Magox

Thats not the point TPS, you were infering that everything is kosher simply because the bond market hasnt responded or signaled any fear yet. The point I'm making, is that that is a terrible gauge to determine if there are any real risks to the bond markets. I suggest you read up on Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhardt's thesis on Sovereign debt, you may actually learn something

Birdog?

Wow! you sound just like Paul Krugman. I wonder where Spanish and Greek Yields were a few months before a run on their bonds began? Everything is ok until they aren't. Remember that

You're a vile, uncouth classless individual.

You say that as if it is a piece of cake. Anyhoo, it's not just medicare/medicaid but it will also be S.S. Not to mention the hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars we have in unfunded pension liabilities throughout the states. Sorry bud, its much more dire than you are making it out to be.

Wow! what an ugly word, in my experiences people who use this word are usually low-lifes.

I'm paraphrasing here, but its pretty damn close: "We do not have a debt problem, look at the bond markets, they are telling us that spending isn't the problem"

As I have always maintained, this is not a black or white world, the dollar is not the sole reason for commodity prices going higher, it is A reason, A contributing reason. Global growth definitely is playing a role contrary to what TPS would have you believe, however falling currency values are also playing a significant role as well. The reason why "inflation" isn't high here according to most economists gauges is simply because housing/rentals and wages make up a much larger component of their readings than it does over in the developing world. They don't like to factor in food and energy in their readings because they see it as "transitory", temporary and that reacting to volatility in their view isnt the best way to fight inflation. Well, I understand that sentiment and reasoning, but this isn't a one size fits all sort of world. Sometimes I believe they do need to break out of the line of thinking and not remain so static on their positions. And yes, higher commodity prices arent a bad thing for commodity producing nations, but unfortunately the majority of the world live in substandard conditions, so higher food and energy prices hurt these people much more than it does your normal everyday middle class American. But with time, if prices remain elevated for a sustained period of time, which I believe they will, there will be more of a negative impact on our economy, and I happen to believe we are now entering into the inflationary stage of this crisis.

I agree with about 50% of the things that Stiglitz says, this being one of them in regards to how the U.S dollar is hurting poorer countries. Commodity price inflation is much more damaging to these developing nations simply because food & energy make up a much larger component of their disposable income than it does over here, and since treasury or the reserve have little regard for maintaining a true "strong dollar" policy these countries will be the first to feel the pain of our weakening dollar. However, it is quite the connundrum, our best hope that we have is growing through exports and right now during this global developing world boom, there are many eager and new potential customers out there waiting to buy all sorts of products that we (and other countries) can produce, and having a weak dollar certainly helps us achieve that goal. As I've said all along, we will be living in a slow growth and uncomfortably high inflationary world for the forseeable future, and that is the best case scenario.

European style...

exactly

no, because he enables deficit spending "dipshit"

If anyone is wondering why their stocks are getting hammered this morning, it's simple, S&P just downgraded the U.S credit outlook to negative which means there is at least a 1 in 3 chance of the U.S losing it's AAA rating. Krugman is a dipshit, and those who follow him religiously are even bigger dipshits.

Both

You mimic everything you hear. I'm being serious here, I honestly don't believe I have ever seen you say anything that was derived from your own mind. Really

Right up Billy Bob's allie.

Do you feel that way about cigarrettes or alcohol? I mean, you do know that they tax the hell out of both of these right?

legislating body fat? You dont see that as an avenue to more restrictive legislation down the road? I do We talked about this before, not this specific topic but in how to motivate human and corporate behavior. I just dont believe that restricting forms of motivation is the most effective way to achieve results, I am more of a .... I think you know what I'm gonna say. incentive based person.

Your intentions are spot on! It's just that your means to this end is a pandora's box that would certainly bring about a not-so-free society.

