As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[POTUS] State of the Union 2010: You guys stand and applaud! You guys stay seated.

12526272931

Posts

  • lonelyahavalonelyahava Call me Ahava ~~She/Her~~ Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Not so far-fetched, Henroid. That's what the person is.

    But the Office is a bit more. At least, as far as I am concerned.

    But then, I enjoy the theatre involved in the Presidency. I enjoy the pomp and circumstance and stagecraft. Which is probably why I focused on that in the Repub Response the other night.

    lonelyahava on
  • Raiden333Raiden333 Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Look, I'm not arguing for a monarchy, I'm not arguing for a coronation, I'm simply saying that Should the President do a monthly "Question the President" thing, the White House needs to keep it staged in such a way that it's obvious who is the President.

    Just look for the black guy.

    Raiden333 on
    There was a steam sig here. It's gone now.
  • YougottawannaYougottawanna Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    I don't think we should try an ape the Prime Minister's questions just for the sake of aping them, but having something like this happen more often is a good idea. Several times a year IMO

    Yougottawanna on
  • lonelyahavalonelyahava Call me Ahava ~~She/Her~~ Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Raiden333 wrote: »
    Look, I'm not arguing for a monarchy, I'm not arguing for a coronation, I'm simply saying that Should the President do a monthly "Question the President" thing, the White House needs to keep it staged in such a way that it's obvious who is the President.

    Just look for the black guy.

    next Phalla buddy, you're so going down.


    So, a quarterly congressional town hall?

    I can get behind that.

    But it has to be something maybe even less formal than this, otherwise, the SotU and other Presidential Addresses lose their weight and impact. And if you're in the press office, that's a bad thing.

    lonelyahava on
  • MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    Would you agree that we have a rotating cast of leaders that shift every four or eight years?

    We never have a single leader at any point in time, because our form of government separates its powers into distinct offices.

    Hell, for a while Sandra Day O'Connor was probably the most powerful person in America.

    MrMister on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    The office itself deserves a bit more respect and deference. Not the man, the Office.
    The only respect the office should have is the power that comes with it.
    The Presidency is the face of our nation, the Office is the most powerful position in the country as far as recognition nationally and internationally.
    So are the vast majority of prime minister positions. Nobody gives a shit about most monarchs and the vast majority of parliamentary democracies don't have them.

    And you don't think that the power that comes with the office of the Presidency deserves a bit more respect than a congressman?

    The congressman/senator was elected by a small portion of the population, the President was elected by a majority of the nation's population.

    Now, I don't know a whole lot about parliamentary governments like Britain or Canada, but isn't the PM decided by whoever wins the majority of seats in parliament, and is not really chosen by the people?

    How is somebody who is chosen by the entire country not more powerful than a PM who was chosen by his fellow representatives?

    And no, most people don't give a shit about monarchs.



    Look, I'm not arguing for a monarchy, I'm not arguing for a coronation, I'm simply saying that Should the President do a monthly "Question the President" thing, the White House needs to keep it staged in such a way that it's obvious who is the President.

    I'm merely saying that it's a good idea, but the stagecraft of it is tricky. Perception is everything. And keeping the public perception of the President being the leader of the country should be the first thing in the White House's mind.

    Why?

    I mean, your only objection here seems to be ... the venue.

    Just run it out whereever the fuck he gives the State of the Union from. It's well set up for it.

    What's wrong with the President standing up there and fielding questions from the people who represent the country?

    shryke on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2010
    Russia has an annual thing where the president spends four days answering questions. I believe every member of the legislature gets a question.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • YougottawannaYougottawanna Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    I think more engagement will mean we gain more in quality of political discourse than we lose in gravitas of the office of the president, which is a resource of dubious net practical value IMO

    Yougottawanna on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Not so far-fetched, Henroid. That's what the person is.

    But the Office is a bit more. At least, as far as I am concerned.

    But then, I enjoy the theatre involved in the Presidency. I enjoy the pomp and circumstance and stagecraft. Which is probably why I focused on that in the Repub Response the other night.

