High terror alerts / close embassies / travel warnings .............. (put tyrannical acts of IRS, NSA et.al. on back page, please).


Check.

I'm not going to jump on the skeptic's view that this is a ploy to justify the NSA program. Certainly plausible, just no evidence of it. Strikes me more as a overreaction, perhaps, to avoid another Benghazi at all costs.

But my question is why, 10 months after Benghazi, are we still incapable of securing our Embassies? If we can't secure them, how does this threat really go away in week or two? God forbid Dear Leader would take time out from campaign speeches to actually do something of value.

gut;1483062 wrote:I'm not going to jump on the skeptic's view that this is a ploy to justify the NSA program. Certainly plausible, just no evidence of it. Strikes me more as a overreaction, perhaps, to avoid another Benghazi at all costs.

Precisely. It's a "specific threat," yet we close 21 embassies.

fish82;1483072 wrote:Precisely. It's a "specific threat," yet we close 21 embassies.

But that could just be masking where they are focusing their intelligence gathering efforts. And they could also be doing that to protect their sources. But certainly like other countries pulled out of Benghazi, you could do a single embassy or two and just cite "instability" rather than "specific terror threats".

Also it begs the question if you knew another Benghazi-style incident was happening, would you first hope to avoid the incident with a closure or just load-up for bare and engage in a bloodbath?

In other news;

We heard that "uncertainty" was the cause of slow growth and lack of hiring. The uncertainty index is at its lowest level since 2008.





The Deficit is falling rapidly...

We still have abysmal growth and catastrophic levels of unemployment and undermployment despite the improvement in certainty and a rapid decline in the deficit...




Maybe it was ineffective aggregate demand as the primary culprit all along and we need a sufficiently large tax cut or spending increase to fix that shortfall....

QuakerOats;1482689 wrote:I get it just fine. If overall spending is up, but pentagon spending is down, then generally speaking entitlement spending has to be up, and it is. Given who is president, this is not surprising. But to go around crying about sequestor cuts as if total federal spending has - finally - been cut, is just another D.C. lie -------- and most of us are damn tired of it. And the charades, such as closing the WH to tours etc... "due to spending cuts", are simply laughable. It totally represents the complete ineptness of the community activists who now 'Occupy WH'.

All of us in the private sector have had to deal major, REAL, cuts; some on the order of 35%. We manage through .............. all the while being villified and treated with hostility by the Dictator-in-Chief and his radical minions.

IT IS GETTING OLD !!!!

A cut:
Sheldon Orders Shutdown of Space Fence. http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/36655shelton-orders-shutdown-of-space-fence?utm_content=buffer8ff7d&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer

I guess tracking debris in space that could disrupt your cell service is not important.

QuakerOats;1483058 wrote:High terror alerts / close embassies / travel warnings.

Al Qaeda is on the run.

"The Deficit is falling rapidly..."

That we still continue a deficit shows how boned we are. By the end of Obama's term we're are going to be looking at a US$20-23T debt, with no indication that we are even remotely serious about paying it off.

Our pension crisis is staring us directly in the face, with the largest municipal bankruptcy in history evidencing such. We didn't just get here by chance, we got here with horrible big-government/no-accountability policies.

Manhattan Buckeye;1483123 wrote:"The Deficit is falling rapidly..."

That we still continue a deficit shows how boned we are. By the end of Obama's term we're are going to be looking at a US$20-23T debt, with no indication that we are even remotely serious about paying it off.

Our pension crisis is staring us directly in the face, with the largest municipal bankruptcy in history evidencing such. We didn't just get here by chance, we got here with horrible big-government/no-accountability policies.

The pension problems are a serious concern but the "national debt" is not. Why is that? Detroit, every other major city, the 50 states, the District of Columbia, every private household and every private business are users of U.S. dollars whereas the Federal government is the issuer of U.S. dollars. This is a fundamental and profound distinction.

Before the U.S. government can even tax money out of people's paychecks to "fund" the social security "trust fund", it has to have spent those dollars into existence (or a bank empowered with a Reserve Account has to have made a loan). Detroit has to Tax or borrow before it can spend. The U.S. government must put U.S. dollars into the private sector before it can tax them or borrow them.

