Stunning Finding: President's Health Law Creates $17 Trillion In Unfunded Financial Obligations
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZoFsaVkL6HM
Currently, the Social Security system is $7 trillion in debt over the next 75 years, according to the Government Accountability Office.
Also, Medicare will eat up $38 trillion in future taxes, and Medicaid will consume another $2o trillion of the taxpayer’s wealth, according to estimates prepared by the actuarial office at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
The short-term cost of the Obamacare law is $2.6 trillion, almost triple the $900 billion cost promised by Obama and his Democratic allies, said Sessions.
The extra $17 trillion gap was discovered by applying standard federal estimates and models to the law’s spending obligations, Sessions said.
For example, Session’s examination of the health care law’s “premium support” program shows a funding gap $12 billion wider that predicted.
The same review also showed the law added another $5 trillion in unfunded obligations for the Medicaid program.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/massive-17-trillion-hole-found-obamacare
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Friday, March 30, 2012
It makes sense to profile people based on their psychological traits.
Most folks – let’s just say 64% of the population are Neutral. They are happy, they are blue collar, and they mostly need protection and guidance. They work hard, and they don’t challenge authority. They just work and play, live and die and try to survive. Optimally, they support themselves and their families, and if they manage to do that, we view them as successful. We’ll call them “Tier Neutral”
Above them, we have Tier +1. These are the people who are just a tad bit more successful. They are usually property owners of significance, investors, often business owners or mid-level managers. They stand above the crowd just a bit, and they usually manage to help drive production and output beyond just themselves. They need recognition and positions of basic responsibility. We’ll assume that they make up 9% of the population.
Next we have Tier +2. These people are usually philosophical by nature. They are writers, diplomats, analysts, politicians, and speakers. These people make up 6% of our population, and are viewed as intellectuals; but they also fall short of being geniuses, per se.
The top 3% - or “Tier +3” are the scientists and inventors who really possess a mental prowess that is completely off the charts. They are the people inventing the internet, electricity, or the airplane. They are the people thinking of things that most people can’t even imagine. These people need to be sought out, supported, and subsidized – anything – because our hopes of human progress are counting on them.
Working back down the scale to the bottom 18%, we have the folks who are one notch below normal. We’ll call them “Tier -1”. These people are notable under-achievers. It takes two of them to do the work of one normal person. They are the kind of people who wind up with big families and four digit incomes. They usually only understand penalty. A step further down, we find the Tier -2 crowd, prone to violence, often being repeat criminal offenders; and at the very bottom of the barrel – Tier -3 – we move into the realm of mental insanity, wards of the state, truly crazy homeless folks, and the like.
If we conclude that people are innately smart, or innately stupid, or innately dangerous, or innately good - as opposed to all being potentially equal in all regards - then it makes sense to profile people based on their psychological traits. It's just a thought
Above them, we have Tier +1. These are the people who are just a tad bit more successful. They are usually property owners of significance, investors, often business owners or mid-level managers. They stand above the crowd just a bit, and they usually manage to help drive production and output beyond just themselves. They need recognition and positions of basic responsibility. We’ll assume that they make up 9% of the population.
Next we have Tier +2. These people are usually philosophical by nature. They are writers, diplomats, analysts, politicians, and speakers. These people make up 6% of our population, and are viewed as intellectuals; but they also fall short of being geniuses, per se.
The top 3% - or “Tier +3” are the scientists and inventors who really possess a mental prowess that is completely off the charts. They are the people inventing the internet, electricity, or the airplane. They are the people thinking of things that most people can’t even imagine. These people need to be sought out, supported, and subsidized – anything – because our hopes of human progress are counting on them.
Working back down the scale to the bottom 18%, we have the folks who are one notch below normal. We’ll call them “Tier -1”. These people are notable under-achievers. It takes two of them to do the work of one normal person. They are the kind of people who wind up with big families and four digit incomes. They usually only understand penalty. A step further down, we find the Tier -2 crowd, prone to violence, often being repeat criminal offenders; and at the very bottom of the barrel – Tier -3 – we move into the realm of mental insanity, wards of the state, truly crazy homeless folks, and the like.
If we conclude that people are innately smart, or innately stupid, or innately dangerous, or innately good - as opposed to all being potentially equal in all regards - then it makes sense to profile people based on their psychological traits. It's just a thought
Mr. Obama is just another buraeucrat
The clear agenda is to come out ahead. It is obvious! Do you really think that Fox news gives a fig about being conservative, or that NBC or CNN really cares about liberalism? All it takes is half of a businessman to realize that there are crazy conservatives out there who want to watch TV, and crazy liberals out there who also want TV, and advertising companies who want to sucker all of them into buying As Seen On TV products and Geiko Insurance (which doesn't save folks money).