    Why? What purpose does it serve past a certain point?

    shryke on
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Would you agree that we have a rotating cast of leaders that shift every four or eight years?

    We never have a single leader at any point in time, because our form of government separates its powers into distinct offices.

    Hell, for a while Sandra Day O'Connor was probably the most powerful person in America.
    I s'pose it depends on how you define "leader."

    I'm watching this video and is Mark Pence a mentally retarded silly goose or just a regular silly goose? I mean,

    "I saw this black kid earlier today and when I mentioned you his EYES LIT UP! Why are you destroying America? Think about the little black kid I just mentioned!"

    Qingu on
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Wait a minute, Obama had a meeting with the Congress where he got to directly address them about shit and they got to do the same to him? FUCK.

    Henroid on
  • Raiden333Raiden333 Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    next Phalla buddy, you're so going down.

    Oh you say that like it would be a change from the status quo. :P

    Raiden333 on
    There was a steam sig here. It's gone now.
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Would you agree that we have a rotating cast of leaders that shift every four or eight years?

    We never have a single leader at any point in time, because our form of government separates its powers into distinct offices.

    Hell, for a while Sandra Day O'Connor was probably the most powerful person in America.

    We also have 50 distinct states each with their own government. There are also federal elections every two years.

    Couscous on
  • lonelyahavalonelyahava Call me Ahava ~~She/Her~~ Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    shryke wrote: »
    Not so far-fetched, Henroid. That's what the person is.

    But the Office is a bit more. At least, as far as I am concerned.

    But then, I enjoy the theatre involved in the Presidency. I enjoy the pomp and circumstance and stagecraft. Which is probably why I focused on that in the Repub Response the other night.

    Why? What purpose does it serve past a certain point?

    It's purely a personal thing. But it serves as a bit of entertainment I suppose. I'm a theatre girl, I've worked in the theatre, backstage, and I loved it.

    As a citizen of this country who elected this president, I want him to always look good. As a citizen of this country who did NOT vote for Bush, I still wanted him to come out looking good.

    Because he's the president.

    It's kinda like asking a Catholic why they like the pomp and rituals of a mass. It's just part of the experience for them.

    And yeah, my concern is the venue, but again, that's all from staging and perception. Not really politics, not really policy, but perception. No, using the format of the SotU for this kind of questioning would not work. Why? Because it would lessen the perceived gravity of the SotU and any other Addresses to the Joint Session.

    Politics is the art of the Possible. And it's the art of perception. For people like my parents who don't pay attention to the policy stuff, who don't follow along as wildly as we do here, the television images and the magazine images that they see are what they know about this presidency. The little clips and blurbs on NPR or the Nightly News, that's what they know and see.

    That's the perception that the WH Press Office needs to keep in their minds. It's a totally different debate from Policy, but it's still part of the Politics.

    lonelyahava on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    shryke wrote: »
    Not so far-fetched, Henroid. That's what the person is.

    But the Office is a bit more. At least, as far as I am concerned.

    But then, I enjoy the theatre involved in the Presidency. I enjoy the pomp and circumstance and stagecraft. Which is probably why I focused on that in the Repub Response the other night.

    Why? What purpose does it serve past a certain point?

    It's purely a personal thing. But it serves as a bit of entertainment I suppose. I'm a theatre girl, I've worked in the theatre, backstage, and I loved it.

    As a citizen of this country who elected this president, I want him to always look good. As a citizen of this country who did NOT vote for Bush, I still wanted him to come out looking good.

    Because he's the president.

    It's kinda like asking a Catholic why they like the pomp and rituals of a mass. It's just part of the experience for them.

    And yeah, my concern is the venue, but again, that's all from staging and perception. Not really politics, not really policy, but perception. No, using the format of the SotU for this kind of questioning would not work. Why? Because it would lessen the perceived gravity of the SotU and any other Addresses to the Joint Session.

