• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:436] Biden declares himself 'blameless' if US defaults on debt: 'I've done my part'

I don't think that is true, particularly now.
Deficits almost entirely encapsulate output growth. That's the main reason we have had record low unemployment.
The demographics show something other than this, we have more jobs that people available to fill them, with a declining participation.
Likely because wages are not at the levels necessary to fill them. We also have had record quit rates. If businesses really wanted to hire people to fill these jobs, the pay would be higher.
While reducing federal spending would impact labor markets, I don't think the trade off is worth it.
My point holds regardless of your speculation.
 
Some desperate Google search.

You're not capable... not in the slightest. In this exchange, I've once again showed the forum how pathetic and desperate your positions are.

With lies, fallacies, and no logical structure. You've shit the bed once again.

Another glaring example of your total lack of critical thinking and reading comprehension. If you don't understand what FRED encompasses....

He wasn't the one who was against raising the debt limit. So no, the deficits don't support this stage theory.
 
The facts are, we had a budget surplus. This is not debatable. Your denial of reality is a by product of your partisan hackery.
Looking at the evidence instead of just parroting the talking point we find the social security trust fund was used to pad the general revenue creating the illusion of a significant surplus out of the reality of another overspend by the Federal government.
 
Looking at the evidence instead of just parroting the talking point we find the social security trust fund was used to pad the general revenue creating the illusion of a significant surplus out of the reality of another overspend by the Federal government.
Waste of time with this poster

 
Looking at the evidence instead of just parroting the talking point we find the social security trust fund was used to pad the general revenue
This has been the case since '68, and the trust funds have been designed to accumulate federal debt. You simply do not know what you're talking about.
 
No credible economist, account, actuary, etc... would accept that source. Not one.

Your perpetual failure is legendary.
Again the source or messenger always trumps the message in that arrogant liberal world. Keep ignoring the data showing how easy it is to indoctrinate people and make fools out of them
 
This has been the case since '68, and the trust funds have been designed to accumulate federal debt. You simply do not know what you're talking about.
No it is you that doesn't know what they are talking about, SS and Medicare have among the worst Return on investments in this country, borrowing the money and using that to pay additional expenses short changes SS contributors by generating a terrible return and no use of that money for your entire working career.
 
Deficits almost entirely encapsulate output growth. That's the main reason we have had record low unemployment.

Citation needed. I would point out that a large driver of the low unemployment rate is the decline in participation.

Likely because wages are not at the levels necessary to fill them. We also have had record quit rates. If businesses really wanted to hire people to fill these jobs, the pay would be higher.

That indicates that there is too much federal cash being injected into the system, you are effectively pricing out domestic private labor through federal policies.

My point holds regardless of your speculation.

You sir are the one speculating.
 
Looking at the evidence instead of just parroting the talking point we find the social security trust fund was used to pad the general revenue creating the illusion of a significant surplus out of the reality of another overspend by the Federal government.
I know it sucks for you that you are forced to detach yourself from reality, in order to cling to your ideology. But reality doesn't care. The facts remain, there was a budget surplus. You can whine and not like that all you want. Nobody cares.
 
Say what you will about Biden but if this new debt ceiling bill is passed; he deserves most of the credit. He was ablt to protect every one of his priorities. He may be old but his experience comes through loud and clear. McCarthy can chest beat all he wants; Biden was the Chief negotiator here and is not the type to chest beat
 
Say what you will about Biden but if this new debt ceiling bill is passed; he deserves most of the credit. He was ablt to protect every one of his priorities. He may be old but his experience comes through loud and clear. McCarthy can chest beat all he wants; Biden was the Chief negotiator here and is not the type to chest beat

That's an incredible analysis given Biden said he would never negotiate, then later negotiated on multiple "red line" items like work eligibility, IRS funding, etc.
 
Deficits almost entirely encapsulate output growth. That's the main reason we have had record low unemployment.
Sorry, I am unsure what you mean by "deficits encapsulate output growth". Are you trying to say deficit spending explains low unemployment?

People withdrawing in prime working age aren't counted in the unemployment statistic. That artificially lowers the rate.

Likely because wages are not at the levels necessary to fill them. We also have had record quit rates. If businesses really wanted to hire people to fill these jobs, the pay would be higher.

My point holds regardless of your speculation.
Many employers are offering $15 or more as starting wages. This used to be referred to as a living wage.

