5% Hit to GDP If Debt Ceiling Violated: Goldman

As you've no doubt heard by now, this little goverment shutdown we're in the middle of is small potatoes compared to the impending debt ceiling debacle. The projected date we "run out of money" is October 17, so ten days from today. If the US were to miss an interest payment as a result of the debt ceiling not being raised, it could result in a 5% drop in GDP according to Goldman Sachs.

"If the debt limit is not raised before the Treasury depletes its cash balance, it could force the Treasury to rapidly eliminate the budget deficit to stay under the debt ceiling," wrote Phillips and Dawsey in a note distributed to clients on Saturday night. "We estimate that the fiscal pullback would amount to as much as 4.2% of GDP (annualized). The effect on quarterly growth rates (rather than levels) could be even greater. If this were allowed to occur, it could lead to a rapid downturn in economic activity if not reversed very quickly."

In other words: GAME OVER. The forced reduction in spending would send the global economy into a tailspin. Even just a couple days of the debacle (for example, if they didn't raise the ceiling until the 19th) could cost months worth of growth in the US, an almost certain and substantial ratings downgrade, and fiscal chaos worldwide. Mass hysteria, dogs and cats sleeping together...you get the picture.

It strikes me as ironic that we even still have a debt ceiling. Let's face it: we bump up against it every couple years and Congress has never not raised it. So what's the point of even having it? All it does is encourage these fuckwits to grandstand and cause hate and discontent in the market. In the end nothing changes.

Now just imagine this scenario: lots of people predicted doom and gloom if the sequester were to go into effect. It did, and the economy largely normalized to absorb it. Then came this latest government shutdown. Again, heady predictions of the end of the world, and that mostly hasn't happened (unless you booked a trip to DC and were hoping to visit a bunch of places that are now closed).

So maybe some of the flat-Earth crowd in the House are thinking: hmmm...I wonder what would happen if we just let this debt ceiling thing happen?

There was a time when Congress could be trusted to do the right thing for the country, but that time has long since passed. I wouldn't put it past these jerkoffs to see what this button does. Would you?

 

On on hand I am happy that Dutch politicians are a bit more sane (crazy nationalists excluded, cough cough), on the other hand I know it really doesn't matter because it's the American ones that determine the course of global economy.

 

Eddie, one of the reasons the debt limit is a decent thing is that it at least forces the country to actually look at the debt we are piling up and then creates a dynamic to have some type of conversation regarding it. Should it have to be that way? Absolutely not but if there were no debt limit i'm not sure we would ever actually start fighting and deciding exactly what we want to spend our money on. That is the key to this entire thing. Prioritization of spending and what we want our country to be. That is the conversation we need to be having all day, every day until something actually gets done. What better than the world ending if you can't come to a conclusion? That normally gets shit done (though I'm not certain that its cats and dogs roaming the streets bad)

 

I agree with your sentiment completely, Mr. Braverman. However as far as the point even having of a debt ceiling vs. entirely eliminating it, I believe (personally) that it would be equally as catastrophic to do away with it. The debt ceiling is essentially an arbitrary limit on what we can borrow, correct? So to eliminate it and allow the government to borrow without an arbitrary limit means that they could borrow as frequently and as much as they want, correct? The ceiling I believe forces them to be a little more conservative and time sensitive to the reaches of their borrowing and spending. Imagine the extent of what they would borrow in a short amount of time were there no arbitrary limit. You may argue they're intelligent enough to not do that, I would argue they aren't, haha.

 
cnb5189:

I agree with your sentiment completely, Mr. Braverman. However as far as the point even having of a debt ceiling vs. entirely eliminating it, I believe (personally) that it would be equally as catastrophic to do away with it. The debt ceiling is essentially an arbitrary limit on what we can borrow, correct? So to eliminate it and allow the government to borrow without an arbitrary limit means that they could borrow as frequently and as much as they want, correct? The ceiling I believe forces them to be a little more conservative and time sensitive to the reaches of their borrowing and spending. Imagine the extent of what they would borrow in a short amount of time were there no arbitrary limit. You may argue they're intelligent enough to not do that, I would argue they aren't, haha.

The debt ceiling is not even a consideration when Congress is debating spending bills.

"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."
 

Well this is pretty frightening.

"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."
 

I guess I don't see why people are freaking out about the debt ceiling. Either way, America is on a path to screw itself over by being fiscally irresponsible. Neither party is interested in fixing it. Remember, even with the sequester and the tax hikes put in place at the beginning of the year, our budget deficit was still 750 billion dollars. So the question is do we default now (purposefully) and address the issue now, or do we just continue to extend or remove the debt ceiling (like you suggest), and continue our spending spree until some outside force forces the issue upon us (like interest rates spiking). I don't have the answer, but I think a default might actually be good for America, assuming these issues are addressed because of it (no guarantee they will be). 2009 was definitely a missed opportunity.

 

THIS IS AWESOME!!! Whether we like it or not, Obama will be blamed for this. So long Hilary Clinton's chances at 2016.

But seriously though... there's about a .0000000001% chance of us ever defaulting. There's this little thing called "leverage" in Washington. In the end, someone ends up the pussy and caves. Pretty sure it's Obama's turn to negotiate lower deficit this time.

 

LOL no one buys the House Republicans' pitch of "this is Obama's fault". They're doing this and they planned it a long time ago and the simple truth is that they have no leverage. If the goal is to tank the economy so that they can say that Obama's policies were a failure, I'm going to register as a Democrat....just to spite them. As I look at Obamacare, I see a federal requirement to buy private insurance, just like car insurance, with some aid to fill in the gaps....that's not socialism, that's applied capitalism. If the private sector didn't fail so much, this wouldn't be necessary, but that time has passed.

And I was raised Republican. Honestly, I don't agree with or respect them, and I haven't since Bush2. This about coincides with the period of life when I started paying attention to politics, so as I learn more history I'm starting to think I'll totally renounce my GOPness completely. It's time for the GOP to get crushed and spend some time in the penalty box so they can rethink their lives. Yeah, the country has too much debt, but that can be dealt with and tanking the whole system because you don't get your version of the solution today just says to me that the GOP puts their own selfishness ahead of the nation's interests. The GOP went full retard.

This is the 'grand vision' of the Tea Party? Please.

The one bright point of all this is that the guy who's responsible for this whole blighted world view reasserting iself, Rupert Murdoch, is not going to live much longer. He's been pitching this backward ass version of reality for a few decades now, and the GOP has become his stool pigeon. He says he's standing up for individual freedoms, but he's really just standing up for his ability to project his worldview, which consists mostly of "do what authority says, and I am authority". The Stone Age is over, even Justice Scalia has admitted that the world is changing and he has not kept up. Get a fucking clue.

At this rate, the GOP will lose the House given they're pissing off so many people that would otherwise be apolitical. For Christ sakes, the GOP mayor of my town told me over drinks (while I was bartending) that he can't bring himself to vote GOP in federal politics anymore. They're fucking up that bad.

