Page 9 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 137

Thread: Republican mainstream flirts with brief default

  1. #81
    Distributist
    Jeezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,326

    Re: Republican mainstream flirts with brief default

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Nearly or all? The point is they don't have to involve price regulation.
    Examples?

    However, there is R&D in corn production as well. I live in iowa, remember.

    And once done, it is replicated if successful. Profit is usually made, if successful. There is a risk, and risk is often subzidized by someone. Here that risk is often subidized by more than one area. Government, business, charities, churches, depending on the interest. There is similar processes elsewhere.
    The marginal cost curve for traditional corn production simply does not work the same way for pharma and tech as it does for corn. The R&D involved in corn now has more to do with all the bio-engineered agriculture stuff, but that's different. You can pretty much take any pick of stuff we do more of that doesn't act as subsidy -- whatever industry pays most of its overhead to production for a consumable good. The for-profit environment of this country is what has allowed us to "do more" of this particular kind of work, and has therefore made us incur the bulk of the cost when you're talking about a cradle-to-grave process from initial release of a drug to its relegation and replication as a generic. We're not talking about a good that's researched here and then later on mimicked by corporations somewhere else after the patent ran out. We're talking about foreign government, and we're talking about healthcare. For example: If Microsoft spends tons of R&D on something, and then a foreign software company mimics it later on by making a generic version, those foreign people won't stop buying Microsoft products. But healthcare provision does not cross borders. US healthcare doesn't compete with Taiwanese healthcare for customers. Thus, we're shoulder the R&D costs for generics in systems that can only be used by other people, despite footing the bill. They gain comparable profits for the same good, without the R&D. And the drug in its initial form may have been too expensive to be on the single-payer plan of their country immediately.

    That, to me, is indirect subsidy.

    Didn't and don't see that. As the process works both ways, us doing more at the moment doesn't mean we're subsidizing them.
    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1059552280

    It was never my intention to say sole driver, but only that they contribute. And not insignificantly. R&D wouldn't stop without government involvment, but providing the place and some of the funding helps a lot, and without it, I suspect it would hurt R&D a lot.
    Okay. So they contribute. And people wouldn't like to see them just stop giving money altogether. So what? You told me to go look up university hospitals as an example of government run research with a winky face, as though you were directing me toward a clear and present example of government-sponsored innovation.

    Congratulations. You've rendered your own argument useless.
    SWAGSWAGSWAGSWAGSWAGSWAGSWAGSWAG
    Quote Originally Posted by Josie
    Thanks for your awesomeness, Jeezy.

  2. #82
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,763

    Re: Republican mainstream flirts with brief default

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    From Reuters:



    http://www.reuters.c...E75700720110608


    IMO, this would be a reckless move. First, the amount of spending reductions necessary to immediately balance the budget would wipe out economic growth, therefore, if sustained they would produce a significant self-inflicted national recession. Second, in theory, the Republicans might gain from a short default-large fiscal consolidation deal, but such a deal would not be very likely. A long default would cut against the Republicans. Raising the debt ceiling with little meaningful fiscal consolidation would be perilous, as Republicans would have to defend their fiscal credibility, but that would be a fight they could wage without inflicting harm on the nation. A short default followed by significant fiscal consolidation is not likely, precisely because the Republicans backing such a notion have repeatedly and widely displayed their cards. Hence, the Democrats know that there is a limit to how long they would hold out. As a result, they would not capitulate, and then the Republicans would be faced by a bad choice and an awful one: yield and receive blame for inflicting lasting damage on U.S. credit or persist and receive blame for damaging U.S. credit and engineering a steep recession, possibly of global magnitude.

    To push the U.S. acros a line it has never before crossed will, despite the Druckenmiller hypothesis (which is not widely shared), damage U.S. credit. Once a red line is crossed, few would have reason to believe that political leaders might, when things become even more difficult, cross additional red lines. In effect, the psychological barriers that were assumed to exist and preclude U.S. default would be shattered as far as the markets are concerned. Those responsible for the reckless move will bear full accountability for its consequences. Their electoral prospects would very likely be severely damaged. Perceptions of their fitness to govern would be greatly undermined. They would be viewed as the persons who deliberately damaged American credit. All of those consequences would be deserved.