Look at what happened in Seattle when they legislated a living wage for fast food workers. Many workers demanded fewer hours so as not to have their welfare benefits reduced.

Parroting President Biden, who has never so much as run a hot dog cart in the private sector, claim that employers just refuse to pay enough to fill jobs as if they can just print more money like the Federal government is nonsense. The lack of workers to take jobs is driven by an overly generous welfare state with no meaningful work requirements.
 
Sorry, I am unsure what you mean by "deficits encapsulate output growth". Are you trying to say deficit spending explains low unemployment?

People withdrawing in prime working age aren't counted in the unemployment statistic. That artificially lowers the rate.


Many employers are offering $15 or more as starting wages. This used to be referred to as a living wage.

Look at what happened in Seattle when they legislated a living wage for fast food workers. Many workers demanded fewer hours so as not to have their welfare benefits reduced.

Parroting President Biden, who has never so much as run a hot dog cart in the private sector, claim that employers just refuse to pay enough to fill jobs as if they can just print more money like the Federal government is nonsense. The lack of workers to take jobs is driven by an overly generous welfare state with no meaningful work requirements.
You mischaracterize what happened.

(Reuters) - A Seattle law that requires many businesses to pay a minimum wage of at least $13 an hour has left low-wage workers with less money in their pockets because some employers cut working hours, a study released on Monday said.
 
No credible economist, account, actuary, etc... would accept that source. Not one.

Your perpetual failure is legendary.
There you go again telling us what everyone else will do. Where did you develop this incredible skill you believe you have? Always some imaginary economist, account, or actuary without any link. Stunning how you never answer direct questions regarding your own posts.
 
This has been the case since '68, and the trust funds have been designed to accumulate federal debt. You simply do not know what you're talking about.
The original SS legislation in 1937 required "excess" funds be used in sham purchases of special purpose bonds owned exclusively by the Federal government. It's not a trust fund it's an unsecured IOU. Worse, Treasury accounts for the trust fund as an asset. Clinton and the Democrats deliberately ignore the liability created by spending SS trust fund cash to create a budget surplus.

Siphoning off SS funds into the general fund inflates the amount of general revenue which in turn undercuts the claim of a balanced budget. The IOU bonds have to be paid from current revenues today and for the foreseeable future. The Clinton achievement relied on kicking the can down the road.
 
You mischaracterize what happened.

(Reuters) - A Seattle law that requires many businesses to pay a minimum wage of at least $13 an hour has left low-wage workers with less money in their pockets because some employers cut working hours, a study released on Monday said.
No, Reuters put a Leftist spin on the story.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/02/sea...-in-2014-heres-how-its-turned-out-so-far.html
 
Say what you will about Biden but if this new debt ceiling bill is passed; he deserves most of the credit. He was ablt to protect every one of his priorities. He may be old but his experience comes through loud and clear. McCarthy can chest beat all he wants; Biden was the Chief negotiator here and is not the type to chest beat
Wasn't Biden's priority a clean debt bill? Didn't he promise that repeatedly, while promising not to negotiate?

What the hell happened to that?
 
Negotiations for the 2024 budget don’t begin until the fall. The issue at hand is funding a budget that was already approved.

Uh, the 2024 Federal Fiscal year starts on October 1st.
 
Wasn't Biden's priority a clean debt bill? Didn't he promise that repeatedly, while promising not to negotiate?

What the hell happened to that?

What happened to it?

Reality.

Biden was never going to get a clean debt bill. Regardless of how many times he may have called for it.

Everyone postured, and then Biden took McCarthy into a room to discuss how to do the deal. Biden managed to preserve most of his program, subject to a couple of delays and means testing requirements.

McCarthy presumably got a few things he could hand to his members to take back home to voters. Everyone wins, to some extant.

That’s what good negotiation looks like.

Biden still has the cards. Teh GOP could undermine their own Speaker. Chaos would surely ensue.

And since the whole deal is in the hands of the House Rules Committee right now, the spotlight (and the blame) has now shifted to the GOP.
 
Yea, this doesn't support your position at all that medical school costs are a primary driver of overall US medical costs. Total physician/clinical spending represents 20.3% of all healthcare spending first off, so it is a small portion of the overall. Second, the articles primary contention is that it drives students into specialization? There are a host of reasons why physicians go into specialization, it isn't nearly as much about money for the last 10-15 years. Specialist compensation has fallen off a cliff while basic medicine like IM has seen huge jumps. This isn't the 80's and 90's where neuro/CT surgeons were making 10x their peers. A neurosurgeon is now doing ~800k and a hospitalist is easy north of 400k.

