Here comes the Shutdown

[Bob Juch]

SSS wrote

and a relatively few middle class people who get hit with some nasty upcharges.

Who are we talking about?

People whose incomes are below 400% of the federal poverty level are eligible for subsidies, but once you hit 400%, you get nothing. For 2014, that is approximately $46,000 for a single person, $62,000 for a married couple, and $94,000 for a family of four. The maximum premium you can pay if you qualify for a subsidy is 9.5% of your income, so anything higher gets subsidized. So, if are a married couple age 50 with an income of $62,000, the government will pay about $3,000 of your premium for the year, and you would pay just under $5900. If, however, your income is $62,100, the government pays nothing and you pay the entire $9,000.

This website has a calculator that will tell you what you can expect to pay for coverage and how much of a subsidy you can expect for various ages, family size, and income levels.

http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

Fine with me. The premium for my family would be less than what the current premium is now for just my wife and her daughter. (If you don't remember, I can't get insurance until 2014 under the ACA due to supposed preexisting conditions.)

[silverscreenselect]

I have also not seen anything that says you are required to keep the same coverage every year. If you have a necessary but not critical surgery required can you change to a different coverage for a year and have your surgery

You will buy insurance every year, just like auto insurance, so you can change coverage and switch from a higher to a lower level plan (or vice versa). Since there's no preexisting condition feature, you won't be penalized for doing so. One thing you can't do is wait until you think you're going to need surgery to sign up. Open enrollment ends March 31 for the year, so if you haven't got coverage by then you have to wait until the next year (unless there's a change in your condition like a job change, marriage, divorce, childbirth, etc.

[BackInTex]

I have also not seen anything that says you are required to keep the same coverage every year. If you have a necessary but not critical surgery required can you change to a different coverage for a year and have your surgery

You will buy insurance every year, just like auto insurance, so you can change coverage and switch from a higher to a lower level plan (or vice versa). Since there's no preexisting condition feature, you won't be penalized for doing so. One thing you can't do is wait until you think you're going to need surgery to sign up. Open enrollment ends March 31 for the year, so if you haven't got coverage by then you have to wait until the next year (unless there's a change in your condition like a job change, marriage, divorce, childbirth, etc.

And folks think this wont bankrupt us? It is fiscal insanity to think it won't. BHO is not insane so I assume he knows it will and wants it.

[Bob78164]

I have also not seen anything that says you are required to keep the same coverage every year. If you have a necessary but not critical surgery required can you change to a different coverage for a year and have your surgery

You will buy insurance every year, just like auto insurance, so you can change coverage and switch from a higher to a lower level plan (or vice versa). Since there's no preexisting condition feature, you won't be penalized for doing so. One thing you can't do is wait until you think you're going to need surgery to sign up. Open enrollment ends March 31 for the year, so if you haven't got coverage by then you have to wait until the next year (unless there's a change in your condition like a job change, marriage, divorce, childbirth, etc.

And folks think this wont bankrupt us? It is fiscal insanity to think it won't. BHO is not insane so I assume he knows it will and wants it.

You can't bankrupt a country that has the authority to print its own currency -- it can always print more money.

And the bond markets don't seem even a little concerned about inflation. They've got actual money riding on this, so I'll believe their hard-headed analysis over your unsupported ideological beliefs. --Bob

[BackInTex]

You can't bankrupt a country that has the authority to print its own currency -- it can always print more money.

And the bond markets don't seem even a little concerned about inflation. They've got actual money riding on this, so I'll believe their hard-headed analysis over your unsupported ideological beliefs. --Bob

Oh yeah, thinking a country can "print money" itself out of bankruptcy is also insane.

At some point the paper becomes worthless and other countries will not accept debt based on it.

<shaking my head>

[silverscreenselect]

At some point the paper becomes worthless and other countries will not accept debt based on it.

At some point. It doesn't mean that the US is locked into maintaining the same number of dollars in existence as there were last year or 50 years ago.