The ignorant folks fight about the content while the producers rake in the advertising revenue, and the advertisers brainwash TV-numbed consumers. It is all about the money, and TV has been proven to be a good business. The people who make the stuff you see on screen don't care about the content, as long as you watch it and they get paid.
The oldest trick in the book is to first distract your victim with trivialities, and then lift his pocket book. Stupid people fight wars while smart ones profit. Stupid people buy stuff while smart ones profit. We aren't talking about conspiracy. We are talking about economics. It pays to rile people up. The left and the right are identical. The only reason why the two exist and fight each other is because conflict is profitable to mercenary capitalists.
Capitalism in its many forms runs the world, and it always will. The smartest business people will always be at the top of the pyramid, while the people who don't understand business at all will always be at the bottom; but unfortunately for the conspiracy theorists and rabble-rousers, there is no "Illuminati", and Mr. Obama is just another bureaucrat
The ignorant folks fight about the content while the producers rake in the advertising revenue, and the advertisers brainwash TV-numbed consumers. It is all about the money, and TV has been proven to be a good business. The people who make the stuff you see on screen don't care about the content, as long as you watch it and they get paid.
The oldest trick in the book is to first distract your victim with trivialities, and then lift his pocket book. Stupid people fight wars while smart ones profit. Stupid people buy stuff while smart ones profit. We aren't talking about conspiracy. We are talking about economics. It pays to rile people up. The left and the right are identical. The only reason why the two exist and fight each other is because conflict is profitable to mercenary capitalists.
Capitalism in its many forms runs the world, and it always will. The smartest business people will always be at the top of the pyramid, while the people who don't understand business at all will always be at the bottom; but unfortunately for the conspiracy theorists and rabble-rousers, there is no "Illuminati", and Mr. Obama is just another bureaucrat
When I talk to myself, I know that my cause is heard.
The time comes in a man's life when he must stop being distracted by collective goals of creating a better society which may never happen, and must instead pour his energies into the focused goal of self-preservation which he can himself realize.
The one thing I've learned about life is that I can't trust anyone but myself to protect my interests; and so, in my times of doubt and concern, I bring my petitions to myself. When I talk to myself, I know that my cause is heard
The one thing I've learned about life is that I can't trust anyone but myself to protect my interests; and so, in my times of doubt and concern, I bring my petitions to myself. When I talk to myself, I know that my cause is heard
What happens when the whole world is just a huge mass of fat stupid people
As I stroll around Walmart looking at the people in there as they waddle around, I start thinking to myself, how do these people justify their existence? At a glance you can tell that they are either super fat or super stupid, or both. These are the people who are clamoring for more services for less and more conveniences offered at a greater value. What happens when the whole world is just a huge mass of fat stupid people who can't write their own name but which have outrageous expectations of what they are entitled to?
First you get credit default which results from the wealthy being stupid enough (and greedy enough) to lend to them; then you get inflation and imbalance as governmental bodies try to fight a lack of intellectual and industrial product with the adjustment of fiat currency; and then, finally, the bottom rots out of the paper boat and everyone has to face the reality which is that if you don't have any intellectuals it doesn't matter what you do with your currency."
First you get credit default which results from the wealthy being stupid enough (and greedy enough) to lend to them; then you get inflation and imbalance as governmental bodies try to fight a lack of intellectual and industrial product with the adjustment of fiat currency; and then, finally, the bottom rots out of the paper boat and everyone has to face the reality which is that if you don't have any intellectuals it doesn't matter what you do with your currency."
Within a blog, does posting ever change another poster's opinion?
"A couple of other times posters have expressed the question does posting ever change another poster's opinion. The assumption has always been that it somehow should and that by changing another's opinion we can judge our posts successful.
I question that premise. Are we here to change other's opinions? I don't think so. We are here to enjoy as much as possible the posting of our ideas and read the posts of others in a semblance of intelligent debate--sometimes far more intelligent than other times.
Posting our opinions can go a long way towards clarifying them in our own mind as well as expressing them adequately in print.
The goal may then be said to be the well expressed championing of our beliefs, whether or not it changes the opinion of others."
I think what you said is not only timely and spot on but is worthy of further exposure.
If you don't want me to I won't, I won't mention you if you give me the go ahead to put up your valid thoughts.
I think many here need to be heard in a wider format. I think our mail group has thoughts that should be out there for other to see. Confining our statements to a mail thread in a MW group may be too limited a forum for them. The American public needs to hear them, not just the haters on MW.
