So are Republicans now openly terrorists?

by Simon 369 Replies latest social current

• 

  designs

  'broke' no the US Government is able to pay its obligations. US debt is the fifth safety of 156 countries. Tax revenue as a percentage of the economy is at a 60 year low so there is room to raise taxes as California did.

  Alexander Hamilton,1st Secretary of the Tresaury, in 1790 absorded all of the States war debt. He had no intention of paying it off, rather he made regular payments on the interest establishing the US as a primier payor of debt obligations.

  'Debts exceeding income is not broke' George Bush Administration.

  What the Tea Party, as expressed by Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, want is to break from Hamilton's formual and cause wide spread market panic and a crash. Sort of like the Taliban of economics. Create a chaos by terrorism which in this case would be defaulting on our obligations. Cruz should be arrested if it comes to that.

  Countries do however payoff enormous debt. Germany paid the US for the WWII war debt sometime in the late 1990s. Germany is still successful and they have an excellent Universal Health Care System.
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  Designs: Alexander Hamilton,1st Secretary of the Tresaury, in 1790 absorded all of the States war debt. He had no intention of paying it off, rather he made regular payments on the interest establishing the US as a primier payor of debt obligations.

  -

  --

  Again, Designs, your are mistaken.

  http://qz.com/131489/the-most-often-repeated-fact-about-us-debt-is-wrong/
• 

  designs

  'harsh terms' 'bond swaps' 'not a default', sounds like a good and tough negotiator. Sorry Charlie no Tuna for you
• 

  Violia

  Simply b/c someone wins an election does not mean the American people must agree with everything they now decide to RAM down the peoples throats. That is a dictatorship. Elected officials can be removed- note the governor in Colorado recently. Dem's won the presidency but a significant amount of people voted against them. He is the pres of all the USA , not just those who voted for him.

  Health care for all has to be paid for and a major issue that the opposing side presents is all the special waivers . Currently one point of negation is to remove All special waivers and make it a level playing field. The Pres does not want to do that. Why? Is he paying back folks who helped him get elected and postponing the onset of the worst parts of this law until 14 , hoping not to lose anymore seats in the house or senate?

  A nurse I know is from South Korea. He moved to Canada b/c his Aunt was there. He said about 50% of his salary was being taken from him to pay for all the " free" things . He moved to USA b/c he was tired of this. His remarks were Canada was probably great for the retired and the very young, but if you worked not so good.

  Letting this role out is a good thing-- democracy in action. The world has not come to an end b/c politicians are fighting.
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  LOL @ designs!

  It is astonishing that you read the link I posted (probably more of a scan than a thoughtful read), and totally missed the point. Hamilton's "bond swap" was a default.

  (this also explains why you can't, or won't, really answer my question- you don't understand economics or the current US situation).
• 

  DogGone

  Shirely,

  Did you read the entire Fox article you linked to? Did you read the May update I linked to and the July 2102 letter to the Speaker therein? It is at odds with the picture you are painting. From the CBO May 2013:

  In March 2010, CBO and JCT projected that the provisions of the ACA related to health insurance coverage would cost the federal government $759 billion during fiscal years 2014 through 2019 (which was the last year in the 10-year budget window being used at that time). The newest projections indicate that those provisions will cost $710 billion over that same period. As shown in the figure below, the intervening projections of the cost of the ACA’s coverage provisions for those years have all been close to those figures on a year-by-year basis; of course, the 10-year totals have changed as the time frame for the estimates has shifted.

  Those amounts do not reflect the total budgetary impact of the ACA. That legislation includes many other provisions that, on net, will reduce budget deficits. Taking the coverage provisions and other provisions together, CBO and JCT have estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next 10 years and in the subsequent decade. (We have not updated our estimate of the total budgetary impact of the ACA since last summer; for that most recent estimate, see Letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act.)

  https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176

  I find it interesting how Fox used a selective clip from the CBO paper in a way that might mislead the reader. The March CBO update was quoted as saying that the “ACA was projected last March to increase federal deficits by $1,131 billion.” Now, the average reader, not knowing the difference between accounting deficits and the Deficit might think the CBO was saying this would increase the Federal Deficit by $1,131 billion. It was talking about adding up the deficits side of the ledger from the act. It also talks about the other side of the ledger! The deficits are more than offset by savings and revenues as a result of the ACA. The CBO and the Fox article you quote say, in no uncertain terms, that the net result is a base-line reduction in the Deficit. Rather than trust Fox why not read the sentence they quote from the update they cite: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage%20Estimates.pdf It is on page two. I ask only that you read the sentence before it and the rest of the surrounding paragraph. Would you say the quote from Fox might lead the average reader to think this was a discussion about the effect to the Federal Deficit?

  The quotes you select above obfuscate whether it is the CBO speaking or Republican Senator Sessions being referenced from the Fox article. You might want to consider that it is not intellectually honest to add up the costs of a bill and present that as the only side of the ledger. There are also savings and revenues. That is how budgets work, as I'm sure you are aware.
• 

  Simon

  Whatever opinions on the rights and wrongs of ACA is immaterial - it's law, it needs to be respected because it became law through the democratic processes in place.

  The real issue is that the republican party has pandered to a small group of extremists and the result is that they have been able to shutdown the government and now threaten the US defaulting on it's debts.

  They are extremists - they think their views and opinions are the only truth worth following and everything can and will be sacrificed for them to have their own way. They think that their beliefs should override everyone elses democratic rights. They don't care if they bring the country to its knees or send the economy down the toilet, in fact it wouldn't surprise me if they delighted in doing this as part of their revolutionary attitude and reckless approach to politics.

  There is no negotiating with people like this. They need to fail, they need to fail hard and they need to be wiped off the poitical map because of it or at least put there they belong - as an isolated, unelectable extremist faction.

  The fact thet this mess is happening is caused by the Tea Party but the responsibility rests with the mainstream GOP for giving them so much leverage and allowing them to control the party like they have. The GOP have pandered to them because they are afraid and spineless.

  The one thing the Tea Party do have though is belief in something, however idiotic. All the republicans seems to believe in is trying to be re-elected and they will sell anything to anyone to do it. They sold the party to the Tea Party but they are just trashing it.

  I would not be surpised if this turns out to be the longest shutdown. Neither side can really afford to fail and the demands are too extreme for any negotiation.
• 

  Violia

  There is room for negation , at least let the law apply equally with no special waivers. I think that is fair to all.
• 

  DogGone

  The gap has been closing due to some hard negotiation... this is with current law, the ACA included. Just a little more work and I think the gap can be closed. I think with some tough reform to Social Security, it can happen. This is why I'm a bull on the US economy, long term.

  

  
• 

  designs

  An author trying to make a case for his or her book does not make it so, its sort of like Fox News saying the US is 'broke'