What is needed are effective cost controls which we don't have under Obamacare and which we're not going to get as long as the two parties are locked into their current positions. Or more accurately, as long as the Republicans are sitting there saying the only solution to any problem under Obamacare, real or imagined, is to abolish it and one of these days think about doing something else instead.

The single worst aspect of Obamacare (and the first thing I would repeal if I were in charge) is the cap on insurance company profits. That provision mandates that insurance companies must pay out 80 or 85% of each dollar they take in for benefit payments. On paper, that looks good, because insurance companies supposedly won't be able to "gouge" the public. In actuality, it gives them a disincentive to cut costs. In most businesses, if I cut my costs 5%, I can keep my prices the same and make more money. Under Obamacare, I have to refund that money to the public and I make less of a profit despite doing more work. The way I increase profits is to pay out as much money in claims as possible. It costs virtually the same to administer a $2,000 claim as a $1,000 claim and I can keep twice the total profit dollars if I do so.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Today at the WWII Memorial

[flockofseagulls104]

You can't bankrupt a country that has the authority to print its own currency -- it can always print more money.

And the bond markets don't seem even a little concerned about inflation. They've got actual money riding on this, so I'll believe their hard-headed analysis over your unsupported ideological beliefs. --Bob

This is why we are where we are.

Bob, you are an intelligent person. Think about what you just posted. I mean really think. If that were true, why am I not a billionaire along with everyone else? I could well be under your scenario, but a loaf of bread would cost 2 billion.

And don't come back with an attack at me. Support with real rational thought what you just stated.

[Bob78164]

You can't bankrupt a country that has the authority to print its own currency -- it can always print more money.

And the bond markets don't seem even a little concerned about inflation. They've got actual money riding on this, so I'll believe their hard-headed analysis over your unsupported ideological beliefs. --Bob

This is why we are where we are.

Bob, you are an intelligent person. Think about what you just posted. I mean really think. If that were true, why am I not a billionaire along with everyone else? I could well be under your scenario, but a loaf of bread would cost 2 billion.

And don't come back with an attack at me. Support with real rational thought what you just stated.

The Fed has effectively been printing money hand-over-first for the better part of a year, Janet Yellen, in line to be the next Fed Chair, is widely expected to continue or even expand that program, yet the bond markets aren't even a little bit worried about runaway inflation. They've got real money on the line, so I'll trust their judgment over yours.

It also makes sense. We are still far, far under the economy's capacity. When that's the case, the usual evil of excess government spending (it crowds out private borrowing, thereby limiting growth) simply doesn't apply.

Present me with a quantitative analysis demonstrating that our debt level is unsustainable and maybe we can have a fruitful discussion. (Unless you'd rather keep it proprietary and compete with the other bond traders.) Until then, you're just arguing what your ideology thinks ought to be the case, instead of analyzing what the evidence (including the bond markets, which both you and BiT have conveniently ignored) shows actually is the case. --Bob

[geoffil]

Too much money chasing too few goods...Inflation. Remember Jimmy Carter? mortgage rates etc?

[flockofseagulls104]

You can't bankrupt a country that has the authority to print its own currency -- it can always print more money.

And the bond markets don't seem even a little concerned about inflation. They've got actual money riding on this, so I'll believe their hard-headed analysis over your unsupported ideological beliefs. --Bob

This is why we are where we are.

Bob, you are an intelligent person. Think about what you just posted. I mean really think. If that were true, why am I not a billionaire along with everyone else? I could well be under your scenario, but a loaf of bread would cost 2 billion.

And don't come back with an attack at me. Support with real rational thought what you just stated.

The Fed has effectively been printing money hand-over-first for the better part of a year, Janet Yellen, in line to be the next Fed Chair, is widely expected to continue or even expand that program, yet the bond markets aren't even a little bit worried about runaway inflation. They've got real money on the line, so I'll trust their judgment over yours.

It also makes sense. We are still far, far under the economy's capacity. When that's the case, the usual evil of excess government spending (it crowds out private borrowing, thereby limiting growth) simply doesn't apply.