....and at the end of this week I'm going to stop following politics completely for a while because I get nothing out of getting so pissed off watching people act like retards.

Get busy living
 
UFOinsider:
As I look at Obamacare, I see a federal requirement to buy private insurance, just like car insurance, with some aid to fill in the gaps....that's not socialism, that's applied capitalism. If the private sector didn't fail so much, this wouldn't be necessary, but that time has passed.

Private sector failing healthcare? You mean one of the most highly regulated industries before Obamacare was past? Health insurance is not like car insurance for several reasons. First, car insurance is for the benefit of other drivers not yourself. Second, driving is a choice, being forced to buy healthcare because you are alive is not. And if Obamacare was simply "everyone must buy health insurance"...it is so much more. Dozens of additional taxes and fees, forcing people to buy coverage for illnesses they don't want/need, therefore, increasing the price, employers who used to over health insurance cutting workers hours because of the additional costs...and let's not forget that the entire reason for Obamacare was to decrease healthcare costs....something that is has spectacularly failed at.

Yeah, the country has too much debt, but that can be dealt with and tanking the whole system because you don't get your version of the solution today just says to me that the GOP puts their own selfishness ahead of the nation's interests. The GOP went full retard.

Funny, it would be nice to see it being 'dealt' with in the slightest way rather than democrats keep saying they will get to it eventually. I don't know where you are getting your info, but republicans have offered half a dozen different compromises and it is the democrats that are refusing to move. I mean all the republicans wanted was to delay the individual mandate and give ordinary people some relief....something Obama has already done for big business and congress.Why is it the President gets to play politics by delaying a delay a dozen different aspects of his law, but when republicans want to extend those same changes to ordinary people they are ridiculed and told they are "being unreasonable"?

And you want to talk about selfishness? Obama is the biggest petty asshole I have ever seen. The man hired workers during the gov't shutdown to put up barricades to stop people and veterans from seeing the WW2 memorial....a memorial that has not gates and can be accessed 24/7 by simply walking up to it. Besides closing the parking lot of Mt. Rushmore he actually had people put orange cones on the side of the road to stop people from stopping and looking it from a distance.

The one bright point of all this is that the guy who's responsible for this whole blighted world view reasserting iself, Rupert Murdoch, is not going to live much longer. He's been pitching this backward ass version of reality for a few decades now, and the GOP has become his stool pigeon. He says he's standing up for individual freedoms, but he's really just standing up for his ability to project his worldview, which consists mostly of "do what authority says, and I am authority". The Stone Age is over, even Justice Scalia has admitted that the world is changing and he has not kept up. Get a fucking clue.

LOL. So I guess your definition of individual freedom is NOT being able to express your opinions? It is funny that you somehow attribute the victory of your worldview with the death of one man. Foxnews has more than double the viewership of CNN and MSNBC combined and has a higher number of independent viewers. They may be right of center, but their reporting is well done, accurate, and shit load more fair and balanced than any of the other trash.

At this rate, the GOP will lose the House given they're pissing off so many people that would otherwise be apolitical.

I guess we will have to see, but I think there is a very strong chance that republicans keep the house and pick up seats in the Senate (maybe even a majority although it would require a lot of things to go right)

"Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, for knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA."
 

We won't default because the executive branch has discretion as to where to spend the money. Not speaking politically here; I'm simply speaking mathematically--if there's any default it will be because the Obama administration didn't prioritize debt liabilities when making payments.

I'm not a Goldman Sachs superstar, but I'm doing the math here--if our budget deficit is about $758 billion and we have a $16 trillion GDP eliminating the annual deficit for 1 years would reduce GDP by about 4.7%. Breaching the debt ceiling for 1 week would reduce GDP by about .00911%.

 
DCDepository:

We won't default because the executive branch has discretion as to where to spend the money. Not speaking politically here; I'm simply speaking mathematically--if there's any default it will be because the Obama administration didn't prioritize debt liabilities when making payments.

I'm not a Goldman Sachs superstar, but I'm doing the math here--if our budget deficit is about $758 billion and we have a $16 trillion GDP eliminating the annual deficit for 1 years would reduce GDP by about 4.7%. Breaching the debt ceiling for 1 week would reduce GDP by about .00911%.

What if there is a major bank default because of this whole economic disruption and the FDIC needs to step in? IE the gold kooks start withdrawing money from banks en-masse because Ron Paul claims the dollar is going to 0. Do we start shutting down the military, selling aircraft carriers, and denying medicare benefits to make good on peoples' checking accounts if Citi goes under?

Regardless, even if treasuries get paid and the FDIC makes good on its promises, it still makes the federal government look unreliable and undermines faith in the US dollar and the federal government's ability to pay.

Also, it was this kind of politicking by the Weimar conservatives that led to the rise of Hitler. No, liberals aren't fascists or communists and conservatives aren't fascists or communists. But if this somehow leads to the loss of M1/M2/M3, or a failure to bail out a major bank by the FDIC, it's not outside the range of possibility for the US to turn communist or fascist.

 
Edmundo Braverman:
IlliniProgrammer:

Eddie I wish you could write a stronger non-partisan editorial about how stupid this is, but oh well.

Was this post partisan? Wasn't my intention. If I pointed fingers anywhere, it was only at the obstructionists who would otherwise be powerless (or frankly wouldn't be there in the first place) if it weren't for gerrymandering.

No. I wish there were a way to say a failure to hike the debt ceiling was anti-libertarian and anti-capitalist.

 

The debt ceiling is a completely arbitrary limit that's been raised 107 times before, and even if we hit it the Treasury can prioritize interest payments to avoid default, which it's more than capable of doing with cash on hand.

And don't forget Congress basically has a time machine to make their deals retroactive. So yeah, actual default would be horrible, but the chances of it happening are almost nil.

Metal. Music. Life. www.headofmetal.com
 

I work at a mid-sized bank and I personally know the CEO. He has no concern whatsoever. I'm not sure where the concern would be. There isn't going to be a default and there won't be a run on the banks. The vast majority of America doesn't even pay attention to what's going on in Washington, D.C.

If you're concerned about the strength of the dollar then why have you been supporting quantitative easing and breathtaking levels of debt spending?

 
DCDepository:

I work at a mid-sized bank and I personally know the CEO. He has no concern whatsoever. I'm not sure where the concern would be. There isn't going to be a default and there won't be a run on the banks. The vast majority of America doesn't even pay attention to what's going on in Washington, D.C.

If you're concerned about the strength of the dollar then why have you been supporting quantitative easing and breathtaking levels of debt spending?

There probably won't be a run on the banks, but if there is, my point is that the FDIC is basically helpless. And it's this kind of complacency that makes me more nervous.

If there is a bank run- and with fractional reserve banking, nothing is really stopping it besides blind faith- conservatives will get the blame, and we may very well elect the next Hitler. Either way, expect lots of bankers, hedge fund managers, PE execs, prop traders, and political lobbyists to find themselves deprived of certain rights and liberties one would expect in a democratic society.

