US debt default

[ShadySands]

I have one friend who is losing his insurance and another friend who is now saving a ton of money thanks to Obamacare

 

I haven't felt any changes so far and my insurance company says I probably won't

[BruceVC]

I have one friend who is losing his insurance and another friend who is now saving a ton of money thanks to Obamacare

 

I haven't felt any changes so far and my insurance company says I probably won't

 

This is what I was hoping for, some positivity. Yaaaaaaaaaay, I feel better now  

[ShadySands]

I don't know if it's a net positive

 

I dunno if the guy who now has to get new insurance will be better or worse off

 

Sorry Bruce, not trying to bring you down

[kgambit]

I have one friend who is losing his insurance and another friend who is now saving a ton of money thanks to Obamacare

 

I haven't felt any changes so far and my insurance company says I probably won't

 

Was the first one due to an employer who opted to discontinue providing coverage?

 

My costs went up as follows:

• increase of 15% in health care premiums (yoy) 
• increase of 40% in annual deductible (yoy)
• increase in office co-pays for primary care physician
• increase in office co-pays for specialist referrals
• increase in prescription drug co-pays (non-generics)

 

It wasn't totally bad news:

• No changes in dental care premiums or coverage
• No changes in vision care premiums of coverage

(I just got the rollout in the mail yesterday but I can't say I am surprised by the increase).

Edited October 18, 2013 by kgambit

[ShadySands]

 

I have one friend who is losing his insurance and another friend who is now saving a ton of money thanks to Obamacare

 

I haven't felt any changes so far and my insurance company says I probably won't

 

Was the first one due to an employer who opted to discontinue providing coverage?

 

 

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

 

I'm quite concerned about the appointment of Yellen as the Fed chair. At least Bernanke had some qualms about helicopter money.

 

I don't buy it.  Jim Rickards makes some very good points about the Fed, but I just don't see Yellen being different than Bernanke at all.  In fact she has a better economics background than him.  The idea that she will just flip on the printing presses full time has little evidence to support it.

 

 

She is a very shrewd economist, she is a women and she predicted the housing crisis back in 2007. She is an excellent choice for the job

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/09/02/yellen-federal-reserve/2636541/

 

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/08/janet-yellen-chair-federal-reserve-woman-summers

 

Bernanke is said to be concerned about the risks of the unconventional, unproven monetary policy they've been pursuing. Yellen according to all reports is full steam ahead on the printing presses. And may be she did predict the housing crisis, she (or anyone else) did squat about it. I predicted the housing crisis in early 2000's, way before 2007, the difference is I wasn't in a position to do anything about it, she was. Edit: Btw, here I have to comment on the idiocy of considering someone's gender when selecting someone for the most important position in government. Edited October 19, 2013 by Wrath of Dagon

[Hurlshort]

You must not have a daughter

 

She was featured on the CNN Student News I show my students the other day.  The students were extremely impressed to hear she has degrees from Yale and Brown, and taught at Harvard and Berkeley.  Basically it is nice to have some female role models that aren't Miley Cyrus.  That being said, she should only get the job if she is highly qualified, and considering she has been the Vice Chair for years, she is definitely that.

 

But really there is nothing she has stated that says it will be different under her than it was under Bernanke.  Her only platform is job creation, and she is smart enough to know printing money won't magically create jobs.

[Wrath of Dagon]

You must not have a daughter

 

She was featured on the CNN Student News I show my students the other day.  The students were extremely impressed to hear she has degrees from Yale and Brown, and taught at Harvard and Berkeley.  Basically it is nice to have some female role models that aren't Miley Cyrus.  That being said, she should only get the job if she is highly qualified, and considering she has been the Vice Chair for years, she is definitely that.

 

But really there is nothing she has stated that says it will be different under her than it was under Bernanke.  Her only platform is job creation, and she is smart enough to know printing money won't magically create jobs.

Actually I do have a daughter, but when we're going to hell in a hand basket it's strikes me as ludicrous to think about who makes the best role model to take us there, not that teens pay any attention to whoever's the chair of the Fed, it's doubtful they even know the Fed exists. And if she's not going to print money (and I don't know from what you draw that conclusion, since that's exactly what the Fed has been doing, and she's reported to be a big fan of QE), how exactly is she going to create jobs in her role at the Fed?

[Rostere]

 

I've no doubt there's enough revenue to pay the debt. But without borrowing more, something else will not get paid. So in the unlikely event of discussions still being frozen in a few days, which payments do you think the government will postpone?

 

 

You are not going to be able to reduce the federal budget deficit, let alone the national debt, without some very very deep budget cuts over several years. 

 

The growth of government spending during his first term has been the slowest since before 1982.

 

Cesca's analysis requires some extreme sleight of hand by back dating programs that Obama approved in his first budget into Bush's last budget, That analysis has been refuted multiple times and people still don't see thru the nonsense.   But let's look at what he's done overall shall we?

 

From the White house budget office

 

 

And here's how Obama deficit spending compares to the previous presidents dating back to 1990 with forecasted deficits thru the end of Obama's second term. 