    In the end, I do expect an agreement to raise the debt ceiling, because no responsible political leader would be willing to take the default course. I do worry that the deal will come with fiscal consolidation that is on the weak side. That will be a fair battle for the 2012 campaign. It will be far more responsible than pushing the U.S. across a red line into technical default on some of its obligations, even if debt payments are made on time.
    Today's Republican mainstream would have been called lunatics by the Republican mainstream 20 years ago.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  3. #83
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Republican mainstream flirts with brief default

    What about medical research?
    Much current medical research is publicly financed through the National Institutes of Health. Under a universal health care system this would continue. For example, a great deal of basic drug research, for example, is funded by the government. Drug companies are invited in for the later stages of “product development,” the formulation and marketing of new drugs. AZT for HIV patients is one example. The early, expensive research was conducted with government money. After the drug was found to be effective, marketing rights went to the drug company.
    Medical research does not disappear under universal health care system. Many famous discoveries have been made in countries with national health care systems. Laparoscopic gallbladder removal was pioneered in Canada. The CT scan was invented in England. The treatment for juvenile diabetes by transplanting pancreatic cells was developed in Canada.
    It is also important to note that studies show that, in the U.S., the number of clinical research grants declines in areas of high HMO penetration. This suggests that managed care increasingly threatens clinical research. Another study surveyed medical school faculty and found that it was more difficult to do research in areas where high HMO penetration has enforced a more business-oriented approach to health care.
    Finally, it appears that the increasing commercialization of research is beginning to slow innovation. Drug firms’ increasing reliance on contract research organizations (and for-profit ethical-review boards) has coincided with a sharp drop in innovative new drugs and a spate of “me-too” drugs - minor variations on old drugs that offer little benefit other than extended patent life.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Single-Payer FAQ | Physicians for a National Health Program

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  4. #84
    Distributist
    Jeezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,326

    Re: Republican mainstream flirts with brief default

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    What about medical research?
    Much current medical research is publicly financed through the National Institutes of Health. Under a universal health care system this would continue. For example, a great deal of basic drug research, for example, is funded by the government. Drug companies are invited in for the later stages of “product development,” the formulation and marketing of new drugs. AZT for HIV patients is one example. The early, expensive research was conducted with government money. After the drug was found to be effective, marketing rights went to the drug company.
    Medical research does not disappear under universal health care system. Many famous discoveries have been made in countries with national health care systems. Laparoscopic gallbladder removal was pioneered in Canada. The CT scan was invented in England. The treatment for juvenile diabetes by transplanting pancreatic cells was developed in Canada.
    It is also important to note that studies show that, in the U.S., the number of clinical research grants declines in areas of high HMO penetration. This suggests that managed care increasingly threatens clinical research. Another study surveyed medical school faculty and found that it was more difficult to do research in areas where high HMO penetration has enforced a more business-oriented approach to health care.
    Finally, it appears that the increasing commercialization of research is beginning to slow innovation. Drug firms’ increasing reliance on contract research organizations (and for-profit ethical-review boards) has coincided with a sharp drop in innovative new drugs and a spate of “me-too” drugs - minor variations on old drugs that offer little benefit other than extended patent life.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Single-Payer FAQ | Physicians for a National Health Program
    ...

    From Physicians for a National Health Program?



    Nice googling, breh.
    Last edited by Jeezy; 06-08-11 at 07:24 PM.
    SWAGSWAGSWAGSWAGSWAGSWAGSWAGSWAG
    Quote Originally Posted by Josie
    Thanks for your awesomeness, Jeezy.

  5. #85
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Republican mainstream flirts with brief default

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Today's Republican mainstream would have been called lunatics by the Republican mainstream 20 years ago.
    And today's Liberal mainstream would have been called Soviet style socialists by the Liberal mainstream 20 years ago. Big whup.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  6. #86
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Republican mainstream flirts with brief default

    Quote Originally Posted by toddwv View Post
    We'll just ignore the 6 years that the Republicans had control of Congress AND the White House.
    the WHIP today:

    "we can talk all we want about the failed policies of the previous administration but the fact is we now have a president in a position of power with his economic policies and he's going to be held accountable, we know that"

    RealClearPolitics - Video - Durbin: This Is Obama's Economy Now

    watch the youtube, see the graphic behind the WHIP, the findings of yesterday's wapo/abc poll:

    "americans on the economy: 89% negative view, 11% positive"

    "obama's handling of the economy: 59% disapprove, 40% approve"

    seeya at the polls, progressives

  7. #87
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Republican mainstream flirts with brief default

    Quote Originally Posted by toddwv View Post
    Could it be that they are simply not serious about actually cutting the budget and just want to go after wildly popular and hugely successful social programs?
    hugely successful?

    wow

    usa today, yesterday:

    The federal government's financial condition deteriorated rapidly last year, far beyond the $1.5 trillion in new debt taken on to finance the budget deficit, a USA TODAY analysis shows.

    The government added $5.3 trillion in new financial obligations in 2010, largely for retirement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. That brings to a record $61.6 trillion the total of financial promises not paid for.

    Medicare alone took on $1.8 trillion in new liabilities, more than the record deficit prompting heated debate between Congress and the White House over lifting the debt ceiling.

    Social Security added $1.4 trillion in obligations, partly reflecting longer life expectancies. Federal and military retirement programs added more to the financial hole, too.