Oh well, I am thinking about lining up a Canadian passport.

 

I just don't see how this is one side's fault.

If you were working on a deal, and one side was trying to negotiate REASONABLE measures that are for the well-being of Americans (ie: lowering the debt ceiling, protecting their natural rights) while the other side is just sitting there like a 5-year-old bitch saying, "NOPE, WE AREN'T GOING TO NEGOTIATE, WE'RE BETTER THAN YOU, AND THE MEDIA WILL BACK US UP NO MATTER WHAT."

If the house doesn't get a hold on our deficit now, with the leverage they have, you can bet your ass it will never happen.

 
Best Response

The House has zero leverage because the actions of a tiny minority have made it a complete clownshow. Nothing that comes out of the House will be taken seriously by the Senate, and none of the Republican ringleaders in the House (or their ilk) will ever be elected to the Senate because Americans don't elect extremists when a broad sector of the population gets a vote. You can rig an election for the tin foil hat crowd in a district where they're prevalent, but they have no shot in a statewide or nationwide election, which is why they're easily contained to the House and then marginalized.

The GOP is absolutely destroying their brand (or what was left of it after W) and you're crazy if you don't think every rational American blames them for this nonsense. Don't forget: this shutdown isn't about the debt ceiling. It's about a policy that the majority of Americans voted for, was made law, and was then upheld by the Supreme Court.

 

Yeah, Eddie, because only Republicans gerrymander...

I forgot that the U.S. is a majoritarian dictatorship. I guess we live in a nation where 48% of the nation isn't allowed to have a voice through checks and balances. Apparently, if you win 52% of the vote you should be able to rule like a king like they do in Venezuela.

 

I understand the plight of both sides. And yes we do need to cut our debt, we spend too much, for all kinds of reasons, stupid reasons. To balance the budget the candle needs to burn from both ends, the revenue ie taxes and the spending. How much and what is up for debate.

But this scare me, will my dollar be worth anything the morning I wake up. Im not really sure aside from the hit to GDP what this will do to the local economy meaning if businesses stop accepting payments in dollars or if inflation gets out of hand so quickly like the Weinmar Republic.

Lol, this is one hell of a rollercoaster ride

 

But that's the point--George W. Bush couldn't rule like a king. He had to get Congressional authority for war, he got his Social Security plan rejected, he got his Supreme Court nominee rejected, Obama and a large minority of Congressmen and Senators voted against raising the debt ceiling, and he faced constant and withering criticism, blocked votes and consistent threats of filibuster. That's how our system works.

 

While we're talking about gerrymandering ... I at one point in my life wanted to run for congress, but seriously, these have to be 435 of the least inspiring "successful" people in history. I wouldn't trust most of those people to unjam the printer at my office.

 

The anti-GOP echo chamber is over the top. Yes, Congress is full of clowns. But do you actually think there aren't a lot of people blaming the President and Democrats? Oh yeah, those people are just stupid, so they're wrong. Oh, okay.

Low hanging fruit, guys, low hanging fruit. Stop yapping about the GOP sucking and tell me what's exciting about the Democratic brand other than being the tallest midget. Right, absolutely nothing.

There has not been one single, solitary complaint made here about the GOP, be it the competence of their elected rubes or the intelligence of the people who elect them, that is not also true of the Democrats. But this is easier than getting to a solution, or having the cojones to elect anyone who will work towards a solution.

 

And this is bad news for libertarians. You pointed out (correctly) that the GOP sucks, and you are gaining popularity. Nonetheless our President loves drones, expansive government, and 'humanitarian invention,' 'sending messages,' or whatever it'll be when we bomb the next Middle East country. But at least W isn't in there, have you seen that guy jack up a sentence? Lulz.

Bill Kristol and the neo-cons at the Weekly Standard thank you.

 

Just look at Louisiana 6th Congressional District to get some scope as to the degree of gerrymandering. Ridiculous.

Also, at risk of sounding like a complete idiot, why is our debt/GDP such a pivotal problem considering that it is still lower than during WWII?

People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for freedom of thought which they seldom use.
 

Because our debt during WWII was temporary and it was caused by salvaging the Western world from totalitarianism. After WWII, Europe, Asia and Eurasia were in ruins. North America was essentially untouched and operated nearly without economic rival for a decade. We now have competition.

 

Well you are correct on everything, but you left off one thing. Harry Reid has indicated that the end goal is universal healthcare, and that will absolutely happen. When premiums skyrocket for everyone, and when small business employment is dramatically impacted, you will see the derps clamoring for universal healthcare. It's inevitable.

 

Trust me, you're out of your element Donny. I honestly have no idea how to even answer whatever point it is that you are trying to make, but I'll try. First of all, that map looks wrong since Scalise is from District 2 which is the Northshore, not Grand Isle. And if you are trying to develop some sort of narrative about black voters being pushed out, you are horrendously misguided. Based on my knowledge of my good old home state, the districts look extremely reasonably drawn up, especially when the state lost a district in 2012.

And just in case, I have heard claims of the state districts being gerrymandered, and that I can't comment on. I am sure that happens in virtually every state though.

 

Why are you getting so offended by my comments? I'm not at all insinuating any of the things that you said. At face value, it is hard not to concede that the district on that map looks strange. Also, this article seems to agree with me a little (whether or not you do is fine, I admit I know nothing about the state).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/the-most-gerrymandered…

People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for freedom of thought which they seldom use.
 

I fail to see why I should look for something nice to say about the GOP right now, and I also fail to see why the dems should be blamed for a tactic that the GOP is using. I also fail to see how their position is reasonable. They lost on some issue and now they're holding their finger on the destruct button of the entire system? They've made it clear that they will not compromis for five years now, and rush to the nuclear option on everything....those tactics don't work when you don't have control, and they do not.

Something I think a lot of libertarians leave out of their analysis is that health care costs are already socialized to an extent. Hospitals can not refuse treatment to those in dire need, largely because once that option is on the table you can justify watching someone bleed to death outside an ER as a matter of standard operating proceedure...not going to happen. So, when people without insurance have an issue fester until it becomes a severe crisis and then go to an ER, that costs is socialized. By forcing them to get insurance or be covered, a huge amount of expense is mitigated in the long term. Plus, we're not fucking barbarians, it's the right thing to do. I've never heard the GOP bitch about the costs of war (which BTW I'm in favor of, I'm pro death) but the health of our country is a free choice in all cases? Really? Why does 60% of America suffer from a degenerative disease right now? How has all that 'freedome' worked out? It's NOT freeomd, it's IRRESPONSIBLE. Once the systemic aspect of disease management is established, prevention can actually make inroads.

In the meantime, what we mostly have is people cashing in on sickness by peddling shitty lifestyles and shittier treatments. Just like building road infrastructure a century ago, building disease management infrastructure is vital to the long term...literal...health of the nation. I don't like the single payer systems given they bankrupt the nation, so this is much better. And so what if you don't have a choice to follow some laws? You don't have to own a car to be fined for jaywalking. (shitty analogy, I'll work on it). Why do people need a dog license but are allowed to let their kids' health fester? Some see it as a freedom issue, and I disagree, I see it as a "good idea" issue. And make no mistake, America has not had a healthcare system, it's had a "disease management" model that clearly is failing. History marches on, there are better ways to do things. I'd go so far as to farm out health insurance to companies like Kaiser who HAVE THE LOWEST EXPENSES WITH THE BEST LONG TERM RESULTS. I truly do not see what the problem is aside from ignorant people making truly stupid decisions.

The other thing is that debate is OVER. The program is funded and operational. Screwing with it so it fails so they can say "see it's a bad idea" is crap. If there was no demand for the system, that would be different, but a majority supported this. So get over it.

If one were a REAL Republican, they'd realize that all they're doing is exactly what Eddie said: they're destroying the GOP's brand. People are trying to deride the early polls as 'liberal' because lol they don't agree with them, but everything is pointing to the GOP losing control of the House in 2014. By energizing one small faction's base, they're pissing off middle of the road folks who say "oh yeah? I'll vote dem now"

Get busy living
 
UFOinsider:

The other thing is that debate is OVER. The program is funded and operational. Fucking with it so it fails so they can say "see it's a bad idea" is crap. If there was no demand for the system, that would be different, but a majority supported this. So get over it.

If one more person says the majority of America supports the bill, I'm gonna go fuckin' bananas. TAKE A STATS CLASS BEFORE YOU SPIT TERMS LIKE 'MAJORITY'.

Also, they can't even get their fucking website to work, so what does that say about the shitty plan?

 
UFOinsider:
I don't like the single payer systems given they bankrupt the nation, so this is much better. And so what if you don't have a choice to follow some laws? You don't have to own a car to be fined for jaywalking. (shitty analogy, I'll work on it).

Why do people need a dog license but are allowed to let their kids' health fester?

First, what the hell is a dog license?

You really need to go and get a better understanding of this healthcare law. This law destroys a person's ability to choose a reasonable health plan by only creating these plans that cover everything under the sun and force employers to do the same, greatly increasing costs and forcing them to cut hours and workers. Why does everyone need a health plan that covers psych and birth control? The law also destroys diversity and variety of health insurance plans by setting deductible and co-pay limits. People who previously had health insurance are dropped and forced to go to the exchanges where the costs will spiral out of control because the entire pan requires healthy 20 year olds to sign up and pay through the ass to subsidize everyone else. And lets not even talk about all of the government subsidies which are just more unfunded liabilities and paid for by everyone.

I'd go so far as to farm out health insurance to companies like Kaiser who HAVE THE LOWEST EXPENSES WITH THE BEST LONG TERM RESULTS. I truly do not see what the problem is aside from ignorant people making truly stupid decisions.

You mean like the Cleveland Clinic that Obama spoke in front of during his Obamacare push and praised them for their excellent service and low cost---yeah, they are cutting their workers and budget to make room for Obamacare. How about the thousands of businesses that have fired workers and cut hours to below 30 in response to Obamacare? This law is so fucked up it has republicans, libertarians, small businesses, big businesses, and unions arguing against it.

If Unions and big business agreeing on something isn't a sign of the apocalypse I don't know what is.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/18/us-usa-health-clevelandclinic…

The other thing is that debate is OVER. The program is funded and operational.

The program is not funded, what are you talking about? CBO has already revised it's estimate that it will cost close to 2 trillion over 10 years and it was partially funded with higher taxes and fees--like the tax on medical equipment (say how do you lower the cost of something if you keep upping the taxes?)--many of the funding taxes are have been repealed by democrats and republicans already and have just created more unfunded liabilities.

Screwing with it so it fails so they can say "see it's a bad idea" is crap. If there was no demand for the system, that would be different, but a majority supported this.

Part of me wants it to take effect so that the cluster fuck can begin. Why do you think Obama gave businesses an exception? It would have been a massive job killer right before election season---he would rather leave America holding the bag after he has left office. What majority are you talking about...EVERY SINGLE POLL says a majority don't won't Obamacare and that hasn't changed since the law was passed.

"Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, for knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA."
 

Everyone in Hong Kong and Singapore just has to be laughing their asses off at how dumb we are.

It must be nice to see a civilization fail as your own prospers under the very values it once held so dearly. I guess America has just become so diluted, that there's no point of return, and it's time to set up shop somewhere where the light bulb just turned on instead of where it's beginning to flicker. Take a good look at Western Europe; boys, that's where we're headed.

 

Yeah, sorry, I am being a douche-- especially with my big lebowski quote. Your map wasn't exactly drawn up right. I found a better one on the house.gov site. While the district does look strange, keep in mind the source here. The article seems highly presumptuous, but I can see some evidence there demographics-wise. I could go by town by town for an explanation, but that would be a waste of time.

Also note that there is only going to be one district in LA post-Republican renaissance that will always be a democratic stronghold and that is Nola aka da 504. Rest of the state...no chance.

 

LOL Eddie, making fun of a politician for doing something makes you partisan according to the 20 and under crowd at WSO. Who knew? When I rag on Terry McAuliffe, am I a partisan, or am I just calling someone out for being an asshole?

...John BONER went full retard, that's just an assessment, not a partisan standpoint.

Get busy living
 

I fail to see why people should fit their opinion of a policy within some silly ideological framework. If it's a good idea, just do it. Our founding fathers wanted nothing more than Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness and were completely utilitarian about how to accomplish those goals.

Where all these "isms" came from is irrelevant

Get busy living
 

...he had the ability to back up his talk.

There's one thing I just realized: the GOP is making it politically impossible to attack ACA. When they back down, and they will just like they did in '96, it will send a very clear message that the program is here to stay. ACA is about to enter the realm of other hotbutton issues like abortion, where some people will bitch about it for decades but nothing will substantially change.

Get busy living
 

UFO, you really love government control don't you? It will be an utter failure just like SS, medicaid, medicaire, post office, etc.

I would have gone about this differently, let the law impode on itself and then it's all on the Dems.

 

LOL, Obamacare is already in effect and come Jan 1st, you will all be required to buy health insurance. There's no stopping it. And with the trillion dollar coin option, the debt ceiling issue is kinda moot.

Singapore and Hong Kong are even more screwed than the US if the economic system collapses and we stop exporting grain. The world can't produce enough food to feed itself without the US and island nations that have to import food are going to have to go on a really serious diet. BTBanker is free to laugh all he wants, because the joke is going to be on his country if things get challenging here.

 

If Unions and big business agreeing on something isn't a sign of the apocalypse I don't know what is.

Really?

Something is a good idea and a group of people say "yeah, I'll give up some of my option to do something stupid and we all are better off in the long term".