 

 

 

But that is an old chart with projections for 2011, 2012... In reality, the deficit is shrinking (if you count 2012 as being on the same level as 2011, in reality it is diminutively higher...).

 

You are indeed not going to reduce the deficit entirely without some drastic measures... The deficit is just slightly smaller than the entirety of Social Security plus Medicare, or the entire federal discretionary spending. With the tax income you have, there literally won't be anything left almost regardless of what you cut, assuming the goal is zero deficit and no tax raises or other sources of income. What I fear is that the real disaster might occur if these austerity measures are set into place...

 

By "sleight of hand" i take it that you mean not "back dating programs that Obama approved in his first budget into Bush's last budget" but attributing the stimulus which was approved during Bush's last fiscal year but under Obama's presidency to Bush.

 

Like I said in my first post, I am not necessarily trying to attribute any shrinking of the deficit to Obama. On the other hand I'm trying to say that things are slowly, slowly getting better, or were at least when I wrote my original post.

 

Keep in mind also that the relevant statistic is debt as part of GDP, which is possible to reduce while still running deficits all the time.

[BruceVC]

You must not have a daughter

 

She was featured on the CNN Student News I show my students the other day.  The students were extremely impressed to hear she has degrees from Yale and Brown, and taught at Harvard and Berkeley.  Basically it is nice to have some female role models that aren't Miley Cyrus.  That being said, she should only get the job if she is highly qualified, and considering she has been the Vice Chair for years, she is definitely that.

 

But really there is nothing she has stated that says it will be different under her than it was under Bernanke.  Her only platform is job creation, and she is smart enough to know printing money won't magically create jobs.

 

 

 

You must not have a daughter

 

She was featured on the CNN Student News I show my students the other day.  The students were extremely impressed to hear she has degrees from Yale and Brown, and taught at Harvard and Berkeley.  Basically it is nice to have some female role models that aren't Miley Cyrus.  That being said, she should only get the job if she is highly qualified, and considering she has been the Vice Chair for years, she is definitely that.

 

But really there is nothing she has stated that says it will be different under her than it was under Bernanke.  Her only platform is job creation, and she is smart enough to know printing money won't magically create jobs.

Actually I do have a daughter, but when we're going to hell in a hand basket it's strikes me as ludicrous to think about who makes the best role model to take us there, not that teens pay any attention to whoever's the chair of the Fed, it's doubtful they even know the Fed exists. And if she's not going to print money (and I don't know from what you draw that conclusion, since that's exactly what the Fed has been doing, and she's reported to be a big fan of QE), how exactly is she going to create jobs in her role at the Fed?

 

 

I second everything that Hurlshot has said around Yellen. Also the campaign for equality is ongoing, we don't stop believing in it just because of economic problems in any country

So for example in the case of Yellen and her suitability the first criteria needs to be "is the person qualified?"

 

If the person is qualified and is a women then that should weigh heavily in her favour. As mentioned we just don't have enough positive and intellectual role-model  women in positions of power

[Meshugger]

That's only important for all the Lisa Simpsons in the world. The rest do not care one silch, have you guys forgotten what girls cared about during high-school?

 

But no matter, this "ahwmyg-oood Becky! it's a woman!"-talk clouds the issue at hand: What is her policy compared to Bernanke? Will will actually change compared to her predecessor? I mean, i can find little changes between Greenspan and Bernanke to begin with.

[kgambit]

 

 

But that is an old chart with projections for 2011, 2012... In reality, the deficit is shrinking (if you count 2012 as being on the same level as 2011, in reality it is diminutively higher...).

 

You are indeed not going to reduce the deficit entirely without some drastic measures... The deficit is just slightly smaller than the entirety of Social Security plus Medicare, or the entire federal discretionary spending. With the tax income you have, there literally won't be anything left almost regardless of what you cut, assuming the goal is zero deficit and no tax raises or other sources of income. What I fear is that the real disaster might occur if these austerity measures are set into place...

 

By "sleight of hand" i take it that you mean not "back dating programs that Obama approved in his first budget into Bush's last budget" but attributing the stimulus which was approved during Bush's last fiscal year but under Obama's presidency to Bush.

 

Like I said in my first post, I am not necessarily trying to attribute any shrinking of the deficit to Obama. On the other hand I'm trying to say that things are slowly, slowly getting better, or were at least when I wrote my original post.

 

Keep in mind also that the relevant statistic is debt as part of GDP, which is possible to reduce while still running deficits all the time.

 

 

Fair enough Ros, and good point about the projections.  I was looking for something that showed a longer historical perspective.  

 

Try these instead and you can ignore everything past 2013 if you so choose. 

 

If I am reading the latest CBO August report right, the current deficit projection for 2013 is 750$ billion dollars which is slightly higher than some of the charts show.  It's not a sticky point, either way the deficit trend has been down.  The future projections are a different matter. 

 

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44552-%20MBR_2013_08.pdf

 

1) deficits by year with 2013 (and beyond) projected

 

 

2) yearly change in debt as a % of GDP (2013 projected)

 

 

3) close up version showing 2010 to 2013 

 

 

 

4) total cumulative debt

 

Edited October 19, 2013 by kgambit

[Nepenthe]

Can I just say that this is the most graphs and bar charts I've ever seen in any discussion EVER.