Present me with a quantitative analysis demonstrating that our debt level is unsustainable and maybe we can have a fruitful discussion. (Unless you'd rather keep it proprietary and compete with the other bond traders.) Until then, you're just arguing what your ideology thinks ought to be the case, instead of analyzing what the evidence (including the bond markets, which both you and BiT have conveniently ignored) shows actually is the case. --Bob

Tell me, what is the economy's capacity? 20 trillion of on the books debt and 100 trillion of unfunded liability? or perhaps 30 trillion of on the books debt and 150 trillion of unfunded liabilities? Where is the point, Bob, where you and Krugman will get concerned? If it is so calculable that you and Krugman know that we are far far under it, why haven't we just printed money up to that tipping point since 1971, when we got off the gold standard?

Does the Bond Market have some special sense of ethics, wisdom and invincibility that the stock market lacks? I believe that the stock market has crashed several times in fairly recent history, and it was their money (or should I say ours) that was on the line. Is the Bond Market immune to such things?

[Bob78164]

This is why we are where we are.

Bob, you are an intelligent person. Think about what you just posted. I mean really think. If that were true, why am I not a billionaire along with everyone else? I could well be under your scenario, but a loaf of bread would cost 2 billion.

And don't come back with an attack at me. Support with real rational thought what you just stated.

The Fed has effectively been printing money hand-over-first for the better part of a year, Janet Yellen, in line to be the next Fed Chair, is widely expected to continue or even expand that program, yet the bond markets aren't even a little bit worried about runaway inflation. They've got real money on the line, so I'll trust their judgment over yours.

It also makes sense. We are still far, far under the economy's capacity. When that's the case, the usual evil of excess government spending (it crowds out private borrowing, thereby limiting growth) simply doesn't apply.

Present me with a quantitative analysis demonstrating that our debt level is unsustainable and maybe we can have a fruitful discussion. (Unless you'd rather keep it proprietary and compete with the other bond traders.) Until then, you're just arguing what your ideology thinks ought to be the case, instead of analyzing what the evidence (including the bond markets, which both you and BiT have conveniently ignored) shows actually is the case. --Bob

Tell me, what is the economy's capacity? 20 trillion of on the books debt and 100 trillion of unfunded liability? or perhaps 30 trillion of on the books debt and 150 trillion of unfunded liabilities? Where is the point, Bob, where you and Krugman will get concerned? If it is so calculable that you and Krugman know that we are far far under it, why haven't we just printed money up to that tipping point since 1971, when we got off the gold standard?

Does the Bond Market have some special sense of ethics, wisdom and invincibility that the stock market lacks? I believe that the stock market has crashed several times in fairly recent history, and it was their money (or should I say ours) that was on the line. Is the Bond Market immune to such things?

Utilization of capacity in August 2013 was 77.84%, still below the historical average of 80.7%. (Incidentally, the rate hit its record low of 66.8% in June 2009.) And inflation doesn't become a threat until employment returns to something approaching normal. If a lot of people are unemployed, there won't be an issue of too much money chasing too few goods. The capacity exists to simply make more goods, with the highly beneficial effect of incentivizing private businesses to hire more people in order to make those goods. We don't run into the "too few goods" problem until we start hitting the economy's capacity constraints, and as long as there are more than 3 applicants for every job opening, we're nowhere near that point.

The bond market (particularly the market for U.S. government bonds) cares about two things -- future interest rates and future inflation.

We haven't printed money (or at least, not enough of it) because doing so takes an Act of Congress and the Republicans have a wrongheaded obsession with debt that is not a problem while completely ignoring an unemployment rate that is a serious problem with long-term effects for millions of people (including me).

And I'm still waiting for you to provide me with a quantitative analysis. Until you do, you're simply engaging in faith-based, rather than evidence-based, government. I voted for evidence-based government, and so did a majority of my fellow voters. --Bob

[Vandal]

[Flybrick]

Now that's funny.