People who think they're "free" without health insurance are bound by two things. 1) the first accident / serious illness you have will bankrupt you and make you a slave to debtors. I've seen this up close and personal and it's horrifying. 2) your already high medical bills cover the costs of people who don't have insurance. You retaining your right to not be insured costs you more money and encourages uninsured to not deal with their shit until they need an ER, and then the costs go through the roof.

I think a lot of the people opposing this don't understand what they're opposing. In the long term, instead of being part of that rabble that spends all their time just trying to tear it down, join the faction that will make the program better.

LOL at people kvetching about the website crashing. It's almost like some hyper efficient business like NASDAQ was running it. Just because something is not perfect does not mean default to "well, I guess we should dismantle the system"

I like my freedoms like the next person, I also know when enough is enough on a particular topic and that there's a right way to do things and a shitty way to do things. It annoys me to no end when people can not deal with reality and admit they are wrong. I almost want to start gambling on this program to benefit from those who disagree with it.

Get busy living
 

@ txjustin - how is the postal service a failure? It's run since the country was founded and it wasn't until CENTURIES later where private companies did a better job and started to make them irrelevant. Show me a company that insures the entire population and is actually bringing costs down, and I'll admite you're right. But all I see is less people being covered and that coverage costing more to do less.

So it's time for a change.

There's a difference between freedom and irresponsitility. If this was an issure of freedom only, there would be no downside to being uninsured....but the downside can be devastating. So this becomes a responsitility issue, and having 50 Million people not covered is irresponsible on the part of our civilization as a whole. It's like requiring people to wear clothes in public places: so what if you don't feel 100% "free", it's just a good idea.

Get busy living
 

Admit that we're wrong? EVERYTHING we said in 2009 and 2010 during the Obamacare debate has come to pass--that the CBO was drastically underestimating the cost, that tens of millions of people would see their insurance costs go up, that millions of people would lose their employee provided health insurance, that tens of millions of people would remain uninsured, that the individual mandate has no teeth, and that the 10,556 pages of law would balloon into a bureaucratic nightmare. Absolutely everything we predicted has come to pass.

The CBO estimated it would cost $900 billion over 10 years. The updated estimate? $2.6 trillion. It's estimated that under the ACA 30 million people will remain uninsured, as many as 20 million people will lose their health insurance, and Forbes estimates that the average family of 4 will see a $7,500 annual increase in costs under the ACA when Obama promised it would lower costs on average by $2,500 for a family of 4. The ACA is 10,556 pages and 20,000 pages of additional rules, regulations and guidance from the bureaucracy!

Where exactly, UFOInsider, would we admit that we're wrong?

 
DCDepository:

Admit that we're wrong? EVERYTHING we said in 2009 and 2010 during the Obamacare debate has come to pass--that the CBO was drastically underestimating the cost, that tens of millions of people would see their insurance costs go up, that millions of people would lose their employee provided health insurance, that tens of millions of people would remain uninsured, that the individual mandate has no teeth, and that the 10,556 pages of law would balloon into a bureaucratic nightmare. Absolutely everything we predicted has come to pass.

The CBO estimated it would cost $900 billion over 10 years. The updated estimate? $2.6 trillion. It's estimated that under the ACA 30 million people will remain uninsured, as many as 20 million people will lose their health insurance, and Forbes estimates that the average family of 4 will see a $7,500 annual increase in costs under the ACA when Obama promised it would lower costs on average by $2,500 for a family of 4. The ACA is 10,556 pages and 20,000 pages of additional rules, regulations and guidance from the bureaucracy!

Where exactly, UFOInsider, would we admit that we're wrong?

You also claimed we were going to get hyperinflation from QE and the deficits. Only tho now it's been ~18 quarters since those claims and we seem to be doing a-ok. It may even be safe to say that Bernanke is kinda the hero of the recovery while the same crowd that wants the Feds to default is kinda in Tinfoil hat land when it comes to monetary policy.
 
txjustin:

By the way, it's estimated ~30 million will remain uninsured.

You realize that this is almost entirely because of R-controlled states that aren't expanding Medicaid, right? And that, by doing so, they'll actually cost themselves more money in the long-run, right?

There are legitimate issues with Obamacare, but so many in the GOP come off ass buffoons when they go out of their way to try and sabotage the bill and then say "see, I told you it's flawed!"

Side note (not directed at txjustin): Anyone who thinks the shutdown and debt ceiling debacle is Obama's fault is lying to themselves (or is a complete lunatic.)

The Senate Dems have been trying to conference with the House Republicans on a budget essentially all year. The House refused to conference to determine a budget all year because they wanted to use the Debt Ceiling as leverage. That is incredibly irresponsible. How is this anything other than hostage taking?

Instead of spending (potentially) months coming up with a budget compromise, we're forced into this brinksmanship bullshit. What a joke.

 

Honestly, what's the alternative? I have no use for ideology and partisan crap, I just see this as conceptually sound even though the end to end stuff is going to take a while to nail down.

Here's my perspective: my earliest memory of hospitals was my parents freaking out over the bills when a sibling became extremely sick. They had insurance, so things worked out, but I remember asking why things were so expensive. My parents, stuck in the waiting room, started telling me about how things work including a lot of the things we are talking about here. One thing stuck out to me at that time though: our bills are partly higher than they need to be because the hospitals and insurers have to cover the costs of people who are required to be treated but have no money. That really stuck with me.

For most of my life, I've felt bad for people who don't have insurance, like they were at the mercy of charity care, welfare, or having to wait for help at local ERs. And some people are poor and there is medicaide for those people. Lately though, I've started thinking about all the people that CAN afford insurance but don't get it. Fuck them. When they get sick, they pass the costs on to us, and likely drive themselves into a deep financial hole when shit hits the fan. I've seen a few people do exactly this in the last few years, and they did this to themselves. I welcome charitably focused programs like medicaid, but I honestly get angry at those who just make bad decisions. They're like the drunk driver who makes other people pay for their mistakes. Fine them. Since they don't want to have insurance, and they're most likely going to need it, make them pay. Why should I have to bail them out?

If this program does not evolve over time to fullfill its mission statement, then I'll be out protesting it as well. But in the meantime, I'm willing to give it a go and I'd prefer to see people focus their energy on making it work better instead of just trying to sabatoge it in some pathetic attempt at a self fullfilling prophesy of "see, the system sucks". It only sucks if you want it to.

Seriously though. What is the alternative? I see no viable alternative, even though it's pretty universally acknowledged that things have been deteriorating for a while now.

In my mind, it's just a function of running the country better. I hate that it's such a 'political' thing. I don't see the point of thinking in those terms.

If the program actually works, it baffles me that people will still look reality right in the eye and instead hold on to their 'philisophy'.

People confuse me. Honestly. I'd like you to take this literally.

Get busy living
 
UFOinsider:
One thing stuck out to me at that time though: our bills are partly higher than they need to be because the hospitals and insurers have to cover the costs of people who are required to be treated but have no money. That really stuck with me.