    Politics is the art of the Possible. And it's the art of perception. For people like my parents who don't pay attention to the policy stuff, who don't follow along as wildly as we do here, the television images and the magazine images that they see are what they know about this presidency. The little clips and blurbs on NPR or the Nightly News, that's what they know and see.

    That's the perception that the WH Press Office needs to keep in their minds. It's a totally different debate from Policy, but it's still part of the Politics.

    Yes, but why are you in favor of pomp that gets in the way of what the government is actually supposed to be fucking doing?

    shryke on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    And you don't think that the power that comes with the office of the Presidency deserves a bit more respect than a congressman?
    No. It is what you make of the power that matters. All the power in the world is useless if you can't wield it well.
    The congressman/senator was elected by a small portion of the population, the President was elected by a majority of the nation's population.
    No. He was elected by a majority of the votes of the minority of the voting population who actually vote.
    How is somebody who is chosen by the entire country not more powerful than a PM who was chosen by his fellow representatives?
    What does power have to do with respect outside of making people want to suck up and kiss ass to those with it? Besides, who the hell elects you has little to do with your power except indirectly.

    Couscous on
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    The President is elected by the electorate, which traditionally follows the popular vote state to state. I think there's only been 2 or 3 times in history where the electorate did not follow a state's popular vote.

    Henroid on
  • lonelyahavalonelyahava Call me Ahava ~~She/Her~~ Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    the majority of the governance isn't really in the hands of the Office of the Presidency. He's the Head of State. His job is mostly ceremonial anyways.

    Yes, he has governmental responsibilities and decisions to make. But a little bit of show and tell is important to.

    And the Pomp that I'm in favor of doesn't really get in the way. It's the playing of Hail to the Chief when the President shows up. It's Standing when he Stands. It's the SotU being delivered with a sense of decorum.

    And yes, it's the subtle things that are done to elevate the President (the office) above others, as the Head of State.

    Those things don't get in the way of actual governance which is happening on Capitol Hill. In fact, they may just increase the effectiveness of it.

    But again, it's all in perception. You see a bunch of unnecessary fluff, I see things that are essential to not only presenting the President to the Nation but also to the World. Whether it be showboating, morale boosting whatever.

    lonelyahava on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    But again, it's all in perception. You see a bunch of unnecessary fluff, I see things that are essential to not only presenting the President to the Nation but also to the World. Whether it be showboating, morale boosting whatever.
    Nobody gives a shit about that stuff unless the president is below the standards of the rest of the world. The standards of the rest of the world are pretty much not looking like a slob and not sounding like an idiot/dictator. Hell, even then those standards usually don't apply if a person is attempting to be populist. At that point, they probably won't care if you go around in jeans and whatnot to look like one of the "common folk."

    Couscous on
  • devCharlesdevCharles Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    This whole thing appeared to be just a crap load of posturing by the republicans, starting right at the first damn question. The problem was that it wasn't really a discussion, which is what I wanted. The Q and A format made it so that every time it appeared they would finally get to the heart of an issue, the subject would switch to something else.

    The "credible economist" remark by Obama as being needed to think the republicans plan to be effective seems like that can be a very subjective criteria. I would have liked to see if a Republican could have responded with some names.

    The second republican made an interesting point about the spending freeze not really meaning all that much. This economic consensus remark by Obama is another one I want to know about. Where is this economic group that represents the consensus of economists? Who are they? It just seems like the meat of this issue was pushed to another date, which I found unfortunate.

    The freshmen republican's question and response was excellent.

    Another comment about "health care experts" makes me a bit apprehensive. The simple fact is that there will be "experts" on both sides of these kind of things, and I have a suspicion that those people will bring their own ideologies into the issues.

    In the end, most of the issues these republicans appear to have are with their democratic colleagues in the house and senate. One thing he said I really liked was that each side seems to delight in demonizing the other which prevents any real debate from happening. To me that shows a lot of leadership.