Clearly, you've never dated an economist.

 

There are other advantages, too.

[Wrath of Dagon]

That's only important for all the Lisa Simpsons in the world. The rest do not care one silch, have you guys forgotten what girls cared about during high-school?

 

But no matter, this "ahwmyg-oood Becky! it's a woman!"-talk clouds the issue at hand: What is her policy compared to Bernanke? Will will actually change compared to her predecessor? I mean, i can find little changes between Greenspan and Bernanke to begin with.

The only issue right now is when is this QE that's endangering US and global economies going to end, if ever? It's known that Summers was skeptical of the whole policy, so there's a good chance it would've gone away had he been appointed. With Yellen it's likely it'll get extended, for who knows how long. That is the only question of any importance in this, everything else is fluff and distraction for the low information voter.

 

As far as the deficits, they're projected to decrease through 2015 (due to economic growth, tax increases, and sequester). After that they will start growing again (as one of Kgambit's charts shows), and almost the entire deficit will be the interest on the debt. So we'll be in a death spiral where we have to keep borrowing ever more money just to pay the interest on the money we've already borrowed.

Edited October 19, 2013 by Wrath of Dagon

[Meshugger]

So the only solutions left are 1) inflation to lower the value of the debt or 2) hope for exponential growth that would give greater revenue.

 

Best of luck fellas! 

[Guard Dog]

Devaluation of currency to control debt has been done before. In every case it has led to the complete collapse of the country that tried it. That's why I buy guns, ammo, gold, and have improved by property to have a level of self sufficiency. Plus... well, zombies. You never know! 

[Wrath of Dagon]

So the incompetent poser Obama hires a former exec of Baine, which he demonized during the campaign, to clean up the Obamacare mess. Ironically we had a chance to hire the former head of Baine to clean up the Obama mess, and passed.

[alanschu]

I take it then that you think that the former exec from Baine is incompetent then.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I don't follow your logic.

[Walsingham]

I think it pertinent to remind the forum that the point of the healthcare reforms was to spend to save, by reducing the expenditure of an unusually high percentage of GDP on healthcare.

 

In light of the furore, and with the benefit of hindsight, I think it would have made far more sense to leverage the marketplace than to effectively set up Uncle Sam as a competing provider.

[BruceVC]

I think it pertinent to remind the forum that the point of the healthcare reforms was to spend to save, by reducing the expenditure of an unusually high percentage of GDP on healthcare.

 

In light of the furore, and with the benefit of hindsight, I think it would have made far more sense to leverage the marketplace than to effectively set up Uncle Sam as a competing provider.

I thought the main  issue was that the marketplace doesn't provide adequate healthcare for all Americans?

 

You know the definition of insanity Walsie.."doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

 

[Walsingham]

 

I think it pertinent to remind the forum that the point of the healthcare reforms was to spend to save, by reducing the expenditure of an unusually high percentage of GDP on healthcare.

 

In light of the furore, and with the benefit of hindsight, I think it would have made far more sense to leverage the marketplace than to effectively set up Uncle Sam as a competing provider.

I thought the main  issue was that the marketplace doesn't provide adequate healthcare for all Americans?

 

You know the definition of insanity Walsie.."doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

 

 

 

Really?

 

Where repetitions  are n , and n>30, I call it a scientific study!

 

 

Edited October 23, 2013 by Walsingham

[alanschu]

I don't follow your logic.

 

 

You are chastising Obama for hiring someone.  Are you doing it because you think that the person he hired is a poor choice, or because you wish to criticize Obama for literally doing what every other politician also does?  (which is NOT something I like, to be clear)

 

To elaborate, how capable do you think a former exec from Baine would be in the newly appointed role?

[Wrath of Dagon]

I think it pertinent to remind the forum that the point of the healthcare reforms was to spend to save, by reducing the expenditure of an unusually high percentage of GDP on healthcare.

 

In light of the furore, and with the benefit of hindsight, I think it would have made far more sense to leverage the marketplace than to effectively set up Uncle Sam as a competing provider.

Uncle Sam is not a competing provider. Actually I think that might have been a least bad approach, make government healthcare available to those who want it. That's what they do in my county, and many other localities.  

 

 

I don't follow your logic.

 

 

You are chastising Obama for hiring someone.  Are you doing it because you think that the person he hired is a poor choice, or because you wish to criticize Obama for literally doing what every other politician also does?  (which is NOT something I like, to be clear)

 

To elaborate, how capable do you think a former exec from Baine would be in the newly appointed role?

 

I'm chastising him for being incompetent. It's not because he's hiring someone, it's because he's clueless and inexperienced and thus keeps screwing up. I'm pointing out the irony of him hiring a Baine executive when we could've just done that ourselves and got rid of O in the process.

[Tsuga C]

It never ceases to amaze me that there are millions of profoundly ignorant people who’d NEVER countenance baseline budgeting and Keynesian economics with regards to their own finances, but will perpetually look the other way when the Federal or State governments rationalize such foolishness.