The "U.S. national debt" is just the outstanding amount of dollars booked in "Securities Accounts" at the FED. It's a holdover from the goldstandard that we really even call it "debt". Nobody calls the outstanding dollar amount in the FED's reserve accounts that Bernanke and Co., are creating all the time "debt" and yet we're paying interest on those accounts now.

Congress should just stop issuing U.S. treasury securities and transfer them to the FED's balance sheet and call them Federal Reserve C.D.'s as they're functionally the same and we could stop all this silly gold-standard era debt-demagoguery.

Reserve Accounts now get interest. Securities Accounts now get interest. We call the first one money and the second one the "U.S. national debt". The only reason we call the first one money is because in 1933 the FED had to convert those dollars into gold on demand. Those days are long gone.

TedSheckler;1483121 wrote:Al Qaeda is on the run.

Romney would let Detroit go bankrupt.

BoatShoes;1483108 wrote:In other news;

We heard that "uncertainty" was the cause of slow growth and lack of hiring. The uncertainty index is at its lowest level since 2008.

LMAO. Get out there and talk to some business executives. Sorry, but a model that uses proxies in an attempt to infer what they believe doesn't trump what they are actually saying and doing.

Not to mention, you might look at the Obama years in relation to the Bush years before you start claiming there's no significant uncertainty.

I won't bother discussing the relative volatility in the Obama years and rather point measurements or short trends have any power give such volatility.

BoatShoes;1483108 wrote: The Deficit is falling rapidly...

I guess when Obama campaigned on cutting the Bush deficits in half what he really meant was "double".

Another cut,
And this was one of the Offices Portman held under Bush:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/world/tighter-travel-budget-curtails-trade-talks.html?ref=us&_r=2&

Want free-trade, kind of need a trade Rep. to travel around the globe.
Nah, the cuts are not for real though.

ptown_trojans_1;1483161 wrote:Another cut,
And this was one of the Offices Portman held under Bush:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/world/tighter-travel-budget-curtails-trade-talks.html?ref=us&_r=2&

Want free-trade, kind of need a trade Rep. to travel around the globe.
Nah, the cuts are not for real though.

Dude.

If the federal government can't get by with $147 billion more than you spent last year, I don't know what to tell ya.

These "cuts" speak more to you people's ineptitude than anything else, TBH.

fish82;1483192 wrote: If the federal government can't get by with $147 billion more than you spent last year, I don't know what to tell ya.

Baseline budgeting! The beltway kids are apparently too inept and too incompetent to live in the real world. Efficiencies - what's that? Budget rationalization - what's that?

Maybe the cuts aren't nearly severe enough. You know, like they're paralyzed with where to begin in all the waste and bloat.

fish82;1483192 wrote:Dude.

If the federal government can't get by with $147 billion more than you spent last year, I don't know what to tell ya.

These "cuts" speak more to you people's ineptitude than anything else, TBH.

Again, that is the high level, top down picture, when in reality, each agency is very different and has various different program accounts. You have to read into each of the accounts to understand what's impacted.

But, it is simple to just throw out the big numbers without any thought.

gut;1483197 wrote:Baseline budgeting! The beltway kids are apparently too inept and too incompetent to live in the real world. Efficiencies - what's that? Budget rationalization - what's that?

Maybe the cuts aren't nearly severe enough. You know, like they're paralyzed with where to begin in all the waste and bloat.

I'll agree, the budget process is one of the most inefficient models in a perfect system of political cooperation. Add in the political gridlock and bickering and it makes trying to get a budget in one FY a near impossibility.

Severe enough?
If you really want to see the DOD cut, cut military pay, cut the ships, cut the planes, and cut the military healthcare. That is eating the DOD budget alive.

ptown_trojans_1;1483305 wrote:If you really want to see the DOD cut, cut military pay, cut the ships, cut the planes, and cut the military healthcare. That is eating the DOD budget alive.

While we're cutting military pay and health benefits, let's take a good hard look at the rampant and highly corrupt crony capitalism and waste in the military procurement process shall we?

Naw we can't do that. That might stop lining the pockets of the politicians beholden to the corporatists.

believer;1483335 wrote:While we're cutting military pay and health benefits, let's take a good hard look at the rampant and highly corrupt crony capitalism and waste in the military procurement process shall we?

Naw we can't do that. That might stop lining the pockets of the politicians beholden to the corporatists.

Agreed. The contracts, types of contracts, and "sole sourcing" is ridiculous.

