If Carney wants to have a reputation of integrity, he'll have to resign (but Obama won't like it). He can plead that he was kept in the dark by Obama, but Obama doesn't want him to do so. If he resigns, he's king of implying that he was kept in the dark. If he doesn't resign, the fact that stories coming from him keep changing, will damage his credibility, except as someone who'll fall on the sword for his maximum leader.

So far the government has been bailing out the banks in numerous ways, at taxpayer expense. Governments have been pressuring banks to "invest" in government bonds rather than in the private sector. Once there's a sufficient mount of government debt on the bank balance sheet, there's no guarantee that government won't let the banks fail by not paying back their loans, as there may be some pressure to avoid inflating away the debt, simply because if government lets interest rates rise, it will be rolling over its debt at higher rates. To deal with toxic government debt, will government buy back its own debt via printed dollars?

One must distinguish between behavior that harms others, voluntary transactions, and morality. That we don't have laws prohibiting voluntary transactions that are immoral (e.g. purchasing sex when one is married; thus, committing adultery) doesn't mean one should engage in them. Just like we don't have a law saying don't poke out your own eyes with a pencil, that we don't have it doesn't mean you should do it. Laws are meant to protect us from others who harm us, not to protect us from ourselves, and not as a gauge as to what's right and wrong, or moral and immoral.

People in government, especially politicians, see opportunity to increase their power, budget and fatten their wallets when some crisis is predicted, because it provides an excuse for them to control us, to supposedly protect us. Thus, they banned DDT to protect us in the sense that it affects bird fertility, and if the birds die, there goes our ecosystem. Way overblown of course, but those who want more government prefer it that way.

While I agree that our government has generally moved in a statist direction for the past 100 years, it's not true that it always moves in that direction. I could give many examples, but how about the Citizens United case restoring our freedom to speak (or more accurately removing limits on our contribuitons to organizaitons educating voters) and maintaining our anonymonity if we so desire? Wasn't that a movement towards freedom and the checks and balances designed by our founders?

First of all, there's also silver. I calculate that about 8.5 trillion dollars worth of gold and silver have been produced. M0, being the amount of notes/coins in circulation, is about 3 trillion. Secondly, if the government isn't inflating the money supply, then many people will prefer to hold fiat notes which are smaller and weigh less. Finally, even if there isn't enough gold and silver to redeem all the fiat notes, it's very unliely that people will abandon fiat notes provided the government doesn't inflate the currency. Which is the beauty of metal backed currency: it prevents the government from inflating too much because people will abandon the paper.

Buchanan assumes that Obama was a mere spectator. I think the facts may come out that he orchestrated every one of these scandals and cover ups. But it will depend on Congress to do so, and given the statist leanings of Boehner and the vast majority in Congress, it's possible the House won't pursue the truth. Obama won't prosecute the low level offenders, because they will then squeal who ordered them to act. But since Obama won't hold anyone accountable, the press will keep digging into the story. He'll try to create fake fall guys like Miller who was planning to leave anyway, and suffered no financial penalty.

Glad to see you're equating government force with criminality, as both use force against individuals to take from them. In fact all government action is force against individuals, if simply to collect the taxes to pay for the action. I want to punch those in government who are forcing me to do things their way, and threaten me with jail for what would be otherwise moral, voluntary and desired transactions among individuals. And I'd like to punch those who voted to use government to steal from some, only to give it to others. They are thieves.

Do you have a link to backup your assertion that changes in premiums don't affect a plan's grandfathered status?

You should know that after the Americans with Disability Act was passed, hiring of the disabled declined. It's simple to understand why this unintended consequence occurred. By getting involved in hiring of the disabled, employers are now afraid of being sued, where they couldn't have been sued before, by not providing sufficient "accommodation" to the disabled. What do you think the accommodation is for a blind guy, or maybe partly blind, who wants to drive a taxi? Or how about an alcoholic captain of an oil tanker? They are lawsuits waiting to happen.