[SpacemanSpiff]

A broad interpretation of the laws (suggested a few days ago in S&S) seems to be what Chuck Hagel has decided on. DoD folks, pay attention.

http://www.stripes.com/news/us/hagel-fu ... k-1.245398

Too early to see if this affects Mrs. Spiff (a DeCA employee), so we'll wait until something from her bosses roll out.

EDIT: Mrs. Spiff got the phone call just now from her boss to say report to duty on Monday.

[SpacemanSpiff]

That explains why I saw him at the Virginia State Fair today. Guess he was picking up a few extra bucks to tide him through!

Don't care what your politics are in this thing, that's dang funny!

[Bob Juch]

That explains why I saw him at the Virginia State Fair today. Guess he was picking up a few extra bucks to tide him through!

Don't care what your politics are in this thing, that's dang funny!

I think that was Ted Cruz in disguise.

[littlebeast13]

Oh, like Smokey ever did anything to prevent forest fires in the first place......

In fact, he probably had to go out and set forest fires intentionally if it was late September and his budget hadn't been exhausted yet....

lb13

[SportsFan68]

Oh, like Smokey ever did anything to prevent forest fires in the first place......

In fact, he probably had to go out and set forest fires intentionally if it was late September and his budget hadn't been exhausted yet....

lb13

Don't you have to go to work or something?

[littlebeast13]

Oh, like Smokey ever did anything to prevent forest fires in the first place......

In fact, he probably had to go out and set forest fires intentionally if it was late September and his budget hadn't been exhausted yet....

lb13

Don't you have to go to work or something?

When I'm darn good and ready to....

And didn't you listen to earendel? Quit talking about private sector work in this thread!

lb13

[flockofseagulls104]

The Fed has effectively been printing money hand-over-first for the better part of a year, Janet Yellen, in line to be the next Fed Chair, is widely expected to continue or even expand that program, yet the bond markets aren't even a little bit worried about runaway inflation. They've got real money on the line, so I'll trust their judgment over yours.

It also makes sense. We are still far, far under the economy's capacity. When that's the case, the usual evil of excess government spending (it crowds out private borrowing, thereby limiting growth) simply doesn't apply.

Present me with a quantitative analysis demonstrating that our debt level is unsustainable and maybe we can have a fruitful discussion. (Unless you'd rather keep it proprietary and compete with the other bond traders.) Until then, you're just arguing what your ideology thinks ought to be the case, instead of analyzing what the evidence (including the bond markets, which both you and BiT have conveniently ignored) shows actually is the case. --Bob

Tell me, what is the economy's capacity? 20 trillion of on the books debt and 100 trillion of unfunded liability? or perhaps 30 trillion of on the books debt and 150 trillion of unfunded liabilities? Where is the point, Bob, where you and Krugman will get concerned? If it is so calculable that you and Krugman know that we are far far under it, why haven't we just printed money up to that tipping point since 1971, when we got off the gold standard?

Does the Bond Market have some special sense of ethics, wisdom and invincibility that the stock market lacks? I believe that the stock market has crashed several times in fairly recent history, and it was their money (or should I say ours) that was on the line. Is the Bond Market immune to such things?

Utilization of capacity in August 2013 was 77.84%, still below the historical average of 80.7%. (Incidentally, the rate hit its record low of 66.8% in June 2009.) And inflation doesn't become a threat until employment returns to something approaching normal. If a lot of people are unemployed, there won't be an issue of too much money chasing too few goods. The capacity exists to simply make more goods, with the highly beneficial effect of incentivizing private businesses to hire more people in order to make those goods. We don't run into the "too few goods" problem until we start hitting the economy's capacity constraints, and as long as there are more than 3 applicants for every job opening, we're nowhere near that point.

The bond market (particularly the market for U.S. government bonds) cares about two things -- future interest rates and future inflation.

We haven't printed money (or at least, not enough of it) because doing so takes an Act of Congress and the Republicans have a wrongheaded obsession with debt that is not a problem while completely ignoring an unemployment rate that is a serious problem with long-term effects for millions of people (including me).