This guy is the biggest piece of shit ever. Not an opinion, it is a fact.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/06/news/economy/obamacare-premiums/index.html?iid=HP_River

This is the thousandth time (exaggeration, but not by much) I've said this, but yet I have to do it again.

The only chance for success of Obamacare is to dupe (or force) people to buy coverage they don't need, the majority of these being young and poor. True liberals should be howling right now. No other type of insurance works this way.

If I'm a 24 year old guy working as an IT consultant, unmarried, and lives in a $1,000/month apartment I don't need to purchase a lot of term life insurance. If I'm a 45 year old married guy with a wife and 3 kids, the wife doesn't work and I work on an oil rig I need to purchase a policy that adequately covers my family in the event of my death.

If I'm a 52 year old dentist that drives a Toyota Avalon to work a few miles a day and have never had a major claim, I don't need to purchase extremely expensive auto insurance. If I'm a a 21 year old frat boy with 3 DUI's and drives a Corvette, chances are I will need to purchase more expensive auto insurance.

If I'm a 22 year old male with no medical problems in the past, goes to graduate school and walks to class I don't need to purchase a gold, silver or even bronze plated health insurance policy - just something that needs to cover catastrophic instances. If I'm an 80 year old person who has smoked, has had a history of health issues then if I want health insurance then I would likely need to purchase more expensive coverage, and by the time I'm 80 ideally I've accumulated enough wealth to pay for it.

Those 3 scenarios discuss how insurance is supposed to work, it pools risk funded by premiums charged based on the situation of the individual and pays out claims without regard to the situation. If a 24 year old buys a life insurance policy of $1,000,000 they might pay $50/month, a 45 year old with the same policy might pay out $150/month. In each case in the event of death the estate gets the same $1,000,000.

Obamacare conditions the market so that people who are at the lowest risk must pay more to cover the people at the highest risk. This isn't insurance. It is generational theft and would be wealth redistribution, if it wasn't the poorest people that has their wealth being redistributed, and the security is going to be the burden of the taxpayers. It is a complete debacle.

Manhattan Buckeye;1483374 wrote:This is the thousandth time (exaggeration, but not by much) I've said this, but yet I have to do it again.

The only chance for success of Obamacare is to dupe (or force) people to buy coverage they don't need, the majority of these being young and poor. True liberals should be howling right now. No other type of insurance works this way.

If I'm a 24 year old guy working as an IT consultant, unmarried, and lives in a $1,000/month apartment I don't need to purchase a lot of term life insurance. If I'm a 45 year old married guy with a wife and 3 kids, the wife doesn't work and I work on an oil rig I need to purchase a policy that adequately covers my family in the event of my death.

If I'm a 52 year old dentist that drives a Toyota Avalon to work a few miles a day and have never had a major claim, I don't need to purchase extremely expensive auto insurance. If I'm a a 21 year old frat boy with 3 DUI's and drives a Corvette, chances are I will need to purchase more expensive auto insurance.

If I'm a 22 year old male with no medical problems in the past, goes to graduate school and walks to class I don't need to purchase a gold, silver or even bronze plated health insurance policy - just something that needs to cover catastrophic instances. If I'm an 80 year old person who has smoked, has had a history of health issues then if I want health insurance then I would likely need to purchase more expensive coverage, and by the time I'm 80 ideally I've accumulated enough wealth to pay for it.

Those 3 scenarios discuss how insurance is supposed to work, it pools risk funded by premiums charged based on the situation of the individual and pays out claims without regard to the situation. If a 24 year old buys a life insurance policy of $1,000,000 they might pay $50/month, a 45 year old with the same policy might pay out $150/month. In each case in the event of death the estate gets the same $1,000,000.

Obamacare conditions the market so that people who are at the lowest risk must pay more to cover the people at the highest risk. This isn't insurance. It is generational theft and would be wealth redistribution, if it wasn't the poorest people that has their wealth being redistributed, and the security is going to be the burden of the taxpayers. It is a complete debacle.

You repeat yourself but you are still incorrect. I've highlighted relevant parts. Obamacare is not generational theft nor redistribution of wealth anymore than any other insurance system.

Do you agree that even a young, healthy person ought to insure themselves with a high deductible, catastrophic coverage plan? Yes, you've said so many times. Those are available in the healthcare marketplaces. Young men under 30 are able to by high-deductible, catastrophic coverage. You DO NOT have to buy insurance at levels of cost that you DO NOT NEED!