What do you think Obamacare is? Forcing people like you and your family to pay for insurance that covers more than they need it to (like birth control, psychiatrist, etc) at a cost that is WAY above what it should be to subsidize others.

If this program does not evolve over time to fullfill its mission statement, then I'll be out protesting it as well. But in the meantime, I'm willing to give it a go and I'd prefer to see people focus their energy on making it work better instead of just trying to sabatoge it in some pathetic attempt at a self fullfilling prophesy of "see, the system sucks".

Looking at Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and every other bullshit entitlement. Once this programs get up and running it is basically impossible to stop. Can you name one major entitlement that has been stopped by the government? I think there must be one, but I am at a loss as too what it could possible be. What you fail to see is that there is no making this better. The bill is over 10,000 pages and has made over 20,000 pages of regulations. It is full of dozens of random taxes and regulations that are impossible to sort out.

There is no way this bill will work in lowering healthcare costs. How do I know? Because about this bill screams increasing costs...forcing businesses to cover everything under the sun, increased taxes on healthcare providers based on market cap, forcing people to drop their plans and buy "approved" plans, massive government subsidies. And after all that, it still did nothing for increased fraud prevention, tort reform, or increasing competition by allowing people to by insurance from providers in a different state----all things republicans supported and democrats rejected. The only way to fix this bill is to start again with a smaller less ambitious version.

It only sucks if you want it to.
---funny, I could say the same thing about rape.
Seriously though. What is the alternative? I see no viable alternative, even though it's pretty universally acknowledged that things have been deteriorating for a while now.

Alternatives? As stated above, Tort reform, increased competition between states, increased fraud prevention would all help lower costs. Allow people to take their work insurance with them as they switch jobs--that would help increase coverage for sure.

I would'nt mind something like insurance companies couldn't say no to pre-existing conditions up the age of like 26-28, but after that if a person hasn't bought insurance and they are diagnosed with a pre-existing condition, to quote you, 'fuck em'. This is a nice compromise that acknowledges the unfairness with prexisting conditions, but also provides people with free choice and accepting the consequences of their actions should they not buy insurance by 28---I would of course stop forcing hospitals to treat people who don't have insurance and are above the age of 28, those people would have to be at the mercy of charity from either the goodwill of the hospital or some charity organization (of which I am sure there would be a few)

"Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, for knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA."
 

@ txjustin - Until FedEx and UPS came around a few years ago, the postal service was the only really useful large scale way to get shit done. That and it was mandated that their fees paid for their operations. NOW things are different, so hey, maybe we'll see partial privatization or complete dismantlement of the program.

But looking back on it, what was the problem up until just a couple years ago?

....and more pointedly, what exactly was the alternative?

Get busy living
 
UFOinsider:

@ txjustin - Until FedEx and UPS came around a few years ago, the postal service was the only really useful large scale way to get shit done. That and it was mandated that their fees paid for their operations. NOW things are different, so hey, maybe we'll see partial privatization or complete dismantlement of the program.

But looking back on it, what was the problem up until just a couple years ago?

....and more pointedly, what exactly was the alternative?

Not to mention, the invention and proliferation of email.

Saying the Postal Service is a failure is ridiculous and dismisses (literally) centuries of excellent work and overstates its obsolescence.

 

So, how are the USPS' books? Are the in the red or black?

If it weren't for them being in the constitution, I'd say shut it down. RAther, I'd say scale it back to it's bare bones to do what it was intended to do, but at a sustainable rate.

 
txjustin:

I'm sorry I got this sidetracked. Lets stick to social programs.

For the record, both the GOP and Dems face equal blame IMO. They BOTH need to compromise.

The Democrats in the Senate have tried to conference with the House GOP 18 or 19 times this year. The GOP refused to conference until the debt ceiling came into play. It's insanely irresponsible on their part. How the hell does that equate to equal blame for both parties?

 
txjustin:

TheKing, how many budgets has the house passed versus the senate?

This is a non-sequitor in terms of the discussion we are having (i.e. the shutdown and debt ceiling debacle.) The fact is, for the past year,, the Senate has been trying to conference with the House so as to avoid this insanity. And right now, the House is trying to blame the shutdown and debt ceiling mess on the Democrats.

It's insane.

 

Except I've only been on WSO for 11 months, so you're obviously confusing me with someone else. I absolutely did not claim that QE would cause hyperinflation.

Nobody wants the Feds to default. We're pointing out that the Obama administration will determine if the Feds default since they have complete discretion about how to spend revenue when/if the debt ceiling is breached.

 
DCDepository:

Except I've only been on WSO for 11 months, so you're obviously confusing me with someone else. I absolutely did not claim that QE would cause hyperinflation.

Nobody wants the Feds to default. We're pointing out that the Obama administration will determine if the Feds default since they have complete discretion about how to spend revenue when/if the debt ceiling is breached.

Rand Paul and Ron Paul were talking about it, so my point is that your Austrian economic worldview failed miserably over the past five years.

It's ok to fail miserably. Here in America, when an ideology fails, we fire the framework without firing the person or even the values. But Austrianism still hasn't gotten fired and people are still buying it, despite its inability to predict the recovery and its prediction of hyperinflation back in '09.

I think the real problem here is that people have mistaken a framework for non-negotiable value.

 
IlliniProgrammer:
DCDepository:

Except I've only been on WSO for 11 months, so you're obviously confusing me with someone else. I absolutely did not claim that QE would cause hyperinflation.

Nobody wants the Feds to default. We're pointing out that the Obama administration will determine if the Feds default since they have complete discretion about how to spend revenue when/if the debt ceiling is breached.

Rand Paul and Ron Paul were talking about it, so my point is that your Austrian economic worldview failed miserably over the past five years.

It's ok to fail miserably. Here in America, when an ideology fails, we fire the framework without firing the person or even the values. But Austrianism still hasn't gotten fired and people are still buying it, despite its inability to predict the recovery and its prediction of hyperinflation back in '09.

I think the real problem here is that people have mistaken a framework for non-negotiable value.

What the f*ck are you talking about? MY Austrian worldview? I'm a monetarist who is passionately against the gold standard.

 

Hows it it even remotely possible to be non-partisan about this issue?

I don't vote; mostly because I think that both parties are trash. The hypocrisy and amount of bought politicians just make it not worth it in my mind. However.....

A bill was passed, signed, and turned into law. it was then upheld by the supreme court. The house has made 42 separate attempts to repeal it, and they all failed. They don't have the votes. Period. Throwing a gigantic temper tantrum and holding the country's credit rating hostage over what is law of the land and demanding after-the-fact compromise for the sake of compromise is ridiculous. In fact; there are enough Republicans who are WILLING to fund the government without a repeal of ACA if only the speaker would put it up for a vote. Since he's afraid of being primaried by a Tea Party backed candidate; he's determined to try and save some face.