And I'm still waiting for you to provide me with a quantitative analysis. Until you do, you're simply engaging in faith-based, rather than evidence-based, government. I voted for evidence-based government, and so did a majority of my fellow voters. --Bob

OK, Let me try and understand this. According to your analysis, because we have a low utilization of capacity, it's alright to print money and borrow money so the Federal Government can spend it.
So as long as we have a lot of people unemployed, we can go ahead and rack up whatever debt we want to. But then when (and if) the economy picks up and more people are employed, then we have to stop printing money and borrowing.

Am I understanding this correctly?

Is this theory, or has this been tried before? If so, when has it been tried and how did it work out?

I wonder why the Soviet Union didn't think of this? Is this how we tried to get out of the Great Depression for more than a decade until WWII actually got us out of the Depression? We keep printing and borrowing money we don't have so we can spend it until we get into a big war to flush it out?

Just wondering.....

[earendel]

And didn't you listen to earendel? Quit talking about private sector work in this thread!

lb13

No one pays attention to me.

[flockofseagulls104]

And didn't you listen to earendel? Quit talking about private sector work in this thread!

lb13

No one pays attention to me.

What?

[Beebs52]

I didn't take it as a flounce threat, but as that maybe he'd been on the fence as to how much of a loathsome bitch I am and had finally decided. I don't know why he'd be pondering otherwise since, even though I mostly ignore what appears to be political or disingenuous subject lines by the usual suspects, there doesn't seem to be much rancor, or much of anything else, around here. If anything, it livens up the joint!

If it was a flounce threat, take heart! If anybody would care to check my post count they'll see that I'm close to my expiration date. Then they won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore.....

Spoiler

W00t!!! Political references!!!!!11

Expiration my ass. it's about time to commission Fanny X....

lb13

It is a time for martyrs now, and if I am to be one, it will be for the cause of brotherhood. That's the only thing that can save this board.

You are such a bogus flibberdigibbet. Ho. Fomenter. Shit-flinger.

(Do you think that qualifies for bored excitement? It's like a flash from the past or something, right? Non sequiturial filthmouth?)

How's by you? And that squorrel lover you associate with? Hah? Hah?
Speaking of, I have my whack picture prominently displayed in our new place along with my socks and scarf.

[Bob78164]

OK, Let me try and understand this. According to your analysis, because we have a low utilization of capacity, it's alright to print money and borrow money so the Federal Government can spend it.
So as long as we have a lot of people unemployed, we can go ahead and rack up whatever debt we want to. But then when (and if) the economy picks up and more people are employed, then we have to stop printing money and borrowing.

Am I understanding this correctly?

Is this theory, or has this been tried before? If so, when has it been tried and how did it work out?

I wonder why the Soviet Union didn't think of this? Is this how we tried to get out of the Great Depression for more than a decade until WWII actually got us out of the Depression? We keep printing and borrowing money we don't have so we can spend it until we get into a big war to flush it out?

You appear to correctly understand matters, but no war is necessary to "flush it out." Normal economic growth will solve the problem for us. This is, in fact, how we started to get out of the Great Depression, and it was working. Then FDR made the tragic mistake of agreeing with the deficit hawks and pivoting too soon away from the necessary levels of deficit spending. That mistake extended the Great Depression for years.

World War II got us out of the Great Depression because relatively large levels of deficit spending suddenly became unavoidable, and because we were able to put our surplus economic capacity to work. Do you know how we paid back the debt we incurred? We didn't. It just shrank to insignificance as a fraction of the economy because the economy grew so much.

I believe Japan's new government intends to use this method to escape the liquidity trap in which its economy has languished for a couple of decades. Japan's economy, by the way, is an object lesson in the destructive power of deflation, and illustrates why a touch of inflation is necessary to the health of an economy.

Notice, by the way that the other method (austerity) also has been tried in countries like Spain, and it had the predicted effect. The economy contracted, reducing tax revenues, and leaving the deficit approximately where it was before the attempt was made to reduce it. In other words, no gain, and a considerable extra amount of human suffering. --Bob