Also, almost 100% of 80 year olds have and will not save enough to cover medical costs when they are old, and that is why we have Medicare which has made life in America incredibly better.

From Covered California's Obamacare report:

http://www.californiareport.org/specialcoverage/obamacare/obamacare-guide-printable.jsp?topic=5

[h=5]I'm 28 and Healthy. I Only Worry About What I'd Do If I Were Hit by a Bus. Which Plan Should I Pick?[/h]You can certainly look at the bronze plan, and see if the coverage makes sense for you. Covered California also offers a catastrophic plan. It does not cover doctor's visits or even emergency room visits, but is meant to protect you against catastrophic medical bills. This level of coverage is available to people up to age 30. It's also available to other people who can demonstrate that they are experiencing financial hardship.
[h=5]Even with All This Help, I Cannot Afford to Buy Insurance or Pay The Penalty. What Do I Do?[/h]If you are looking at the least expensive plans, and your cost for the premium is greater than 8 percent of your household income, you are exempt from the requirement to have health insurance. You do not need to pay a penalty.

Myths about redistribution from the young and healthy to the old and sick are greatly exaggerated. The ACA is a conservative approach to universal coverage and it's going to end up being very popular...just like Medicare. Obama has sucked in a lot of ways but in the end, this will be a good thing.

Manhattan Buckeye;1483374 wrote: Obamacare conditions the market so that people who are at the lowest risk must pay more to cover the people at the highest risk. This isn't insurance. It is generational theft and would be wealth redistribution, if it wasn't the poorest people that has their wealth being redistributed, and the security is going to be the burden of the taxpayers. It is a complete debacle.

Well, some "conspiracy" nuts say this is all a ploy to force people to cry for single-payer. And I have to tend to agree. There was 0 interest in passing something viable, only getting this new entitlement on the books. Fix it later. And the more of a disaster it is, the more the controlling party will be able to ramrod it's solution thru. I'm sure the liberals anticipated being in control and blaming Repub for the disaster to get even more control and influence.

Obama exempting big business. Congress exempting themselves and their staffers. These are not actions of people who buy into a good idea. The handwriting is on the wall - it's going to be a very painful transition.

"Young men under 30 are able to by high-deductible, catastrophic coverage. You DO NOT have to buy insurance at levels of cost that you DO NOT NEED!"

I suppose that is why Obama didn't try to enlist the NFL, Hollywood types and other people to make buying insurance "cool".

No they just pay a tax according to SCOTUS. It is still generational theft.

Manhattan Buckeye;1483394 wrote:"Young men under 30 are able to by high-deductible, catastrophic coverage. You DO NOT have to buy insurance at levels of cost that you DO NOT NEED!"

I suppose that is why Obama didn't try to enlist the NFL, Hollywood types and other people to make buying insurance "cool".

No they just pay a tax according to SCOTUS. It is still generational theft.

How are we stealing from 20 somethings when they are able to purchase catastrophic health coverage...still having to pay for emergency room visits, etc.? So, they pay a tax if they engage in irresponsible behavior and don't obtain catastrophic coverage...when they'd be "stealing" from the rest of us when they cause our prices to rise if they get a catastrophic injury and we have to bear that cost when they aren't insured?

It is free-loading 20 year olds who won't even get catastrophic coverage that are anything close to "thieves". Now, they can get cheap catastrophic coverage at a convenient marketplace and will be encouraged to do so by the public. If they still choose to free-load and impose burdens on the rest of us they have to pay a fine/tax for doing so.

Did you read the link provided?:

[LEFT]"That's because these people live in states where insurers were allowed to sell bare-bones plans and exclude the sick, which has kept costs down. Under Obamacare, insurers must offer a package of essential benefits -- including maternity, mental health and medications -- and must cover all who apply. But more comprehensive coverage may lead to more expensive insurance plans."

-what that means, is that the catastrophic coverage premium just increased by some margin. An insurer can no longer just insure the young and insure just catastrophic. It conditions the market. I have no idea why you don't understand this concept. It reduces the market, it causes insurers to provide a product it doesn't want to provide, and to the extent they continue to operate it will raise costs for all.

What part of this don't you understand?[/LEFT]