FWIW; Obama started off asking for a Single-payer healthcare system. ACA ended up being a derivative of the HEART act which was written in 1994 by Chafee(R-Rhode Island). Chuck Grassely(R-Iowa) and Bob Bennet(R-Utah) among others were all for it. It called for government facilitated exchanges on which private insurance companies would compete for business; backed up by an individual mandate which would fine those who did not purchase health insurance (sound familiar anyone??) If anyone other than a Democrat had introduced this bill, it would be Republican support all across the land. In fact, the only difference between Obamacare and Romneycare is that Romneycare covers abortions and illegal immigrants.

This entire bit of showboating and grandstanding is simply another attempt by the most obstructionist congress in history to try and expound on their stated goal: to embarrass Obama, even if it comes at the cost of the nation.

CBS polling (as of 3 days ago) shows that 73% of respondents believe that re-opening the government should be a priority, as opposed to 21% for stopping ACA. 66% believe that the two shouldn't be linked.

Reuters polling when ACA was passed showed that 44% of respondents were in favor of the law, and 56% were against. What's notable, however, are the reasons. 21% of respondents were against the law because it didn't go far enough. Which means that those who actually want nothing done were 35%, with 65% either in favor of ACA or more healthcare reform.

Stop acting as if there is some compromise to be made here, stop acting as if the Republicans are holding up the will of the people, and stop just blindly defending the party that you vote for because your parents did. This law went through the process, passed, was upheld, and is now law of the land. If you don't like it either find the votes to repeal it or find something else to talk about.

"We are the ones who did shut the government down.. You don't take the dramatic step of shutting down the government unless you have a real strategy and it has a chance of working. It's never had a chance of working" - Rep. Peter King (R-NY)

 
emceedrive:

Hows it it even remotely possible to be non-partisan about this issue?

I don't vote; mostly because I think that both parties are trash. The hypocrisy and amount of bought politicians just make it not worth it in my mind. However.....

A bill was passed, signed, and turned into law. it was then upheld by the supreme court. The house has made 42 separate attempts to repeal it, and they all failed. They don't have the votes. Period. Throwing a gigantic temper tantrum and holding the country's credit rating hostage over what is law of the land and demanding after-the-fact compromise for the sake of compromise is ridiculous. In fact; there are enough Republicans who are WILLING to fund the government without a repeal of ACA if only the speaker would put it up for a vote. Since he's afraid of being primaried by a Tea Party backed candidate; he's determined to try and save some face.

FWIW; Obama started off asking for a Single-payer healthcare system. ACA ended up being a derivative of the HEART act which was written in 1994 by Chafee(R-Rhode Island). Chuck Grassely(R-Iowa) and Bob Bennet(R-Utah) among others were all for it. It called for government facilitated exchanges on which private insurance companies would compete for business; backed up by an individual mandate which would fine those who did not purchase health insurance (sound familiar anyone??) If anyone other than a Democrat had introduced this bill, it would be Republican support all across the land. In fact, the only difference between Obamacare and Romneycare is that Romneycare covers abortions and illegal immigrants.

This entire bit of showboating and grandstanding is simply another attempt by the most obstructionist congress in history to try and expound on their stated goal: to embarrass Obama, even if it comes at the cost of the nation.

CBS polling (as of 3 days ago) shows that 73% of respondents believe that re-opening the government should be a priority, as opposed to 21% for stopping ACA. 66% believe that the two shouldn't be linked.

Reuters polling when ACA was passed showed that 44% of respondents were in favor of the law, and 56% were against. What's notable, however, are the reasons. 21% of respondents were against the law because it didn't go far enough. Which means that those who actually want nothing done were 35%, with 65% either in favor of ACA or more healthcare reform.

Stop acting as if there is some compromise to be made here, stop acting as if the Republicans are holding up the will of the people, and stop just blindly defending the party that you vote for because your parents did. This law went through the process, passed, was upheld, and is now law of the land. If you don't like it either find the votes to repeal it or find something else to talk about.

"We are the ones who did shut the government down.. You don't take the dramatic step of shutting down the government unless you have a real strategy and it has a chance of working. It's never had a chance of working" - Rep. Peter King (R-NY)

DURRR U R A LIBRULL KOMMUNIST STATIST LEFTIST DEMOCRAT LOON!

 

Dear Monkeys,

How would you trade considering this situation?

Chances of default, resolving the shutdown or government solving all its problems. If there is an option strategy which you would like to bet, what would that be?

Thanks

 

Way to trade this? Like there is no debt crisis. Because there is no debt crisis, just like there was no hyperinflation crisis.

Both the Treasury and the President can break the law, pay the debt obligations, and structure future payments, all the while creating a legal nightmare so complicated that they'll still be sorting it out when the new president takes office in 2016. They simply choose not to, out of respect for the law and despite the rhetoric are looking for a way to negotiate a settlement before this becomes a total win/lose situation. I understand that the GOP feels very strongly about this, but they're looking at political disaster for themselves.

EDIT: look for fear trades. Back when hyperinflation was the fear, people bought gold and are now selling off. People who bought in early did well, as well as those who sold off before the peak, and now those who are shorting it are doing well. Same thing here. I'm not a fixed income guy, but perhaps look at treasuries, the volatility in that market could be used to the advantage of someone who knows how to trade that space.

Get busy living
 

Obamacare may be good or stupid or whatever, but blackmailing based on this kind of "negotiations" is a pretty good way to screw a political system that is/was among the best in the world. I think Obama is a bad president, but the republicans are being more stupid than Bush2 when it comes to the long term prospects for the nation.

And, btw, US postal services are awful. I won't say they are a failure because they delivered many letters in the past (they're better than messages in bottles for all I know), but they're easily outmatched. The brazilian postal service, for instance, has a much better record, even though it is a corrupt, underpaid and understaffed organization in a much poorer and politically screwed up country.

 

Wow. 84 comments strong. I'm surprised you guys see this as anything more than a charade by both sides.

The Republicans know that Obamacare is going to be the law of the land, but they have to put up a fuss so they can go back and tell their constituents "they tried." Obama knows Obamacare is a huge turd, but he has to pass at least one big piece of lib legislation so he can go back and tell his constituents that he delivered on his "hope and change" promise. Both sides know that the debt "ceiling" is a joke and that it won't matter if a few park rangers have to take a couple days off while they spat. They'll eventually tire of this little game, a "miraculous compromise" will be reached, and the media will have to find something else to panic about. Meanwhile, the Republicans and the Obama will have a good laugh and go back to eating caviar and drinking Dom at fundraisers put on by Donald Trump and George Clooney (respectively). Obamacare will pass, and as is always the case, rich people will figure out ways around it, and middle class / poor people will find themselves inside another bureaucratic merry-go-round that promises much but ends up screwing them in the end.

And that will spur another call for more legislation to fix the "inequality" of the situation...

 
labanker:

Wow. 84 comments strong. I'm surprised you guys see this as anything more than a charade by both sides.