I do not like to view things from a black or white perspective, because I think that is largely a flawed way to look at things. Sort of like when I hear Ben Bernanke ferociously defend his monetary policy as not being the reason for rising commodity prices and then you get the fiscal hawks who say that it IS because of his monetary policy of these elevated prices, where in reality, which no one seems to ever mention it is a combination of the two. Honestly I believe that unions do have a place in all societies, but the nature of a Union boss is to always ask for more, so whenever the tide is rising high, so does the pay and benefits but when things get slow, in most cases (other than this past historic downturn) pay doesnt match the downturn. I look to Ford 2006 2007, here's a company that had record sales and still was in the red by over a billion dollars annually, and when you look into the average line workers pay, with benefits it reached $90 an hour. I'm not going to entirely blame union bosses forour manufacturing down turn, because it's obvious cheap labor was the largest factor, but when you combine the ridiculous benefits and pay, its just logical that companies will look to move shop overseas. MInd you this is a private union matter that I'm talking about, the public unions in many cases are much worse. I mean the protection that is offered to workers is absurd, you basically could be in the bottom 20% of quality workers in your field and you would be afforded the protection of the Unions. Not ony that, union bosses have been in bed with politicians (so have CEO's of certain sectors) that they have struck deals that we the taxpayers are having to pay .. look at all the unfunded liabilities through benefits that many states have to deal with that will never be compensated, only through tough budget cuts, reduced pay, workers layofffs and higher taxes will those obligations be met. And whats ironically funny is that the same people who supported these absurd payouts look to blame the other political party for not continuing these unsustainable promises that are bankrupting states . Dont they see, that A large reason why state and local governments are laying off lots of workers is simply because of the deals that were struck between public unions and the politicians that they bought off. I'm not exclusivly blaming unions and politicians for this outcome, no doubt that the downturn created a loss in revnues, but in many of these cases they would of never have been able to meet these obligations even if things continued to move upward. Not just that, but as I mentioned earlier, when things were rolling with the housing market blistering higher the promises got bigger, and when the bubble bursted, these state and local governments were screwed. So whats the solution? Have the taxpayer bailout these ridiculous promises ? No, its obvious to me that they need to restructure themselves back to a more sustainable path. It's human nature to expect a whiplash reaction towards the unions much like what we are seeing in Wisconsin and Ohio. At the end of the day, the pendulum will swing again, and hopefully we'll find a solid middle ground.

when you say welfare, you mean the money they get to keep that they earned? I mean you do believe that in most cases it was earned right? I just find it rather unfortunate that a sector of just about every economy in the world looks to demonize those who have succeeded, the same ones that provide jobs for the very same people that attempt to caricature this productive group as a bunch of greedy bastards. Where the reality is that most of you that talk negatively up on this group don't even personally know these people, you'd rather just follow the words of the political masters you follow. Logic just seems to have an uncanny ability to escape people. Now I'm not suggesting that you are one of these people, but this is a pattern that I hear all too often.

You have to cut benefits thats the only way how. In Ryans plans he calls for cuts in benefits in both Medicare and Medicaid and gives the states more power through flexibility so it tailors more to their needs. In other words the Federal Government is saying "hey this is what you get, if you want to spend more or less thats up to you, but we're not footing anymore of the bill" . So if the states decide to want shoulder more of the cost that is their burden NOT the Federal government unless of course they ask for assitance and get a Federal Bailout. Which means that it would have to go up for a vote through Congress to get that assistance. This is what we call cost containment measure, his plan basically is one that allows the private sector to compete fiercely simply because they are competing for less dollars available. Efficiency would improve and it makes perfect sense, it is a plan that unleashes the private market and I guarantee you that if the plan were to go as written, that the costs of health care WOULD go down. The risks of this plan is that the quality of care would go down and that is a real possibility. You'd have to be a moron to not realize this. erm erm Peace

ummm, no it wasnt. In the second post of this thread I wrote a few posts later you posted So please, save it for the shmucks First off the block grants are "capped". Do you know what that means? It means that when you say "almost can't help but cost more" says that you don't jack **** about what you are talking about. Currently the Federal Government has a one size fits all shoe approach to Medicaid, it matches every dollar spent by the state on a one to one basis. Ryan's plan allows the federal government to set aside a set amount to each state and allows each state the flexibility to tailor it to their own liking. This is what you call cost containment. The risks of his plan has absolutely nothing to do with your above comments regarding Medicaid. Zero, zilch nada. As a matter of logic, the risks are actually 100% the total polar opposite of what you mentioned, which shows your incapability of not being able to understand what it is that you read. The risks are that the cuts are so draconian that the lower income earners go without medicaid services, not that the Federal government "create a ton more government bloat." Another part of what you said that was incorrect was There already are 50 state government medicaid oversight agencies you dumbass. One more thing which I let you slide by with the other day but I'll call you out on now. You said to RKFast that there wasnt any cuts to defense spending... Wrong!! There is. Also you talked about how it didnt address reduction of farm subsidies... Wrong again! There are approximately $30Billion worth of reductions in farm subsidies. But please keep posting, if I get the time like I did today, I'll make sure to continue to eviscerate your posts when you decide to talk out of your ass.

"typo" Ok BigCat

You are absolutely 100% correct. What most morons don't understand is that these fat asses are costing us all, literally. Fat asses do cause an extra burden on all our pockets, so when you get guys like Beck and Hannity who pretty much enable people to eat fatty foods in the name of preserving our personal freedoms and then claim to know what we need to do to lower health care costs, then sorry, I just can't take what they say seriously. I do believe in personal freedoms, and I dont believe it is the schools place to tell their students that they can't bring home bag lunches, but for !@#$s sake FEED YOUR CHILDREN PROPERLY!!! So yes, there has to be a serious investment from the government to educate people in how to eat properly and more healthy. ANd instead of taxing fatty foods, what you can do is give tax breaks to food providers for offering healthier foods and following certain federal guidelines that can help achieve healthier eating. Incentives incentives incentives. people get motivated by the proper incentive, it is just a matter of finding the right carrot to dangle.