I question that premise. Are we here to change other's opinions? I don't think so. We are here to enjoy as much as possible the posting of our ideas and read the posts of others in a semblance of intelligent debate--sometimes far more intelligent than other times.
Posting our opinions can go a long way towards clarifying them in our own mind as well as expressing them adequately in print.
The goal may then be said to be the well expressed championing of our beliefs, whether or not it changes the opinion of others."
I think what you said is not only timely and spot on but is worthy of further exposure.
If you don't want me to I won't, I won't mention you if you give me the go ahead to put up your valid thoughts.
I think many here need to be heard in a wider format. I think our mail group has thoughts that should be out there for other to see. Confining our statements to a mail thread in a MW group may be too limited a forum for them. The American public needs to hear them, not just the haters on MW.
Submitted by Teri, Member American Politics MarketWatch Community
Text of FDR Letter Opposing Public Employee (Government) Unions
My dear Mr. Steward:
As I am unable to accept your kind invitation to be present on the occasion of the Twentieth Jubilee Convention of the National Federation of Federal Employees, I am taking this method of sending greetings and a message.
Reading your letter of July 14, 1937, I was especially interested in the timeliness of your remark that the manner in which the activities of your organization have been carried on during the past two decades "has been in complete consonance with the best traditions of public employee relationships." Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs.
The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.
All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.
Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."
I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful.
Very sincerely yours,
TIP OF THE ICEBERG - THE BEGINNING OF THE END FOR BRITAIN?
This is a CULTURE CLASH. The problem with this specific subpopulation of people is that their culture and beliefs never have, and never will, be in harmony with those values that are European. This is what this VERY RAPIDLY INCREASING non-indigenous subpopulation of the UK want for Britain....Sharia law, Sharia courts, death for gay men and women, death for adultery, death for unbelievers, death for apostasy, amputation for theft, subjugation of women, animal cruelty and child cruelty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0hKEd6rzbeg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0hKEd6rzbeg
I am at a slightly biased neutral position ...
I find enjoyment and value in discussions among the members of this group. I am simply asking a question that troubles me ...and goes unanswered ...are we obligated to "tweak" the thinking of others? Can we offset the tsunami of govspeak that rolls via the MSM hourly? Is it reasonable to expect that our thoughts ...our convictions ...mean anything beyond ourselves and those who have commonality in some way with us? I have seen both the dagger of sharp critical questioning and the hammer of cold hard statements of logic in posts from members of this group. Did either change the direction of our fortunes as citizens? Is our intent to gain agreement as a group, or to affect the conclusions of those beyond our community? If we are content to discuss topics and draw from the inputs of the members, I am OK with that. If we believe, however faint the hope may be, that we can affect the direction of our nation through our words, I am OK with the extension of that whatever the cost.
dubltrubl Mar 29, 2012 8:21 PM
dubltrubl Mar 29, 2012 8:21 PM
Thursday, March 29, 2012
American voter turnout is the second lowest of all countries
American voter turnout is the second lowest of all countries, and only modestly higher than South Korea, but well below 50% in either case. Furthermore, since the voting population is roughly equally split along the middle in its party affiliation, it is astounding that less than 25% of America's voters set the political stage every four years. One wonders just what the source of this record apathy may be: perhaps it is that as empirical data demonstrate, neither party actually represents any longer the interest of a majority of the US voters, but merely those of corporate lobby groups and, of course, Wall Street. As such, over 50% of voting age Americans don't even bother to make it to the ballots. It may thus be only a matter of time before disenfranchised if silent majority finally says enough, rereads some of this country's founding documents, and agrees that taxation is only fair with representation.
Basically we deserve to be where we are, in massive debt, on the verge of having 1/3 of the population 100% dependant on the government for survival, students so much in debt by the time they graduate they owe 20 years or more of servitude to any firm that hires them just to pay off the debt they owe. However, for the Democrats this is exactly what they dream of, the entire population completely dependant on government, the Democratic Party's utopia.
All hail big brother.
Basically we deserve to be where we are, in massive debt, on the verge of having 1/3 of the population 100% dependant on the government for survival, students so much in debt by the time they graduate they owe 20 years or more of servitude to any firm that hires them just to pay off the debt they owe. However, for the Democrats this is exactly what they dream of, the entire population completely dependant on government, the Democratic Party's utopia.
All hail big brother.
The Stimulus and the jobs created from it, here are the facts
275,096,227,794.00 has been awarded from Feb 17, 2009 thru Dec 31, 2011
Jobs created: 212,107
http://www.recovery.gov/pages/textview.aspx?data=recipientHomeMap
Hmmm, where did the other 600 billion go? It's not on the website. well it is, on another page.