    The $61.6 trillion in unfunded obligations amounts to $527,000 per household. That's more than five times what Americans have borrowed for everything else mortgages, car loans and other debt. It reflects the challenge as the number of retirees soars over the next 20 years and seniors try to collect on those spending promises.
    U.S. funding for future promises lags by trillions - USATODAY.com

    as stupefyingly outta touch as the party in power

    it will be three years now that the united states senate has even proposed a budget---in times like these

    if something isn't done imminently to fundamentally reform our budgets, our big 3 federal programs (as well as state pensions) will simply cease to exist as we know them for our next generation

    leadership, anyone?

  8. #88
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,772

    Re: Republican mainstream flirts with brief default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Because all the spending that got us here was well reasoned and intelligent.
    How so? Please explain not just from your own perspective, but provide sources/data.

    I'm asking not to be a pain in the butt; I'm really trying to understand the argument from all sides.

  9. #89
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,772

    Re: Republican mainstream flirts with brief default

    I searched the web for more information on the debt ceiling and here were the best two explanations I could find that made the most sense to me:

    From YahooAnswers.com:

    What is a "debt ceiling"? What is the current debt ceiling of the United States? What is the definition of a debt ceiling?

    The concept is a debt ceiling is pretty simple.

    A "debt ceiling" is the maximum amount of debt that a government can take on.

    For instance, the United States currently has a debt ceiling of $12.1 trillion dollars.

    Considering that the country currently owes $12.09 trillion dollars, this is obviously a problem.

    In order to spend past this ceiling, Congress must agree to raise it.

    Since 2002, Congress has had to raise the ceiling seven times, with an eighth expected sometime during the next month.

    As it stands right now, Democrats are calling for a $1.8 trillion dollar hike in the debt ceiling, while Republicans are trying to freeze the ceiling.

    The purpose of the debt ceiling is to try to limit out-of-control spending, but it certainly hasn't had the desired effect over the past 6-7 years.
    I'm not sure how old the above explanation is as there was no date on the article, but the information seems pretty sound. However, I found this explanation that goes into detail on how the debt ceiling affects our credit worthiness, our ability to borrow money and what the consequences would be if we defaulted on our loans if we didn't raise the debt ceiling:

    From www.davemanuel.com (investor):

    The debt ceiling is self-imposed. It's more like telling yourself that you won't accumulate more than $500 on your credit card than it is like your actual credit limit.

    Our actual credit is limited by our ability to pay our creditors' interest back (our creditors, incidentally, aren't some kind of world bank, but instead are millions of individual investors who buy bonds). Countries have credit ratings, as do currencies - if we started defaulting on our debt, investors worldwide would no longer consider it wise to buy bonds and currency from the United States, and we would no longer be able to spend into the deficit, since we would have nowhere to get credible money. (Deficit spending, contrary to what some [edit] believe, has nothing to do with 'printing money' in the United States.)

    There's no set numerical limit at which point the United States' credit rating suddenly collapses - it's a matter of whether we can make good on our interest, not a matter of whether we have $10 trillion in our pockets (just like your mortgage - not having your house's value in cash on hand doesn't hurt your credit rating; falling behind on your payments would). The only concrete and immediate drawback is that the more we borrow, the more we have to pay in interest. Currently interest consumes about 7% of the federal budget.
    Now, I've heard different versions of who our creditors are from China being our biggest creditor to Europe and the IMF. I've also heard that it's not the amount that we owe that's the problem but rather it's the current amount we owe in interest on the debt we owe. If it's a matter of paying the interest on our debt, then the lower more detailed explanation would make more sense. But if it's the actually deficit itselt, then it would make sense to pay down our debt. But just as with a credit card, the interest payment doesn't go away. It remains no matter how much debt we pay off. The interest rate may change over time, but that interest payment doesn't go away until the debt is paid. Therefore, I can see both sides of the issue - paying down the debt and also making those interest payments. But here's a question: What if we have the actual payment but not enough to cover the interest? Our inability to pay...isn't that the same as not having enough money to pay your mortgage? I mean, your creditor doesn't care whether you have enough cash just to pay the note; they want the interest on the loan, too. So, what happens if we don't make the interest payment? Does that not make us more of a credit risk?

    And considering that we've become a creditor nation based mostly on consumer markets moreso than a manufacturing nation that does alot of product exporting, wouldn't not raising the debt limit have very significant negative impact on our ability to generate revenue (i.e., sell more loan interest bonds to pay off our debts?)

    Does this make sense?

    Note: "'[Edit]' removed a political insult. No information was removed the quoted text, nor was the explanation altered in any way.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 06-09-11 at 01:09 AM.

  10. #90
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,772

    Re: Republican mainstream flirts with brief default

    CORRECTION:

    In the above post, I meant "low interest bonds" not "loan interest bonds".

    Those late night posts...

Page 9 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •