Aa
Hitting the Debt Limit: What Gets Paid?
WASHINGTON (AP) — In the summer of 2011, when a debt crisis like the current one loomed, President Barack Obama warned Republicans that older Americans might not get their Social Security checks unless there was a deal to raise the nation's borrowing limit.
After weeks of brinkmanship, Republicans consented and Obama agreed to a deficit-reduction plan the GOP wanted. Crisis averted, for a time.
Now that there's a fresh showdown, the possibility of Social Security cuts —and more — is back on the table.
The government could run out of cash to pay all its bills in full as early as Feb. 15, according to one authoritative estimate, and congressional Republicans want significant spending cuts in exchange for raising the borrowing limit. Obama, forced to negotiate an increase in 2011, has pledged not to negotiate again.
Without an agreement, every option facing his administration would be unprecedented.
It would require a degree of financial creativity that could test the law, perhaps even the Constitution.
It could shortchange Social Security recipients and other people, including veteran and the poor, who rely on government programs.
It could force the Treasury to contemplate selling government assets, a step considered but rejected in 2011. In short, the Treasury would have to create its own form of triage, creating a priority list of its most crucial obligations, from interest payments to debtors to benefits to vulnerable Americans.
"It may be that somewhere down the line someone will challenge what the administration did in that moment, but in the moment, who's going to stop them?" asked Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office. "I pray we never have to find out how imaginative they are."
In such a debt crisis, the president would have to decide what laws he wants to break. Does he breach the borrowing limit without a congressional OK? Does he ignore spending commitments required by law?
In a letter to Obama on Friday, Senate Democratic leaders urged him to consider taking any "lawful steps that ensure that America does not break its promises and trigger a global economic crisis — without congressional approval, if necessary."
The White House has resisted that path. It has rejected recommendations that it invoke a provision in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution that states that "the validity of the public debt of the United States ... shall not be questioned."
"There are only two options to deal with the debt limit: Congress can pay its bills or they can fail to act and put the nation into default," White House press secretary Jay Carney said. "Congress needs to do its job."
So what's left if Congress does not act in time?
Technically, the government hit the debt ceiling at the end of December. Since then, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has halted full payments into the retirement and disability fund for government workers and to the health benefits fund of Postal Service retirees.
The Treasury can stop payments to a special fund that purchases or sells foreign currencies to stabilize world financial markets.
Past administrations have taken such steps to buy time awaiting a debt ceiling increase. That happened under Presidents Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush. The government restored those funds after Congress raised the debt ceiling.
Those measures and others could keep the government solvent, perhaps as far as early March, according to an analysis by the Bipartisan Policy Center.
There are other extreme possibilities as well.
The federal government could sell some of its assets, from its gold stockpile to its student loan portfolio.
"All these things are in principle marketable, and in a crisis you'd get huge discounts on them," said Holtz-Eakin, now head of the American Action Forum, a conservative public policy institute. "They wouldn't be good ordinary business, but you would be in extraordinary times."
According to a treasury inspector general report last year, department officials in 2011 considered and rejected the idea, concluding that gold sales would destabilize the international financial system, that selling off the student loan portfolio was not feasible and that such "fire sales" would buy only limited time.
An idea pushed by some liberals would take advantage of a legal loophole meant for coin collectors and have the Treasury mint platinum coins that could be deposited at the Federal Reserve and used to pay the nation's bills. But the Treasury issued a statement Saturday putting the idea to rest, saying neither the department nor the Federal Reserve believes the law "can or should be used to facilitate the production of platinum coins for the purpose of avoiding an increase in the debt limit."
Once all efforts are exhausted, then the government would be in uncharted territory.
At that point, the government would continue to get tax revenue, but hardly enough to keep up with the bills. According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, the federal government between Feb. 15 and March 15 will get $277 billion in revenue and face $452 billion in obligations.
The Treasury would have to decide whether to pay some obligations and not others or to simply pay for one day's bills as it tax revenue rolls in, exponentially delaying payments the longer the debt ceiling is not raised. Under virtually every scenario contemplated, payment of interest on the debt takes precedence to put off a calamitous default.
"I happen to think the triage would be chosen to create the maximum amount of political pressure to break the impasse right away, which would be withholding Social Security checks," said Philip Wallach, a fellow at the Brookings Institution.
___
http://news.yahoo.com/hitting-debt-limit-bills-paid-160938609--finance.html
"The government could run out of cash to pay all its bills in full as early as Feb. 15, according to one authoritative estimate" Disturbing
....."and congressional Republicans want significant spending cuts in exchange for raising the borrowing limit. Obama, forced to negotiate an increase in 2011, has pledged not to negotiate again." Has pledged not to negotiate again? Really? I think it's totally fair and a reasonable exchange! You want to raise the borrowing limit, then what are you going to cut?? Come on, that's how real life works.
Imagine if individual families operated that way...with continued increases in credit limits, with no change in spending behaviors? What would happen?? Bankruptcy, foreclosures, poverty...
"In such a debt crisis, the president would have to decide what laws he wants to break. Does he breach the borrowing limit without a congressional OK? Does he ignore spending commitments required by law?"
I don't envy the position he's in, but if it comes to this because he and ther others cannot work together to come to an agreement, then shame on them. If Obama has to take these extreme, even illegal measures to keep us afloat, that's BAAAAD. That doesn't HAVE to happen...not when there ARE solutions and compromise.
This is some scary sh*t. If we cannot stay afloat financially, how in the WORLD can we expect to remain a world power? With this financial crisis comes REAL threats. We are making ourselves vulnerable because there is such a reluctance to compromise.
Unfreakingbelievable.
After weeks of brinkmanship, Republicans consented and Obama agreed to a deficit-reduction plan the GOP wanted. Crisis averted, for a time.
Now that there's a fresh showdown, the possibility of Social Security cuts —and more — is back on the table.
The government could run out of cash to pay all its bills in full as early as Feb. 15, according to one authoritative estimate, and congressional Republicans want significant spending cuts in exchange for raising the borrowing limit. Obama, forced to negotiate an increase in 2011, has pledged not to negotiate again.
Without an agreement, every option facing his administration would be unprecedented.
It would require a degree of financial creativity that could test the law, perhaps even the Constitution.
It could shortchange Social Security recipients and other people, including veteran and the poor, who rely on government programs.
It could force the Treasury to contemplate selling government assets, a step considered but rejected in 2011. In short, the Treasury would have to create its own form of triage, creating a priority list of its most crucial obligations, from interest payments to debtors to benefits to vulnerable Americans.
"It may be that somewhere down the line someone will challenge what the administration did in that moment, but in the moment, who's going to stop them?" asked Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office. "I pray we never have to find out how imaginative they are."
In such a debt crisis, the president would have to decide what laws he wants to break. Does he breach the borrowing limit without a congressional OK? Does he ignore spending commitments required by law?
In a letter to Obama on Friday, Senate Democratic leaders urged him to consider taking any "lawful steps that ensure that America does not break its promises and trigger a global economic crisis — without congressional approval, if necessary."
The White House has resisted that path. It has rejected recommendations that it invoke a provision in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution that states that "the validity of the public debt of the United States ... shall not be questioned."
"There are only two options to deal with the debt limit: Congress can pay its bills or they can fail to act and put the nation into default," White House press secretary Jay Carney said. "Congress needs to do its job."
So what's left if Congress does not act in time?
Technically, the government hit the debt ceiling at the end of December. Since then, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has halted full payments into the retirement and disability fund for government workers and to the health benefits fund of Postal Service retirees.
The Treasury can stop payments to a special fund that purchases or sells foreign currencies to stabilize world financial markets.
Past administrations have taken such steps to buy time awaiting a debt ceiling increase. That happened under Presidents Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush. The government restored those funds after Congress raised the debt ceiling.
Those measures and others could keep the government solvent, perhaps as far as early March, according to an analysis by the Bipartisan Policy Center.
There are other extreme possibilities as well.
The federal government could sell some of its assets, from its gold stockpile to its student loan portfolio.
"All these things are in principle marketable, and in a crisis you'd get huge discounts on them," said Holtz-Eakin, now head of the American Action Forum, a conservative public policy institute. "They wouldn't be good ordinary business, but you would be in extraordinary times."
According to a treasury inspector general report last year, department officials in 2011 considered and rejected the idea, concluding that gold sales would destabilize the international financial system, that selling off the student loan portfolio was not feasible and that such "fire sales" would buy only limited time.
An idea pushed by some liberals would take advantage of a legal loophole meant for coin collectors and have the Treasury mint platinum coins that could be deposited at the Federal Reserve and used to pay the nation's bills. But the Treasury issued a statement Saturday putting the idea to rest, saying neither the department nor the Federal Reserve believes the law "can or should be used to facilitate the production of platinum coins for the purpose of avoiding an increase in the debt limit."
Once all efforts are exhausted, then the government would be in uncharted territory.
At that point, the government would continue to get tax revenue, but hardly enough to keep up with the bills. According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, the federal government between Feb. 15 and March 15 will get $277 billion in revenue and face $452 billion in obligations.
The Treasury would have to decide whether to pay some obligations and not others or to simply pay for one day's bills as it tax revenue rolls in, exponentially delaying payments the longer the debt ceiling is not raised. Under virtually every scenario contemplated, payment of interest on the debt takes precedence to put off a calamitous default.
"I happen to think the triage would be chosen to create the maximum amount of political pressure to break the impasse right away, which would be withholding Social Security checks," said Philip Wallach, a fellow at the Brookings Institution.
___
http://news.yahoo.com/hitting-debt-limit-bills-paid-160938609--finance.html
"The government could run out of cash to pay all its bills in full as early as Feb. 15, according to one authoritative estimate" Disturbing
....."and congressional Republicans want significant spending cuts in exchange for raising the borrowing limit. Obama, forced to negotiate an increase in 2011, has pledged not to negotiate again." Has pledged not to negotiate again? Really? I think it's totally fair and a reasonable exchange! You want to raise the borrowing limit, then what are you going to cut?? Come on, that's how real life works.
Imagine if individual families operated that way...with continued increases in credit limits, with no change in spending behaviors? What would happen?? Bankruptcy, foreclosures, poverty...
"In such a debt crisis, the president would have to decide what laws he wants to break. Does he breach the borrowing limit without a congressional OK? Does he ignore spending commitments required by law?"
I don't envy the position he's in, but if it comes to this because he and ther others cannot work together to come to an agreement, then shame on them. If Obama has to take these extreme, even illegal measures to keep us afloat, that's BAAAAD. That doesn't HAVE to happen...not when there ARE solutions and compromise.
This is some scary sh*t. If we cannot stay afloat financially, how in the WORLD can we expect to remain a world power? With this financial crisis comes REAL threats. We are making ourselves vulnerable because there is such a reluctance to compromise.
Unfreakingbelievable.
All of it is hard to understand. I just keep thinking we can't afford it all and someone is going to be very angry that promises are made and we will fall short on them.
Romney's comments wasn't that he singled out 47% as non taxpayers, it was that he said they had a victim attitude and essentially no desire to improve their lives. That was offensive to me.
Yes, I agree it was offensive, and I believe it cost him dearly. There IS some truth in what he was saying...but he wasn't coming from a good place with his comments.
Yes, I agree it was offensive, and I believe it cost him dearly. There IS some truth in what he was saying...but he wasn't coming from a good place with his comments.
This explains it a little bit better Amanda:
The fiscal cliff has been averted, but at a cost. Most Americans will pay higher taxes this year.
According to the Tax Policy Center, 77% of American households will face higher federal taxes in 2013.
Here’s how it breaks down. If you’re an individual making over $400,000 a year, or a family pulling in more than $450,000 -- your taxes will increase by almost 5%.
Tax rates on capital gains and dividends for wealthier households will go from 15% to 20% under the agreement.
Every worker will see an increase in taxes. That’s because Congress let the payroll tax cut expire on December 31st. So for every $100 you earn in 2013, up to $113,700, you’ll take home $2 less than you did last year.
The debate over taxes was a major part of last year’s presidential election. President Obama did what he said and raised taxes on the wealthy. The question of who should bear more of the tax burden was a hotly contested topic. Is our tax system fair? And are the wealthy asked to do more while others contribute nothing?
It has often been quoted that almost half of Americans don’t pay federal income taxes. In fact, former Republican Presidential nominee Mit Romney created controversy last year when he described those that don't pay federal income taxes as "victims... who are dependent upon government."
The truth is most Americans pay taxes in some form or another, but not everyone pays the federal income tax. Bob Williams, a Senior Fellow at the Tax Policy Center, says “the income tax was set up in a way that allows people not to pay it by doing particular things.” Williams authored a report that found 46% of Americans in 2011 (47% in 2010) didn’t pay federal income tax because they took credits and deductions for things like, going to school, retirement savings plans, childcare and mortgages.
Here’s a look at how a family might end up not paying any federal income taxes.
If a couple earning $51,000 with childcare expenses of three thousand dollars a year for their two kids under 13. At that income level, the family would have a basic tax liability of almost $2,600. But after standard deductions, credits for childcare, this family's net tax bill would be -$12. The family wouldn't have to pay federal income tax at all in 2012.
In certain cases wealthy Americans who earn over $1 million don’t have to pay federal income taxes either. For example, if your business losses offset positive income or, if you’re given credit for foreign taxes to avoid double taxation.
Billionaire investor Warren Buffett believes the rich don’t pay enough in taxes. Buffett said his 2010 tax bill was $6.9 million. That was about 17.4% of his income. Even though that’s a lot of money, he was taxed at a much lower rate than 20 other people in his office. An average of 36% of their income went to taxes.
If all of this seems complicated to you, you’re not alone. Income taxes have been a point of contention in this country since Abe Lincoln and Congress introduced them 150 years ago. About the only thing Americans agree on is that the tax code has to be simplified.
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/just-explain-it/just-explain-why-taxes-most-rising-while-others-011121817.html
It boils down to the tax code needing revamped. It is NOT a fair system. The same arguments used against the rich, that they don't pay their fair share, due to various loopholes and deductions, apply to everyone else too. Only, there are way MORE people who are in the non-wealthy category, not paying taxes.
To generate revenue, really, some of the breaks and loopholes need reevaluated. And believe me, I take advantage of every deduction I can, because our tax burden is very high...so in reality, WE should be paying a lot more than we are. If we didn't get some of the deductions we do, taxes would almost break us...it shouldn't be that way.
The fiscal cliff has been averted, but at a cost. Most Americans will pay higher taxes this year.
According to the Tax Policy Center, 77% of American households will face higher federal taxes in 2013.
Here’s how it breaks down. If you’re an individual making over $400,000 a year, or a family pulling in more than $450,000 -- your taxes will increase by almost 5%.
Tax rates on capital gains and dividends for wealthier households will go from 15% to 20% under the agreement.
Every worker will see an increase in taxes. That’s because Congress let the payroll tax cut expire on December 31st. So for every $100 you earn in 2013, up to $113,700, you’ll take home $2 less than you did last year.
The debate over taxes was a major part of last year’s presidential election. President Obama did what he said and raised taxes on the wealthy. The question of who should bear more of the tax burden was a hotly contested topic. Is our tax system fair? And are the wealthy asked to do more while others contribute nothing?
It has often been quoted that almost half of Americans don’t pay federal income taxes. In fact, former Republican Presidential nominee Mit Romney created controversy last year when he described those that don't pay federal income taxes as "victims... who are dependent upon government."
The truth is most Americans pay taxes in some form or another, but not everyone pays the federal income tax. Bob Williams, a Senior Fellow at the Tax Policy Center, says “the income tax was set up in a way that allows people not to pay it by doing particular things.” Williams authored a report that found 46% of Americans in 2011 (47% in 2010) didn’t pay federal income tax because they took credits and deductions for things like, going to school, retirement savings plans, childcare and mortgages.
Here’s a look at how a family might end up not paying any federal income taxes.
If a couple earning $51,000 with childcare expenses of three thousand dollars a year for their two kids under 13. At that income level, the family would have a basic tax liability of almost $2,600. But after standard deductions, credits for childcare, this family's net tax bill would be -$12. The family wouldn't have to pay federal income tax at all in 2012.
In certain cases wealthy Americans who earn over $1 million don’t have to pay federal income taxes either. For example, if your business losses offset positive income or, if you’re given credit for foreign taxes to avoid double taxation.
Billionaire investor Warren Buffett believes the rich don’t pay enough in taxes. Buffett said his 2010 tax bill was $6.9 million. That was about 17.4% of his income. Even though that’s a lot of money, he was taxed at a much lower rate than 20 other people in his office. An average of 36% of their income went to taxes.
If all of this seems complicated to you, you’re not alone. Income taxes have been a point of contention in this country since Abe Lincoln and Congress introduced them 150 years ago. About the only thing Americans agree on is that the tax code has to be simplified.
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/just-explain-it/just-explain-why-taxes-most-rising-while-others-011121817.html
It boils down to the tax code needing revamped. It is NOT a fair system. The same arguments used against the rich, that they don't pay their fair share, due to various loopholes and deductions, apply to everyone else too. Only, there are way MORE people who are in the non-wealthy category, not paying taxes.
To generate revenue, really, some of the breaks and loopholes need reevaluated. And believe me, I take advantage of every deduction I can, because our tax burden is very high...so in reality, WE should be paying a lot more than we are. If we didn't get some of the deductions we do, taxes would almost break us...it shouldn't be that way.
So then wouldn't a sliding scale make sense? That's how we do it. Everyone pretty much pays in. They even charge an income tax on Unemployment Insurance and Welfare. However, I will say, if 47% of the US population is living below the poverty line, that in itself is a huge problem. Perhaps that should be addressed? And please do not tell me that 47% have no interest in working or bettering their situation, I know that to be false.
For me, the issue with Romney's comments wasn't that he singled out 47% as non taxpayers, it was that he said they had a victim attitude and essentially no desire to improve their lives. That was offensive to me. To raise a family on 28,000 is near impossible. Address that issue and you may have a solution to increased revenues, no?
For me, the issue with Romney's comments wasn't that he singled out 47% as non taxpayers, it was that he said they had a victim attitude and essentially no desire to improve their lives. That was offensive to me. To raise a family on 28,000 is near impossible. Address that issue and you may have a solution to increased revenues, no?
Yep, it's wrong. EVERYONE should pay their fair share. Even if it is a fairly small amount. If you add up a small portion of taxes for all of those people over many years, it would add up.
I don't know what the EXACT dollar-figure is, but if you make less than like $28,000, you don't pay federal income-tax.
It comes out of your paycheck each week/month, yes, but you get it ALL back at the end of the year, so in essence, you pay ZERO income-tax.
Yes... it's a travesty. You don't have to tell those of us that have lived here, and paid taxes here, our entire life!!!
And now you know why Romney's "47%" comment hit so close to home for a lot of people.
The folks that don't pay taxes (ie: don't have any skin in the game)... OF COURSE they don't care if everyone ELSE'S taxes go up, as long as THEY don't have to pay taxes, everything is kosher.
It makes me sick.
It comes out of your paycheck each week/month, yes, but you get it ALL back at the end of the year, so in essence, you pay ZERO income-tax.
Yes... it's a travesty. You don't have to tell those of us that have lived here, and paid taxes here, our entire life!!!
And now you know why Romney's "47%" comment hit so close to home for a lot of people.
The folks that don't pay taxes (ie: don't have any skin in the game)... OF COURSE they don't care if everyone ELSE'S taxes go up, as long as THEY don't have to pay taxes, everything is kosher.
It makes me sick.
Why do 47% of the population not pay any taxes? That seems like an awfully high number. Who is included in this?
No system anywhere can sustain itself when there are more people taking more money out of the system than there are people putting money into the system.
It IS that simple. I agree.
A piggybank will be empty if you keep taking out more than you put in it. Same premise.
We absolutely SHOULD take complete care of those in need...but the people who TRULY need complete assistance is a WAY smaller number than the amount who is getting it.
The more people we get dependent on gov't help, the worse off we'll be. Empower people, don't enable them.
It IS that simple. I agree.
A piggybank will be empty if you keep taking out more than you put in it. Same premise.
We absolutely SHOULD take complete care of those in need...but the people who TRULY need complete assistance is a WAY smaller number than the amount who is getting it.
The more people we get dependent on gov't help, the worse off we'll be. Empower people, don't enable them.
I think you're right. Something, anything... they've got to pay into the system and that's all there is to it. No system anywhere can sustain itself when there are more people taking more money out of the system than there are people putting money into the system.
I've heard people say that it isn't that simple, but I need to know why isn't it that simple? Because it's common sense? There is no gray area's here. This is one of those things that our elected officials don't want to do. None of them want to have their names on "controversial cuts". Party affiliation suggests that some want something cut while the other side wants something else cut and at the same time, these people cannot get on the same page. It's horse $hit.... there is no reason it can't be done.
I've heard people say that it isn't that simple, but I need to know why isn't it that simple? Because it's common sense? There is no gray area's here. This is one of those things that our elected officials don't want to do. None of them want to have their names on "controversial cuts". Party affiliation suggests that some want something cut while the other side wants something else cut and at the same time, these people cannot get on the same page. It's horse $hit.... there is no reason it can't be done.
Someone above me mentioned that "...revenue needs to increase as well..."
I'm curious where this "revenue" is going to come from.
Taxes on the "wealthy" have been raised. The "middle class" is looking at a tax-hike as well, from everything I've been reading (but apparently, even THAT won't be enough).
Only one place left to look folks... the 47% of the freaking country that doesn't pay a damn dime in federal income-tax.
We've got to DRASTICALLY cut spending, and start taxing the half of the country that doesn't have any "skin in the game".
My 2 cents anyway.
I'm curious where this "revenue" is going to come from.
Taxes on the "wealthy" have been raised. The "middle class" is looking at a tax-hike as well, from everything I've been reading (but apparently, even THAT won't be enough).
Only one place left to look folks... the 47% of the freaking country that doesn't pay a damn dime in federal income-tax.
We've got to DRASTICALLY cut spending, and start taxing the half of the country that doesn't have any "skin in the game".
My 2 cents anyway.
Stimulus? Maybe it did some good,(I don't buy it because the economy has righted itself before) but as for the definition of worse??? Had there been more stipulations and requirements to/of accepting stimulus, I think it could have been a lot better. So as it sits, the plan was worse than some options. But really, that's childs play compared to what's really happening.
Here we are a good distance down the road from the stimulus and things aren't all that well.
Here we are a good distance down the road from the stimulus and things aren't all that well.
I think the failure came in perhaps not attaching enough rules to the money?
I'll agree with that, and I think some of the stimulus was a good idea, sadly, like a lot of things in our gov't, a lot of it got abused, misused, and allocated based on who is in whose pockets. There was even some left over, but NO ONE can confirm what happened to it. It has been denied that it was given back.
We're just at such a crucial crossroads. What these guys do now will resonate for decades to come.
I'll agree with that, and I think some of the stimulus was a good idea, sadly, like a lot of things in our gov't, a lot of it got abused, misused, and allocated based on who is in whose pockets. There was even some left over, but NO ONE can confirm what happened to it. It has been denied that it was given back.
We're just at such a crucial crossroads. What these guys do now will resonate for decades to come.
I still think stimulas was the the right idea. I think the failure came in perhaps not attaching enough rules to the money? As always in gov't much went to waste, but I do think that had a lot of those companies been allowed to fail, the situation would be worse. To me it seems that so many more out of jobs and on unemployment would have cost more for a longer period of time. I'm no economist obviously, but I still think President Obama did at least prevent things from getting worse.
That being said, I also believe that strict budgeting is called for now. But where are the cuts made? It feels like both parties want spending cut, they just can't seem to agree on where to do it. Revenue needs to increase as well, at least in my opinion. So where does that come from?
That being said, I also believe that strict budgeting is called for now. But where are the cuts made? It feels like both parties want spending cut, they just can't seem to agree on where to do it. Revenue needs to increase as well, at least in my opinion. So where does that come from?
All of this makes me really wonder what one thought they'd accomplish with the stimulus bills. As we were giving that money away, we were accruing more debt by the minute.
And I've heard a lot of economists that are politically motivated say that you cannot run a government like a household. I say, why not? Spending is spending and budgeting in budgeting.
We are so far out of whack and it keeps getting weirder, more convoluted and someone keeps blowing more smoke up our butts.
And I've heard a lot of economists that are politically motivated say that you cannot run a government like a household. I say, why not? Spending is spending and budgeting in budgeting.
We are so far out of whack and it keeps getting weirder, more convoluted and someone keeps blowing more smoke up our butts.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the News from the past to the future to share and discuss Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