Further, their reimbursement isn't dictated by their medical school costs, Medicare (the primary driver of reimbursement by CPT) doesn't care at the RUC level.



That model only applies to those not on medicaid/ACA plans. ~Half the country gets to skip that and binge on whatever they want healthcare related.



All health insurance plans have a max out of pocket expense as well as no cap on care. So the days of medically driven bankruptcy are long gone. You don't forego surgery in France or the UK, it is simply not made available to you are you get to wait for an extremely long time to get it. Look up the statistics for joint replacements in the UK. There is a reason they are far less prevalent, the NHS doesn't spend $20k to replace the hip in an elderly person, they aren't worth it.



What you call "weasel definitions" are actually just definitions. I provided the hard data to show the US per capita welfare spending is top 10 in the world and higher than most major EU nations.



Sounds like someone was a Comms major, figures.

Ok, so your argument then is that a 4 year comms degree is valuable because they have all the skills you have departing high school? Algebra? Are you kidding me? I did that in 7th and 8th grade. If there were no dispute or debate here then there wouldn't be a question of wages and the cost of university. If there were a value there there would be a whiner next to it.



How about everyone who has a college loan balance over 40 years old. That's a pretty solid indicator of people who F'd up with their education and financial management.



This was in specific rebuttal to your argument that Medicaid is only available to the poor, I pointed out it was expanded to 4x the poverty level based on household size. You don't understand the notion that the US has a generous social system? That's odd, I gave you the figures showing we were 10th in the world in per capita social spending. That was #10 including some countries that were tiny, compared to peers we were ~top 5.




No, they drop a kid to do it.


“All health insurance plans have a max out of pocket expense as well as no cap on care.”

You can thank Obama for that.

“So the days of medically driven bankruptcy are long gone.”

That’s patently false!

 
Wasn't Biden's priority a clean debt bill? Didn't he promise that repeatedly, while promising not to negotiate?

What the hell happened to that?
Biden has always said he wanted a bipartisan bill and that is what he got. The point is that the GOP's 4/27 bill was basically gutted or dramatically reduced and Biden was able to protect most of his policies

In addition to that even if the hard right reject the bill there are at least 100 Democrats who are willing to pass it which would overly make up the GOP lost votes

The Senate is also expected to pass it and McConnell already has said he supports the bill.

Members of two major centrist groups – the New Democrat Coalition and Problem Solvers Caucus – are expected to largely support the plan, according to multiple sources. That represents roughly 100 Democrats, which could be enough to offset the losses from members of the hard-right who are furious over McCarthy’s dealmaking. On Monday, New Democrat coalition Chair Annie Kuster came out in support of the debt deal, endorsing a yes vote to her 99-member moderate caucus.

“Despite a divided government, President Biden has achieved a bipartisan agreement that will save our country from default until 2025 and protect our nation from economic collapse, while also preventing cuts to key programs that millions of Americans rely upon,” Kuster wrote.

Several members of the hard-line House Freedom Caucus have already harshly criticized the plan, vowing to try blocking it from passage.
 
Uh, the 2024 Federal Fiscal year starts on October 1st.
I understand that. The President submits his budget in Feb but the last time a budget was completed with all relevant bills was about 20 years ago
 
No credible economist, account, actuary, etc... would accept that source. Not one.

Your perpetual failure is legendary.

Don’t even bother to Google this guy. He has no government or political experience at all. He’s just a guy who does coding somewhere in Colorado.

He is not an economist either.
 
McCarthy presumably got a few things he could hand to his members to take back home to voters. Everyone wins, to some extant.

You were on the board of education and don't know the different between extent and extant? Odd.


“So the days of medically driven bankruptcy are long gone.”

That’s patently false!


Look at how that is calculated. Anyone who declares bankruptcy who has $1 of medical debt is labeled a medical bankruptcy. That's silliness. The reality is that if you are poor/middle class you have a very limited max OOP on an annual basis and little to no premium exposure. Any "medical" bankruptcy is pretty damned rare or one of self creation.

If you can't cover a max OOP as an adult, I don't feel bad for you.
 
Back
Top Bottom