el retorno
Member
Will it be as good as the gay-hating chicken day?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
Will it be as good as the gay-hating chicken day?
I missed that one!!
el retorno
Member
Agreed. Hope they do it so as to remind everyone of what money is.
The Librarian
Banned
lol whats going on here:
"And here it is, the platinum coin!"
"Oooh!"
"Hey, it's me!"
...
Seems like the "repeal Obamacare" is fading as an issue for House Republicans. Hopefully this means tweaks to the law become feasible, like setting back the date for which states can opt out and implement their own systems from 2017 to 2014.
lol whats going on here:
Obama unveiling the trillion dollar coin. It has Biden's face on it.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Barack: I'd like you to meet our new negotiator to the Republicans.lol whats going on here:
Joe: Me?
Hillary: Hey, it's Ben Nelson!
See that look on Biden's face? He's planning to swipe it and take that sucker to Hooters. Or a strip club.
soul creator
Member
make it hail
Could you guys please help me understand why the affordable care act cadillac tax is based on the price of your premiums and not on your income? Because that just seems insane when insurance companies are raising prices at an astronomical rate without providing extra benefits.
I've heard this claim that insurance rates are going up very quickly before. Does anyone have a source for that? I know total health care costs have grown less quickly than trend, but I'm not sure how that breaks down across various areas.
Under Obamacare it isn't even legal for an insurance company to raise rates by 10% or more without explicit government permission.
I dunno, but my mom has to pay 1000$ per month for them to cover her psychiatric medicine prescriptions. If she doesn't have this medicine she goes berserk. And they cost alot without the insurance.
Edit: My parents make very little money, and have to pay this with the use of their retirement money. So having a 40% tax on top of their insurance is just unacceptable to me.
Why do you think insurance companies are raising prices at an astronomical rate without providing extra benefits?
They are going to be raising my moms monthly premiums by 75$ per month. That seems pretty astronomical to me.
Her insurance premiums for a plan that covers her prescriptions are $1000 a month? Is it a family plan?
No its an individual conversion plan from kaiser. They refused her for any other plans.
I have an ex who had a situation like that a few years back (narcolepsy). Preexisting conditions are a bitch. Obamacare's guaranteed issue doesn't fully kick in until 2014, I don't think, and it's always hard to get certain psychiatric things covered. I'm not actually sure what all Obamacare does for lots of those; it's probably a harder sell politically because instead of turning into emergency room visits that someone else has to pay for anyway, these conditions just cause massive lost productivity and misery.
So the answer is "because in one year it will be illegal for them to even have her on that plan because they won't be allowed to refuse her any more (unless she smokes)."
Is there a good place to get information on how this will work exactly?
She doesn't smoke thankfully
Yea insurance companies are just trying to gouge as much cash as they can until obamacare kicks in.
I did a year at Carefirst and rates increased twice in that time frame for no reason at all and I was stuck explaining to customers that costs were rising due to "inflation and increased dr salaries"
I did a year at Carefirst and rates increased twice in that time frame for no reason at all and I was stuck explaining to customers that costs were rising due to "inflation and increased dr salaries"
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
Utah teacher on Ed Show is terribad right now. Wants to carry a firearm in class. Doesn't necessarily think a parent has a right to know. Stuttering.
Is there a good place to get information on how this will work exactly?
She doesn't smoke thankfully
Healthcare.gov
First of all I didn't think the cadalac tax was on individual plans but I could be wrong. Secondly your mother is getting screwed by the insurance company. My mom was in the same boat paying a thousand a month for an individual plan. I work in insurance and its standard practice to dump/leave people on discontinued/shitty plans and jack up the rates on them. Your mother is actually going to be helped significantly by Obamacare and her rates will get brought down and she will probably qualify or tax credits.
Guns are holy and sacred. Do not question their divine intervention in daily life.
Byakuya769
Member
lol whats going on here:
Obama - "Care to look behind the curtain to see which of you I will name my successor after I burn the constitution?"
lol whats going on here:
Somebody's gun git pregnant.
You know, I'm still not clear on how this debt ceiling thing is supposed to work. Now, I get that raising the debt ceiling doesn't mean we're getting new spending, but rather allowing for spending we already approved.
But I guess what I don't seem to understand is, if we already have agreed to a certain amount of spending, why would we hit the debt ceiling before the rest of that approved spending takes place?
But I guess what I don't seem to understand is, if we already have agreed to a certain amount of spending, why would we hit the debt ceiling before the rest of that approved spending takes place?
The debt ceiling is unrelated, it's an arbitrary number which is pulled out of congress' ass.
They're just completely separate policies. Congress approves spending, and Congress sets a debt ceiling. They debate and pass these things separately. Just recently, Congress passed massive tax cuts relative to existing law, but that has no impact on the level at which the debt ceiling is set. The debt ceiling was last set in 2011, and the amount it was raised by had less to do with prior spending commitments and more to do with putting it off until just after the 2012 elections.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
Best chance to take a video and get close to Rachel Maddow.
