Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

United States loses AAA credit rating from S&P

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 518 posts

Re: United States loses AAA credit rating from S&P

#281

Post by mbreese »

seehafer wrote: post #266
dpark wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's fairly widely understood (though I guess not by Professor Krugman) that Medicare offloads some of its own costs onto the private sector by the below-market rates it pays providers. This is fairly widely claimed, but it's a pretty weak claim. Doctors are not required to accept Medicare. They choose to do so. They choose to accept the rates Medicare offers. When one party offers an amount for a second party's se…

They choose to accept the rates Medicare offers. When one party offers an amount for a second party's services, and the second party accepts, they have just established the market rate for that transaction. Not when second party holds a monopoly on a certain patient population, as does Medicare for the elderly. The healthcare market is so distorted by government intervention that calling anything a true 'market rate'…

Doctors don't have to serve that patient population... they choose to. (It is a huge % of the market though)

It's not medicare, but there have been instances where hospital systems have dropped (or threatened to drop) medicaid because accepting and dealing with it became too onerous.

Re: United States loses AAA credit rating from S&P

#282

Post by fabjan »

winestock wrote: post #72
geuis wrote: post #52

(Reference: http://www.federalbudget.com/ ) Steps to recovery: 1) End all offensive military actions overseas. Finish winding down Iraq and abandon Afghanistan wholesale. These actions have cost several trillion dollars over the last 10 years. We can't get that money back, but we can stop spending more. 2) Defense spending is in the top 3 highest budget expenditures. Cut it by 1 third across the board. Maintain impor…

You're more liberal than conservative. I'm more conservative than liberal. Bless your heart, I agree with all of your points. At the end of the Cold War, other conservatives were making the same noises that you're making now. For their pains, their careers were destroyed by the people who run the current mainstream conservative movement. Let's take a look at those points of yours. Points 1 & 2. Cut defense spending a…

Point 3. I don't know who these cool people are that you're talking about, "liberals" I assume. I find it hard to believe they will call you heartless if you socialize your health care to make it cheaper and available for all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_health_expenditure_p...

Re: United States loses AAA credit rating from S&P

#283

Post by aaronbrethorst »

onedognight wrote: post #129
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Letting the Bush tax cuts expire next year, and winding down operations in Iraq and Afghanistan would go a long way to balancing the Federal budget. As far as reducing the deficit goes, I have less insight into this. Except that making the Federal government's budget revenue-neutral is a critical first step.

> would go a long way to balancing the Federal budget > as reducing the deficit goes, I have less insight into this Balancing the budget is exactly reducing the deficit. It's the debt I suspect you have less insight into. Frankly it's an embarrassment that they could only agree lower the deficit by less than 10%. They are a long way from addressing the debt.

Yes, you are correct. Long day and I'm confusing terms :)

Re: United States loses AAA credit rating from S&P

#284

Post by orblivion »

winestock wrote: post #72
geuis wrote: post #52

(Reference: http://www.federalbudget.com/ ) Steps to recovery: 1) End all offensive military actions overseas. Finish winding down Iraq and abandon Afghanistan wholesale. These actions have cost several trillion dollars over the last 10 years. We can't get that money back, but we can stop spending more. 2) Defense spending is in the top 3 highest budget expenditures. Cut it by 1 third across the board. Maintain impor…

You're more liberal than conservative. I'm more conservative than liberal. Bless your heart, I agree with all of your points. At the end of the Cold War, other conservatives were making the same noises that you're making now. For their pains, their careers were destroyed by the people who run the current mainstream conservative movement. Let's take a look at those points of yours. Points 1 & 2. Cut defense spending a…

> The Cool People will double down. They will continue to double down until it is physically impossible for them to continue doing so.

That's why in some ways, watching the government on the brink of default is exciting. For once there's nothing the Cool People can do.

Re: United States loses AAA credit rating from S&P

#285

Post by redthrowaway »

geuis wrote: post #52

(Reference: http://www.federalbudget.com/ ) Steps to recovery: 1) End all offensive military actions overseas. Finish winding down Iraq and abandon Afghanistan wholesale. These actions have cost several trillion dollars over the last 10 years. We can't get that money back, but we can stop spending more. 2) Defense spending is in the top 3 highest budget expenditures. Cut it by 1 third across the board. Maintain impor…

The only problem with slashing military spending and ending foreign interventions is that it has been just that spending, and those interventions, that have made the US the economic powerhouse it is today. The US has a history, stretching back well over a century, of launching military campaigns to support corporate interests. Be it South America, the Middle East, or Asia, the US has invaded countries and toppled governments time and again in support of its economic goals. Now, I think this is reprehensible, but I also wouldn't be so naive as to say that the path to economic recovery lies in an end to military adventurism. The US is rich for the same reason Rome, England, and Spain were: they won their riches at the the end of a sword.

The American military budget is clearly unsustainable, but that doesn't mean an end to foreign wars is in their economic interest. It's no coincidence that the US has been both the most prosperous nation on Earth, as well as the most aggressive, for nearly 200 years.

Take a look at the history of US military actions on Wikipedia [1], and see how many times the phrase "protected American interests/property" is mentioned.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_milit...

Re: United States loses AAA credit rating from S&P

#286

Post by shareme »

geuis wrote: post #52

(Reference: http://www.federalbudget.com/ ) Steps to recovery: 1) End all offensive military actions overseas. Finish winding down Iraq and abandon Afghanistan wholesale. These actions have cost several trillion dollars over the last 10 years. We can't get that money back, but we can stop spending more. 2) Defense spending is in the top 3 highest budget expenditures. Cut it by 1 third across the board. Maintain impor…

1. 85% of the $14 Trillion deficit over the past 3 years was not any items you described but these items:

-TARP

Until we decide to have the bank lobbyists pay for their transgressions we will continue to be in deficit no matter what entitlement cuts are passed.

Two options:

Right now individuals pay 2/3rds of gov expenditures not corporations.

1. Reform corp tax law. There should be no Google or MSFT only paying 5% instead of the full 30% corp tax.

2. Reform internet sales tax. If states have adequate tax revenue than the Education and Medical entitlements on the Fed level can be cut back.

Re: United States loses AAA credit rating from S&P

#288

Post by mbreese »

winestock wrote: post #206
trevelyan wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you - as a conservative - consider it rational to cut social security? The program is popular and self-sustaining. and if you read the trustees' reports you'll see it has been in surplus and perfectly solvent since 1985. In a few years it will stop generating surplus revenue for a few decades as the baby boomers move through the system, but it isn't threatened with insolvency. There is an ethical problem with…

First, both parties have raided Social Security, not just Republicans. In fact, both parties have been complicit in the government's financial misfeasance for a long time. Second, you mention the money "to pay back the workers who contributed." There was never any money to pay back. Social Security was always a pay-as-you-go system. Current revenue pays for current appropriations. There was never any "trust fund," an…

You do realize that most Treasury IOU's are also called bonds, right? There are also two trust funds that comprise social security: the old-age fund and the disability fund. They each buy special issue securities from the government, but have also bought public bonds in the past. The securities have always been paid back with interest. If the Federal gov't ever didn't pay one of these securities, it would be a default by the gov't.

It would be interesting if these funds could invest (limited amounts) in some other type of security, but for now, they are limited to Federal securities. Imagine the sway on the market a $2.7 trillion fund would have.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html#n7

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/specialissues.html

Re: United States loses AAA credit rating from S&P

#289

Post by dpark »

seehafer wrote: post #266
dpark wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's fairly widely understood (though I guess not by Professor Krugman) that Medicare offloads some of its own costs onto the private sector by the below-market rates it pays providers. This is fairly widely claimed, but it's a pretty weak claim. Doctors are not required to accept Medicare. They choose to do so. They choose to accept the rates Medicare offers. When one party offers an amount for a second party's se…

They choose to accept the rates Medicare offers. When one party offers an amount for a second party's services, and the second party accepts, they have just established the market rate for that transaction. Not when second party holds a monopoly on a certain patient population, as does Medicare for the elderly. The healthcare market is so distorted by government intervention that calling anything a true 'market rate'…

How much of the patient population does Aetna have a "monopoly" on? How about Keiser? Medicare most certainly does not have a monopoly on healthcare. Not for any reasonable definition of "monopoly".

And again, doctors do not have to accept Medicare. It doesn't matter how "monopolistic" Medicare is. There's no force that makes doctors accept it. They can simply decline to accept Medicare just as they can Aetna. If Aetna pays below the rate a doctor is willing to accept, then they simply don't work with Aetna. The same applies to Medicare.

Re: United States loses AAA credit rating from S&P

#290

Post by Someone »

dreamdu5t wrote: post #276
gnosis wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You forgot the War on Drugs. Get rid of it, free all the people in prison for non-violent drug-related offenses, and tax the newly legalized drugs. This should free up a lot of money that's being wasted on ruining people's lives right now, and make more money from taxing legal drugs. As a bonus, it'll get rid of a lot of organized crime. Witness what happened with the repeal of Prohibition.

The war on drugs is only 0.5% (approx. $18 billion) of the Federal budget (approx. $3,456 billion), so it's inconsequential to our debt crisis. I whole heartedly agree that drug prohibition should be repealed, and that we need to put an end to the war on (some) drugs. But, the military, social security, and medicare comprise approx. 70% of the budget, so it's really not going to help us solve the debt.

I think indirect costs are higher than that. Prisons, for example, cost over 60 billion a year. Legalize cannabis, and I guess you can easily cut that by 25% (I know those costs probably are not federal, but do not think that matters. If your kid overspends, your family suffers)

Also, the 'It is only a small fraction' argument is weak. If you really try, you can cut the entire budget into smaller parts.

Post reply on HN