling isn't raised. Those tools have limits, but, they exists, and so we shouldn't be freaking out over a default.
Your point was that a realistic alternative to raising the debt ceiling existed. So far, your alternative involves a 40% cut to total government spending, as well as defaults on existing government obligations.
On October 02 2013 00:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
If the government is 10 days late on a $100 phone bill did it 'default'?
If the government is a day late on 50 cents worth of Treasuries, did it default? What if the government is ten years late on twenty billion dollars' worth of payment to Acme Telecommunications, Inc.?
Or are you seriously equivocating being trivially late on a hundred dollars' worth of obligations to default concerning several trillion dollars?
On October 02 2013 02:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Yeah I've heard that. I'm not sure I buy it. They should be able to manually sort the database even if the software won't do it automatically.
Does this mean that the Treasury has the power to arbitrarily sort out what we pay for if we fall off the fiscal cliff?
The implications are astounding.
|
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) worked with top congressional Democrats behind the scenes to preserve employer contributions for congressional staff's health care plans even as he decried those subsidies in public, Politico reported Tuesday.
Emails and documents obtained by Politico show Boehner and his aides worked with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), among others, to find a way to maintain the long-standing employer contributions. Those documents also show that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was aware of the behind-the-scenes talks.
In addition to those efforts, Boehner attempted to arrange a meeting with President Barack Obama to ask for help in securing the subsidies, the documents show. Although Boehner and the president never met to discuss the contributions, a senior Boehner aide was able to meet with White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough on the issue, according to Politico.
A Boehner spokesman denied that the speaker's efforts went against the speaker's public position on Obamacare.
“We always made it clear that the House would not pass any legislative ‘fix,’” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel told the publication. “As POLITICO has previously reported, Speaker Boehner was aware that Sen. Reid and the White House were discussing this issue. He was always clear, however, that any ‘fix’ would be a Democratic ‘fix.’ His ‘fix’ is repealing” Obamacare.
Reid's communications director Adam Jentleson told Politico that the Nevada Democrat "appreciates Speaker Boehner’s cooperation and tireless efforts to work through this difficult issue."
Source
|
On October 02 2013 04:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) worked with top congressional Democrats behind the scenes to preserve employer contributions for congressional staff's health care plans even as he decried those subsidies in public, Politico reported Tuesday.
Emails and documents obtained by Politico show Boehner and his aides worked with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), among others, to find a way to maintain the long-standing employer contributions. Those documents also show that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was aware of the behind-the-scenes talks.
In addition to those efforts, Boehner attempted to arrange a meeting with President Barack Obama to ask for help in securing the subsidies, the documents show. Although Boehner and the president never met to discuss the contributions, a senior Boehner aide was able to meet with White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough on the issue, according to Politico.
A Boehner spokesman denied that the speaker's efforts went against the speaker's public position on Obamacare.
“We always made it clear that the House would not pass any legislative ‘fix,’” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel told the publication. “As POLITICO has previously reported, Speaker Boehner was aware that Sen. Reid and the White House were discussing this issue. He was always clear, however, that any ‘fix’ would be a Democratic ‘fix.’ His ‘fix’ is repealing” Obamacare.
Reid's communications director Adam Jentleson told Politico that the Nevada Democrat "appreciates Speaker Boehner’s cooperation and tireless efforts to work through this difficult issue." Source
Well thats hypocritical. This kind of thing is another reason why no one likes our current congress. Think they can go below 5% approval rating from this mess?
|
On October 02 2013 04:20 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 04:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) worked with top congressional Democrats behind the scenes to preserve employer contributions for congressional staff's health care plans even as he decried those subsidies in public, Politico reported Tuesday.
Emails and documents obtained by Politico show Boehner and his aides worked with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), among others, to find a way to maintain the long-standing employer contributions. Those documents also show that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was aware of the behind-the-scenes talks.
In addition to those efforts, Boehner attempted to arrange a meeting with President Barack Obama to ask for help in securing the subsidies, the documents show. Although Boehner and the president never met to discuss the contributions, a senior Boehner aide was able to meet with White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough on the issue, according to Politico.
A Boehner spokesman denied that the speaker's efforts went against the speaker's public position on Obamacare.
“We always made it clear that the House would not pass any legislative ‘fix,’” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel told the publication. “As POLITICO has previously reported, Speaker Boehner was aware that Sen. Reid and the White House were discussing this issue. He was always clear, however, that any ‘fix’ would be a Democratic ‘fix.’ His ‘fix’ is repealing” Obamacare.