The Republicans know that Obamacare is going to be the law of the land, but they have to put up a fuss so they can go back and tell their constituents "they tried." Obama knows Obamacare is a huge turd, but he has to pass at least one big piece of lib legislation so he can go back and tell his constituents that he delivered on his "hope and change" promise. Both sides know that the debt "ceiling" is a joke and that it won't matter if a few park rangers have to take a couple days off while they spat. They'll eventually tire of this little game, a "miraculous compromise" will be reached, and the media will have to find something else to panic about. Meanwhile, the Republicans and the Obama will have a good laugh and go back to eating caviar and drinking Dom at fundraisers put on by Donald Trump and George Clooney (respectively). Obamacare will pass, and as is always the case, rich people will figure out ways around it, and middle class / poor people will find themselves inside another bureaucratic merry-go-round that promises much but ends up screwing them in the end.

And that will spur another call for more legislation to fix the "inequality" of the situation...

This is the most correct statement of this thread, even more correct than my correct statements. Spot on.

 

Cynical much? For any of us, it's easy to sit here and say "yeah, it's all crap", considering all of our needs are taken care of. From the perspective of millions of people, this actually does make a big difference. I was looking back at the debates over car insurance, and they pretty much looked like this decades ago...but it turned out to be the better way of doing things, despite the imperfections.

I think the GOP really thinks that Obama will back down. They're that out of touch with reality. For a group of people who currently do little more than attempt to cynically manipulate other people, it's strange that they think they're going to accomplish more than looking like assholes when they walk away from this with nothing. They've created a zero sum position with no leverage. If the treasury starts cranking out modified bonds to raise cash, or the president rams the legislation through an alternate (albeit legally questionable) route, the GOP will have no option other than to walk off with their tails between their legs. They've pushed a guy who's whole public position is "negotiate whenever possible" to "I will not negotiate with you". Think about that. They're that far off.

Obama isn't facing reelection, he doesn't have to give a damn about what anyone thinks of him anymore. He is more concerned with his legacy and place in history at this point, so I'll reiterate what I've been saying for five years: whether you agree or not with his actual policies, he actually does believe what he says. It seems that the GOP and conservatives in general have become so bitter and cynical that they can't see that. In his mind, this is the right thing to do.

Get busy living
 

What am I going to address? That you're a hyper partisan who claims to be a former Republican (presumably you believed in Constitutionally limited government and now you don't). You post stories from the Daily Beast, which is a left-wing political opinion periodical, and that's supposed to be addressed as valid?

I laid out to you all the things that were wrong with Obamacare and you didn't even address it at all. According to you, we're just cynics and are "wrong" about Obamacare because it's being implemented. According to you, the majority of the nation supports Obamacare even though the GOP won historic number of seats in the 2010 elections in response to Obamacare, even though no poll exists that demonstrates the majority--or even plurality--of the nation supports Obamacare.

You claim to be this political independent and yet you argue your points as if you were paid by the Obama administration. Your rhetoric on the topic is little different than the Democrats who are calling Republicans arsonists, terrorists, hostage takers and traitors. What is there really to address? Your positions are absurd top to bottom.

 

[quote=DCDepository]http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/30/new-poll-only-one-…

"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."
 

Blanditiis sit ad omnis dolore eaque suscipit omnis. Quis beatae magni minus pariatur sit aut. At possimus cumque perferendis numquam fuga. Fugiat repudiandae est vel et reprehenderit.

Quam tenetur consequuntur est. Et suscipit sit rerum aut vel expedita facilis. Vero in blanditiis voluptate delectus et voluptatum asperiores. Aut veritatis fugit non.

 

Dolor voluptates modi sequi fugiat dolor eaque dolores. Ut totam reprehenderit beatae. Ullam sequi et ut distinctio est ipsum. Laborum debitis reiciendis atque hic beatae exercitationem quos quia.

Velit odit praesentium inventore pariatur vel eligendi. Aperiam recusandae alias architecto eligendi repellat illo ea praesentium. Ex earum vero quaerat quasi et quam ad impedit. Qui odit est deleniti deserunt magni quae sed vero.

Veritatis alias est ab quasi corporis tempora. Adipisci rerum laboriosam sit omnis harum. Autem est ipsum dolore officiis ea qui. Numquam maiores rerum id. Totam modi nostrum dolorem maxime omnis ex quasi. Quaerat placeat voluptatem iure tenetur dolor quam fugiat.

Quaerat tenetur porro in odit eum ea magni et. Ea aperiam cum quia nobis. Possimus eveniet quia eum ea. Quo sed tempore praesentium eligendi odio. Deleniti aut necessitatibus cumque repellat sed animi.

"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."
 

Eos eveniet et vero illum. Accusamus aut dolor natus maxime porro pariatur. Id perspiciatis aut enim aut quo quos. Dolor nihil tenetur quae voluptates consequatur earum.

Et voluptatum aut ad illum non et dicta. Similique ducimus non aut.

Et rem aut quia recusandae quia. Expedita quidem voluptates consequatur. Beatae ut et ipsam aliquid. Ut enim voluptas est saepe nihil et vel laudantium. Consequuntur voluptatum architecto quam ut porro ducimus. Nihil blanditiis et accusantium.

 

Ea reiciendis rerum odit ipsum qui harum dolorem. Accusamus ipsam dolor cum enim doloribus.

Non quisquam et nobis facilis molestiae dolores. Aliquid voluptas qui qui qui amet qui dolorum. Consequatur aspernatur sed aut et. Eos voluptatem magnam nemo et ut similique.

Veritatis expedita sit consequuntur laudantium. Id vero eius nisi quisquam non voluptates. Totam quae adipisci possimus rerum eos neque aliquam quo. Consequatur quibusdam eius totam ducimus eius inventore. Sunt quia qui fuga voluptatem libero numquam.

Totam aperiam est voluptatibus aliquam ipsam officiis totam deserunt. Sed quasi alias non dolore. Dolore soluta qui quod iure dolor esse dolorem.

Get busy living
 

Iusto magnam et numquam enim cumque repellat distinctio. Nobis distinctio accusamus dolores et ut deserunt beatae.

Eius voluptatem ex aliquam rerum sed laudantium dignissimos. Qui error aliquam nostrum et eveniet quia nostrum. Mollitia porro illum nemo quidem voluptatem aut omnis. Accusamus est cumque exercitationem.

Dolor laudantium laboriosam eum hic maiores. Explicabo quia consequatur velit modi vel earum deserunt. Voluptatibus voluptatibus et vel nihil nesciunt non. Numquam asperiores voluptas beatae voluptatem at ut perspiciatis deserunt. Tempore non consectetur officia itaque. Voluptatibus qui magnam porro delectus porro quas. Praesentium quam incidunt aliquam id aspernatur.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
4
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
5
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
6
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
7
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
8
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
9
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
10
Jamoldo's picture
Jamoldo
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”