    I just found this quote indicative of my problems with the whole thing:

    "We have to go to an independent health care profession, republican or democrat..."


    I'm also annoyed that Obama said we had a budget surplus of 200 billion in 2000. We had a national debt around 5 trillion dollars. That was a yearly budget surplus as a result of money coming from social security. There was still a deficit that year. Bush and the republicans has grew the debt by about 4 trillion. It sounds like the republicans grew the debt by 9 trillion dollars over 8 years when phrased that way.

    devCharles on
    Xbox Live: Hero Protag
    SteamID: devCharles
    twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
  • YougottawannaYougottawanna Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Some people do give a shit about that stuff IMO

    But I think we can preserve some of the pomp etc... while giving the President more opportunities to engage with the opposition on policy. It's not an either-or decision, it's one of balance.

    Yougottawanna on
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Do you guys have a transcript of this? I'm dying to know everything said. >.<

    Henroid on
  • Raiden333Raiden333 Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    Do you guys have a transcript of this? I'm dying to know everything said. >.<

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/29/transcript-of-president-o_n_442423.html

    Raiden333 on
    There was a steam sig here. It's gone now.
  • YougottawannaYougottawanna Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Yougottawanna on
  • lonelyahavalonelyahava Call me Ahava ~~She/Her~~ Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    But again, it's all in perception. You see a bunch of unnecessary fluff, I see things that are essential to not only presenting the President to the Nation but also to the World. Whether it be showboating, morale boosting whatever.
    Nobody gives a shit about that stuff unless the president is below the standards of the rest of the world. The standards of the rest of the world are pretty much not looking like a slob and not sounding like an idiot/dictator. Hell, even then those standards usually don't apply if a person is attempting to be populist. At that point, they probably won't care if you go around in jeans and whatnot to look like one of the "common folk."


    There definitely are people who give a shit about it, Cous, and you know it.

    How many people flipped out about the little thing of President Obama bowing to the Saudi Prince last year? It's a little thing, but it's still part of the pomp that comes with being a Head of State.

    The perception of the President by the 'common folk' both here and abroad is a big deal. How many times did G.W. Bush get poked at and harassed for 'working his ranch'?

    Politics is an Art. And you have to be able to make all of it work for you. You can be the smartest, best politician in the world, if you can't sell it to anybody else, than it does your no good at all.

    Charisma, stagecraft, perception.

    lonelyahava on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2010
    devCharles wrote: »
    I'm also annoyed that Obama said we had a budget surplus of 200 billion in 2000. We had a national debt around 5 trillion dollars. That was a yearly budget surplus as a result of money coming from social security. There was still a deficit that year. Bush and the republicans has grew the debt by about 4 trillion. It sounds like the republicans grew the debt by 9 trillion dollars over 8 years when phrased that way.

    That's because you seem to not know what the term "surplus" means.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • YougottawannaYougottawanna Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    devCharles wrote: »
    I'm also annoyed that Obama said we had a budget surplus of 200 billion in 2000. We had a national debt around 5 trillion dollars. That was a yearly budget surplus as a result of money coming from social security. There was still a deficit that year. Bush and the republicans has grew the debt by about 4 trillion. It sounds like the republicans grew the debt by 9 trillion dollars over 8 years when phrased that way.

    That's because you seem to not know what the term "surplus" means.

    This bit confused me too. We had a deficit in 2000? Source?

    Yougottawanna on
  • devCharlesdevCharles Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    devCharles wrote: »
    I'm also annoyed that Obama said we had a budget surplus of 200 billion in 2000. We had a national debt around 5 trillion dollars. That was a yearly budget surplus as a result of money coming from social security. There was still a deficit that year. Bush and the republicans has grew the debt by about 4 trillion. It sounds like the republicans grew the debt by 9 trillion dollars over 8 years when phrased that way.

    That's because you seem to not know what the term "surplus" means.

    By all means, what does surplus mean?

    devCharles on
    Xbox Live: Hero Protag
    SteamID: devCharles
    twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
  • devCharlesdevCharles Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    history.gif

    That small dip you see in the ever increasing upwards trend in 2001 was social security money being used to pay down public debt. The national debt remained on the upward trend however.

    devCharles on
    Xbox Live: Hero Protag
    SteamID: devCharles
    twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    How many people flipped out about the little thing of President Obama bowing to the Saudi Prince last year?
    A bunch of silly gooses who forgot about it after five seconds. That "incident" had little to do with the relation of the people to the president. It had more to do with the relationship of the president ot other world leaders and a bunch of people not understanding how those relationships work.
    The perception of the President by the 'common folk' both here and abroad is a big deal. How many times did G.W. Bush get poked at and harassed for 'working his ranch'?
    Almost none outside of one or two stupid jokes. The whole two wars thing was kind of more important at the time with the ranch thing just being an example of his general incompetence. It had a "fiddling while Rome is burning" flair to it. It had nothing to do with him looking like a common person or anything similar to that.
    Politics is an Art. And you have to be able to make all of it work for you. You can be the smartest, best politician in the world, if you can't sell it to anybody else, than it does your no good at all.
    That has jack shit to do with deference to the president or anything similar. It has everything to do with being able to negotiate. Working on a ranch didn't hurt Bush. Being a complete prick to everybody else hurt Bush. All the pompous bullshit in the world couldn't help that.

    None of your examples has anything to do with making showing decorum towards the president or even making him look princely.

    Couscous on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    devCharles wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    devCharles wrote: »
    I'm also annoyed that Obama said we had a budget surplus of 200 billion in 2000. We had a national debt around 5 trillion dollars. That was a yearly budget surplus as a result of money coming from social security. There was still a deficit that year. Bush and the republicans has grew the debt by about 4 trillion. It sounds like the republicans grew the debt by 9 trillion dollars over 8 years when phrased that way.

    That's because you seem to not know what the term "surplus" means.

    By all means, what does surplus mean?

    Surplus/deficit is yearly revenue - yearly expenditure.

    > 0 = surplus!
    < 0 = deficit!

    Debt is accumulation of borrowed money to make up the (usual, and healthy in non-absurd amounts) deficits. Ta da! Two different things.

    The government made more money than it spent in 2000, though there was some accounting trickery involved. The Bush government spent an ungodly amount of money on five things without paying for them:

    1) Bush tax cuts the first
    2) Afghanistan
    3) Iraq
    4) More tax cuts
    5) Medicare Part D

    This created budget hell, which now the Republicans who fucked up the budget in such a fashion are now hypocritically bashing the President about because he didn't cut the rest of the government down to nothing during a fucking recession.

    Republicans are not serious people, and should be mocked.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Who the hell ordered Social Security money to be used to pay down on the national debt that year?

    I'm reading this transcript and it's making my eyes sore from how much words there is. I've also lost my ability to English.

    Henroid on
  • devCharlesdevCharles Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    devCharles wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    devCharles wrote: »
    I'm also annoyed that Obama said we had a budget surplus of 200 billion in 2000. We had a national debt around 5 trillion dollars. That was a yearly budget surplus as a result of money coming from social security. There was still a deficit that year. Bush and the republicans has grew the debt by about 4 trillion. It sounds like the republicans grew the debt by 9 trillion dollars over 8 years when phrased that way.

    That's because you seem to not know what the term "surplus" means.

    By all means, what does surplus mean?

    Surplus/deficit is yearly revenue - yearly expenditure.

    > 0 = surplus!
    < 0 = deficit!

    Debt is accumulation of borrowed money to make up the (usual, and healthy in non-absurd amounts) deficits. Ta da! Two different things.

    The government made more money than it spent in 2000, though there was some accounting trickery involved. The Bush government spent an ungodly amount of money on five things without paying for them:

    1) Bush tax cuts the first
    2) Afghanistan
    3) Iraq
    4) More tax cuts
    5) Medicare Part D

    This created budget hell, which now the Republicans who fucked up the budget in such a fashion are now hypocritically bashing the President about because he didn't cut the rest of the government down to nothing during a fucking recession.

    Republicans are not serious people, and should be mocked.


    Alright, then answer me this. If the government had no national debt, but had a positive amount of money in its place, what would that be called? I would posit that it would be called a surplus. Now, I'm not saying Obama doesn't know what it is, but I have a feeling that when people hear it when it's phrased that way do not think it's a yearly surplus, especially when it's followed directly by our aggregate national debt figures.

    I agree with everything you said after that, but the opposite of a debt is a surplus just as the opposite of a deficit is also a surplus.

    Who the hell ordered Social Security money to be used to pay down on the national debt that year?

    That's just common practice. Social Security surpluses are never put away just in case.

    devCharles on
    Xbox Live: Hero Protag
    SteamID: devCharles
    twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    That would be called savings. It would also be called fucking retarded policy.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Common practice isn't smart practice, isn't Social Security in a fuckton of danger now? Imagine if we had saved money from times where it wasn't needed as much. But that's another thread.

    I'm reading the transcript right now on this mo'fo, and I never thought I'd be impressed with "show me the math" as much as now.

    Henroid on
  • devCharlesdevCharles Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Republicans are not serious people, and should be mocked.

    Obama would be disappointed with that kind of language.
    That would be called savings.

    I'm not sure whose definition you're using. I'm speaking from an accounting perspective. A surplus is merely assets-liabilities. It doesn't matter if it's on a yearly basis or up to any given point. If we had extra money coming in and no debt to speak of, we would have a surplus of money.

    It's a semantic thing more than anything.

    devCharles on
    Xbox Live: Hero Protag
    SteamID: devCharles
    twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    That would be called savings. It would also be called fucking retarded policy.

    truth.

    anyways, this whole thing was awesome. Now if the house would just pass the fucking senate bill, I would really be happy.

    geckahn on
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    devCharles wrote: »
    Republicans are not serious people, and should be mocked.

    Obama would be disappointed with that kind of language.
    That would be called savings.

    I'm not sure whose definition you're using. I'm speaking from an accounting perspective. A surplus is merely assets-liabilities. It doesn't matter if it's on a yearly basis or up to any given point. If we had extra money coming in and no debt to speak of, we would have a surplus of money.

    It's a semantic thing more than anything.

    I mean I'm not aware of the US ever having a positive balance of overall liabilities. Maybe sometime in the early 1800s, but I doubt it. So I don't know why you would even think this is some sort of an issue, like there's something to actually be confused about.

    geckahn on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    Common practice isn't smart practice, isn't Social Security in a fuckton of danger now? Imagine if we had saved money from times where it wasn't needed as much. But that's another thread.

    I'm reading the transcript right now on this mo'fo, and I never thought I'd be impressed with "show me the math" as much as now.

    There's a reason your math teachers always told you to show your damn work. Though when I was grading math homework, I ran into two twins with the opposite problem: they showed waaaay too much work. Obnoxious.

    Anyway, social security is sort of facing a problem in the semi-near future. It's much hyped and overstated in order to try to destroy it though. Something like it stops running a surplus in 15 years, will actually run out of money in I think 2042 without changes. The easiest of which would be to just get rid of the cap on taxable income as far as social security is concerned.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • SavantSavant Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    I think reserves would be another possible term for a positive cash balance. I think the term surplus is used more for limited scope of having a positive return over a specific time frame or in regards to one specific thing being budgeted.

    When you are talking about the US Federal government budget, most of the time you are just talking about an annual surplus or deficit, unless some other timeframe is explicitly given. Trade surpluses and deficits also are typically annualized. I certainly don't conflate an annual deficit with the overall debt level, it is just changes it over a specific timeframe.

    China in particular has pretty sizable cash reserves in dollars, which it has been able to use for currency manipulation.

    Savant on
Sign In or Register to comment.