Reid's communications director Adam Jentleson told Politico that the Nevada Democrat "appreciates Speaker Boehner’s cooperation and tireless efforts to work through this difficult issue." Source Well thats hypocritical. This kind of thing is another reason why no one likes our current congress. Think they can go below 5% approval rating from this mess?
Wow, approval is that low? Hopefully they can figure this shit out.
|
On October 02 2013 04:20 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 04:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) worked with top congressional Democrats behind the scenes to preserve employer contributions for congressional staff's health care plans even as he decried those subsidies in public, Politico reported Tuesday.
Emails and documents obtained by Politico show Boehner and his aides worked with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), among others, to find a way to maintain the long-standing employer contributions. Those documents also show that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was aware of the behind-the-scenes talks.
In addition to those efforts, Boehner attempted to arrange a meeting with President Barack Obama to ask for help in securing the subsidies, the documents show. Although Boehner and the president never met to discuss the contributions, a senior Boehner aide was able to meet with White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough on the issue, according to Politico.
A Boehner spokesman denied that the speaker's efforts went against the speaker's public position on Obamacare.
“We always made it clear that the House would not pass any legislative ‘fix,’” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel told the publication. “As POLITICO has previously reported, Speaker Boehner was aware that Sen. Reid and the White House were discussing this issue. He was always clear, however, that any ‘fix’ would be a Democratic ‘fix.’ His ‘fix’ is repealing” Obamacare.
Reid's communications director Adam Jentleson told Politico that the Nevada Democrat "appreciates Speaker Boehner’s cooperation and tireless efforts to work through this difficult issue." Source Well thats hypocritical. This kind of thing is another reason why no one likes our current congress. Think they can go below 5% approval rating from this mess?
How are people surprised by this?
Boehner has been trying to stop this crisis from happening since pretty much the beginning. He knows the Republican party cannot win this fight and to save his position he has to shout against democrats once in a while. I see 0 sunrise in him trying to fix things behind the scenes while saying something different to his voters.
|
On October 02 2013 03:57 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 00:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Early on in this discussion I asked what definition of creditor / default you were using. You said that your definition was the same as mine. Apparently not!! Now you're making stuff up. We never agreed on the definition of a default, only that of a creditor.
So?
Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 00:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Anyways, yes, given enough time a failure to increase the debt ceiling will result in a default of some kind. How much that matters depends on what kind of default it is and how people react to it. We defaulted twice in the 70's (the Nixon shock and a delayed payment in '79) and no one gives enough of a shit to even mention that any more (or any of the other defaults). Of course we don't care about it any more, the 70s were forty years ago; we barely gave two shits about something as large as the Great Depression until 2007! Moreover, the 70s had a ton of stuff going on in it other than the default. That doesn't mean that debt ceiling failures are not important.
I never said that debt ceiling failures aren't important. In fact I explicitly said that the longer the government shutdown goes on, the worse the damage will be.
I also said that we won't default on our debt, or that at least we don't have to because we can keep making interest payments and rolling over principal balances.
Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 00:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Regardless, as I said to another poster, the longer this goes on the worse it will be. My point wasn't that this is somehow good or even OK, my point was that the Treasury has tools to avoid a default in the event that the debt ceiling isn't raised. Those tools have limits, but, they exists, and so we shouldn't be freaking out over a default. Your point was that a realistic alternative to raising the debt ceiling existed. So far, your alternative involves a 40% cut to total government spending, as well as defaults on existing government obligations.
No, my point was that we don't need to raise the debt ceiling to avoid an immediate default on our debt.
Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 00:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
If the government is 10 days late on a $100 phone bill did it 'default'? If the government is a day late on 50 cents worth of Treasuries, did it default? What if the government is ten years late on twenty billion dollars' worth of payment to Acme Telecommunications, Inc.? Or are you seriously equivocating being trivially late on a hundred dollars' worth of obligations to default concerning several trillion dollars?
No, I'm not equivocating being trivially late on a hundred dollars' worth of obligations to default on trillions of dollars. I'm doing the opposite of that. Defaulting on different obligations in different amounts is different, as I pointed out in a previous post.
Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 02:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Yeah I've heard that. I'm not sure I buy it. They should be able to manually sort the database even if the software won't do it automatically. Does this mean that the Treasury has the power to arbitrarily sort out what we pay for if we fall off the fiscal cliff? The implications are astounding.
There are legal precedents as well as statutory laws and constitutional interpretations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