So for example, if congress passes a spending bill that's say $2 trillion, they can arbitrarily set a debt ceiling at say, $500 billion?
soul creator
Member
The beauty of it is that the executive have literally nothing to do.
Power of the purse, yo.
They act like it's a fight between Obama and congress, but in reality , congress is 100% doing it to itself (and sadly, ourselves too).
Rocket Scientist
Member
Too much talking about the coin in here and everywhere to be honest.
ClassyPenguin
Banned
I find it hilarious being that the only ones mad about it are people with little to no economics understanding. I just thought it highlights the absurdity of a debt ceiling.
El Rushbo said:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-h...baugh-lectures-him-debt-ceiling#ixzz2HYGGmRbs
Well, guess Rush showed you guys and Ali Velshi. :smug
The comments are great too, btw.
Black Mamba
Member
But those are the only people who would get mad for if they had economic understanding, they wouldn't get mad!
Well, because we have idiots in Congress. There shouldn't even be a debt ceiling. It's a nonsensical proposition.
Rocket Scientist
Member
Sure, the first few days =) Now it's just tiring to read the same stuff over and over again. We get it, hihi, trillion dollar coins, giggle giggle, now let's fix things for real.
Is there any imaginable scenario where defaulting would be a good idea for a country? I mean for people and companies it can do wonders, but countries? And yes I'm aware that the debt ceiling doesn't make sense and a country with its own currency need never to default.
Depends what you mean by default, I guess, and noting up front that countries who can't print, as in Europe (which is also one big currency zone; it's not just that Greece is constitutionally bound not to print money, it's that it shares money with a bunch of other economies), may find default more appealing than their other options in more situations than these. Specifically, they can't as easily control their own inflation rate, and so have less ability to choose higher inflation over default without simultaneously agreeing to give an ever-increasing share of wealth to bond-holders in the form of interest payments.
Higher-than-anticipated inflation is equivalent to a partial default as far as people holding your debt denominated in nominal dollars are concerned - they get less real return than expected. This is often a reasonable thing to do.
Selective defaults probably also make sense in many situations, depending on what exactly you're willing to count as "debt". If a company bribes/lobbies Congress to pass a law giving the company $100B every year for the next ten years, it almost certainly makes sense to default on that debt/promise as soon as the current Congress can be voted out of office. Some would argue that existing pension obligations are unfair to current taxpayers, and that these promises shouldn't be kept. I think most would agree that there is some level of pension obligations that is exploitative of current workers, even if we are not close to that now.
As for repudiating bonds specifically, as opposed to other promises of payment, it probably doesn't make much sense in practice because of the extent to which bonds are integrated into every aspect of the economy. For real economies, you would probably cause a massive recession if you just defaulted on your bonds. But suppose you were a small country, you could pick and choose which bonds not to honor, you knew who owned each bond, and you were (for whatever reason) safe from retaliation. Then you could get a one-time boost by telling all of your foreign creditors to fuck off. Likewise if you were a small country who just had very little domestically-owned debt and were safe from retaliation, you could easily repudiate all your bonds and come out ahead. This is like nationalizing foreign property in your country, except without the downside of losing their labor/expertise. Except in real life this would probably be a good way to get your ass embargoed. Partial repudiation of bonds may make sense in some cases as a form of wealth tax, but there are probably better ways to measure wealth than "how many bonds do you own?" And anything like this would make it substantially harder for you to sell bonds in the future, so that's a consideration.
By the way, I thought this was a nice response from Obama regarding Piers Morgan getting deported on account of his 2nd amendment comments:
"When Discussing 2nd Amendment, Keep The 1st In Mind"
"When Discussing 2nd Amendment, Keep The 1st In Mind"
Black Mamba
Member
And here I thought we'd finally seen the worst he has to offer, way to prove me wrong Ramirez. You've taken suck to a whole other level.
So I figure that "O" and "Kerry" sound like "Moe" and "Larry". But "Surely Not"? There has to be a better term that both indicates disdain for Hagel and which also sounds like either "Curly" or "Shemp". "Wimp" is a stretch, but better than what's there. "Girly"? Hell, "Surely No" would at least fit "Curly Joe". And I guess Hagel looks more like Curly Joe than Curly Howard, maybe.
Aaron Strife
Banned
His art is atrociously bad. How the hell is that supposed to be Hagel? Or Obama? Or Kerry, the easiest of any politician to caricature?
Hagel is deformed beyond all recognition, but Kerry isn't terrible - it's a cross between Kerry's chin and long face and Larry's nose and hair. Obama, yes, is just Moe's haircut on black, although I suppose I still would have been able to identify him without any text.
......wow.
- Status