Total Funds Allocated:
$840 Billion
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/fundingoverview/Pages/fundingbreakdown.aspx
Estimated American Recovery and Reinvestment Act tax, entitlement, and contract, grant, and loan expenditures have been increased from $787B to $840B to be consistent with the President's 2012 budget and with scoring changes made by the Congressional Budget Office since the enactment of the Recovery Act in February 2009.
Highlights
Individual Tax Credits
$136.3B Includes:
First-Time Homebuyers. Transportation Subsidy. Education benefits. Earned Income Tax Credits
Unemployment Insurance Programs
$61.0B
Tax Benefits" $299.8 billion
Contracts, Grants and Loans" $226.3 billion
Entitlements" $220.8 billion
Manufacturing & Economic Recovery, Infrastructure Refinancing, Other
$10.2B
Tax-exempt bonds to expand industrial development. Bonds for investment in Infrastructure, job training, and education in high unemployment areas. Increased available New Market credits
212,107 "Jobs Created" Anyone read the BLS data, how many jobs did the private sector create.......JUST LAST MONTH?
BLS 227,000 in February.
Go, read, learn about your wonderful progressive Keynesian government and how it saved us from going into a depression!
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/fundingoverview/Pages/fundingbreakdown.aspx
After reading this data and looking at the pitiful results that $840 BILLION bucks got us I am certainly depressed.
Jobs created: 212,107
http://www.recovery.gov/pages/textview.aspx?data=recipientHomeMap
Hmmm, where did the other 600 billion go? It's not on the website. well it is, on another page.
Total Funds Allocated:
$840 Billion
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/fundingoverview/Pages/fundingbreakdown.aspx
Estimated American Recovery and Reinvestment Act tax, entitlement, and contract, grant, and loan expenditures have been increased from $787B to $840B to be consistent with the President's 2012 budget and with scoring changes made by the Congressional Budget Office since the enactment of the Recovery Act in February 2009.
Highlights
Individual Tax Credits
$136.3B Includes:
First-Time Homebuyers. Transportation Subsidy. Education benefits. Earned Income Tax Credits
Unemployment Insurance Programs
$61.0B
Tax Benefits" $299.8 billion
Contracts, Grants and Loans" $226.3 billion
Entitlements" $220.8 billion
Manufacturing & Economic Recovery, Infrastructure Refinancing, Other
$10.2B
Tax-exempt bonds to expand industrial development. Bonds for investment in Infrastructure, job training, and education in high unemployment areas. Increased available New Market credits
212,107 "Jobs Created" Anyone read the BLS data, how many jobs did the private sector create.......JUST LAST MONTH?
BLS 227,000 in February.
Go, read, learn about your wonderful progressive Keynesian government and how it saved us from going into a depression!
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/fundingoverview/Pages/fundingbreakdown.aspx
After reading this data and looking at the pitiful results that $840 BILLION bucks got us I am certainly depressed.
The Long-Term Budgetary Impact of Paths for Federal Revenues and Spending Specified by Chairman Ryan
At the request of the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, Congressman Paul Ryan, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has calculated the long-term budgetary impact of paths for federal revenues and spending specified by the Chairman and his staff. The calculations presented here represent CBO's assessment of how the specified paths would alter the trajectories of federal debt, revenues, spending, and economic output relative to the trajectories under two scenarios that CBO has analyzed previously. Those calculations do not represent a cost estimate for legislation or an analysis of the effects of any given policies. In particular, CBO has not considered whether the specified paths are consistent with the policy proposals or budget figures released today by Chairman Ryan as part of his proposed budget resolution.
The amounts of revenues and spending to be used in these calculations for 2012 through 2022 were provided by Chairman Ryan and his staff. The amounts for 2023 through 2050 were calculated by CBO on the basis of growth rates, percentages of gross domestic product (GDP), or other formulas specified by Chairman Ryan and his staff. For all years, the Chairman specified that there would be no spending for subsidies to purchase health insurance through new exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act. CBO calculates that, under the specified paths, federal revenues and spending would evolve as follows:
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43023
The amounts of revenues and spending to be used in these calculations for 2012 through 2022 were provided by Chairman Ryan and his staff. The amounts for 2023 through 2050 were calculated by CBO on the basis of growth rates, percentages of gross domestic product (GDP), or other formulas specified by Chairman Ryan and his staff. For all years, the Chairman specified that there would be no spending for subsidies to purchase health insurance through new exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act. CBO calculates that, under the specified paths, federal revenues and spending would evolve as follows:
- Revenues—from 15½ percent of GDP in 2011 to 19 percent in both 2030 and 2050;
- Medicare—from 3¼ percent of GDP in 2011 to 4¼ percent in 2030 and 4¾ percent in 2050;
- Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)—from 2 percent of GDP in 2011 to 1¼ percent in 2030 and 1 percent in 2050;
- Social Security—from 4¾ percent of GDP in 2011 to 6 percent in both 2030 and 2050; and
- Other mandatory spending and all discretionary spending—from 12½ percent of GDP in 2011 to 5¾ percent in 2030 and 3¾ percent in 2050.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43023
Most new jobs created in the US tend to be low-paying
While the jobs lost are generally higher-paying. This seems to be confirmed by the monthly US Treasury Tax Receipts, which are lower so far this year despite the seeming improvement in unemployment. Take February 2012, for example, where the Treasury reported $103.4 billion in tax receipts, versus $110.6 billion in February 2011. BLS had unemployment running at 9% in February 2011, versus 8.3% in February 2012. For every semi-positive data point the bulls have emphasized since the market rally began, there's a counter-point that makes us question what all the fuss is about. The bulls will cite expanding US GDP in late 2011, while the bears can cite US food stamp participation reaching an all-time record of 46,514,238 in December 2011, up 227,922
participantsfrom the month before, and up 6% year-over-year. The bulls can praise February's 15.7% year-over-year increase in US auto sales, while the bears can cite Europe's 9.7% year-over-year decrease in auto sales, led by a 20.2% slump in France. The bulls can exclaim somewhat firmer housing starts in February (as if the US needs more new houses), while the bears can cite the unexpected 100bp drop in the March consumer confidence index, five consecutive months of manufacturing contraction in China, and more recently, a 0.9% drop in US February existing home sales.
participantsfrom the month before, and up 6% year-over-year. The bulls can praise February's 15.7% year-over-year increase in US auto sales, while the bears can cite Europe's 9.7% year-over-year decrease in auto sales, led by a 20.2% slump in France. The bulls can exclaim somewhat firmer housing starts in February (as if the US needs more new houses), while the bears can cite the unexpected 100bp drop in the March consumer confidence index, five consecutive months of manufacturing contraction in China, and more recently, a 0.9% drop in US February existing home sales.
Oil prices are not the topic, gasoline prices are the topic
I have been beating a dead horse on the gas price issue
I get my data from this chart. A stunning example of why I think the lies about employment and the economy in general are tissue thin at best and will explode soon
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=A103600001&f=M
Next Release Date: 4/2/2012.. can't wait...
Oil prices are not the topic, gasoline prices are the topic. The oil companies bought oil several months ago and now the driving public has no use for the gasoline they refined because nobody is buying gasoline, at beyond historic lows. The refined oil, now gasoline needs to be sold for more money in order to make a profit for the refinery. Refineries are not state owned, they are owned by stockholders who expect a return on investment. Since the buying public will not buy the product at the pace of even three months ago the refiners have no choice but to raise the price of the product in order to satisfy the shareholders in the refinery. The public has to buy the gas at the offered price because the refiners have a monopoly on the gas ... and they can charge whatever it takes to pay for the oil they bought, the cost to refine it and add profit to satisfy the shareholders
I get my data from this chart. A stunning example of why I think the lies about employment and the economy in general are tissue thin at best and will explode soon
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=A103600001&f=M
Next Release Date: 4/2/2012.. can't wait...
Oil prices are not the topic, gasoline prices are the topic. The oil companies bought oil several months ago and now the driving public has no use for the gasoline they refined because nobody is buying gasoline, at beyond historic lows. The refined oil, now gasoline needs to be sold for more money in order to make a profit for the refinery. Refineries are not state owned, they are owned by stockholders who expect a return on investment. Since the buying public will not buy the product at the pace of even three months ago the refiners have no choice but to raise the price of the product in order to satisfy the shareholders in the refinery. The public has to buy the gas at the offered price because the refiners have a monopoly on the gas ... and they can charge whatever it takes to pay for the oil they bought, the cost to refine it and add profit to satisfy the shareholders
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
It doesn't make sense for people to fall short of their scholastic potential for fiscal reasons; but personally as a high school graduate who would like to eventually raise enough money to attend college, it doesn't make sense to me that many companies expect a college degree as a prerequisite for things which anyone could do or learn on the job, such as financial services, or entry-level IT.
We've addressed this issue by refining areas of study. For example, if your job is to make silicone for computer chips or something, you don't necessarily need to know anything about how a computer chip works as much as you need to know about silicone. I'm just pulling that out of the air. My point is, if somebody wants to major in business economics, or computer programming, it doesn't really make sense for them to spend the first two years of college catching up on history and english."