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.
Not something I would be confused about, but I have a feeling that a not so small number of Americans might have the notion we went from having 200 billion in the bank to a 9 trillion dollar debt.
Honestly, it's not even a partisan thing. Hearing Bush raised the debt from 5 to 9 trillion dollars over 8 year still sounds about as bad as something like that can sound.
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.
I'm pretty sure we never have. I remember there being a graph of such things in my AP History book, but that was a long time ago and a high school textbook.
Anyway, the point is that if the government is sitting on cash like that something has gone horribly wrong/corrupt.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
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.
Not something I would be confused about, but I have a feeling that a not so small number of Americans might have the notion we went from having 200 billion in the bank to a 9 trillion dollar debt.
Honestly, it's not even a partisan thing. Hearing Bush raised the debt from 5 to 9 trillion dollars over 8 year still sounds about as bad as something like that can sound.
Dude, people have been hearing about how huge the debt is since at least the end of Reagan's term. It's so deeply ingrained in our culture I was vaguely aware of it in like, 1991, when I was six.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Dude, people have been hearing about how huge the debt is since at least the end of Reagan's term. It's so deeply ingrained in our culture I was vaguely aware of it in like, 1991, when I was six.
When I had my macroeconomics class here at UF, I remember someone asking my professor about money we had in the bank in 2000. It could be an isolate incident, but it's kind of stuck with me.
The easiest of which would be to just get rid of the cap on taxable income as far as social security is concerned.
God fucking damn it, any time there's a cap on something that's supposed to scale upward, my rage switch flicks on and I go RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RICH PEOPLE. I didn't even know there was such a cap on SS tax on income.
If a cap is placed in the opposite direction, so that people have money to freaking eat, no problem. Past a certain income point, % it out.
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.
It's been that way for awhile now.
Back in the 1980s, Alan Greenspan was tasked with making some changes to Social Security so it wouldn't run out of money, so what they did under Reagan was to increase payroll taxes, raise the retirement age, and make more of the benefits taxable. These tax raises and cuts were far more than necessary to cover those receiving current benefits at the time, so it gave surpluses with the supposed purpose of saving up for the coming retirements of the baby boomers.
However, the Social Security Trust Fund has a lot of smoke and mirrors in terms of budgeting along with this. The payroll taxes supposedly to pay for Social Security are simply added to the general pot of government funds, where the Trust Fund is given IOUs in the form of special US Treasuries to account for that. So basically the Trust Fund just has a number where it is the amount that has gone into the fund minus the amount paid out in benefits, and the money taken in through taxes is just shipped off to whatever else the government wants to spend it on.
The Trust Fund has had an annual surplus for awhile now, but the "crisis" of Social Security is that with the baby boomer retirements coming soon, it'll start to run a deficit. Which means that instead of having a money stream that the government will be able to squander on death rays, they'll actually have to start paying it back. It's an entitlement, which means that the coming retiring boomers are entitled by law to receive those benefits. It's not discretionary spending.
Of course, people are worried that "entitlement reform" will just be a backdoor way to fuck the people over by cutting benefits or raising taxes to cover for the squandering that has already taken place.
That's the real legacy of Reagan for you: cut taxes for the rich, raise taxes on the poor and middle class while promising them something in return in the future, but instead just squander that money on death rays and then die before the consequences have to be faced.
Also, did someone say earlier that Reagan wouldn't fit in with the current Republican party? No no no, he'd fit right in. Bush's presidency was in many ways the logical conclusion of what Reagan started. The monstrosity of the current GOP is more or less the child of both Nixon and Reagan, Nixon in terms of his Southern Strategy with its appeals to the ugly side of the political psyche and Reagan in terms of his domestic and foreign policies. Domestic policies being low taxation for the rich, borrowing tons of money while making an appearance of being fiscally responsible, and deregulating and privatizing anything and everything you can get away with; foreign policies being chest thumpingly patriotic to the point of jingoism, being really friendly with some truly awful foreign powers, and wasting ungodly amounts of money on military spending (privatizing a lot of that too for good measure).
I'm not sure if it would be to Obama's benefit to directly attack Reagan's legacy and the core of the GOP, but he seems to have taking the approach of subtly poking at it here and there while at the same time making appearances of being a nice guy. He sure hasn't put up a consistently leftist assault on the GOP's perversion that they call conservatism, no matter how you slice it.
Oh god Obama was just destroying them. I love when he's like "You want to cut taxes. To everybody. And somehow this won't make the deficit worse. Right." And when he talks about the republican solution. "So your health care bill supposedly covers 30 million people and doesn't cost a thing. I'm sorry, you are not magic. Your plan has to actually work."
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
Yeah that the republicans wanted to present their underwear gnomes budge, and healthcare proposals as real legislation is ridiculous.
I also liked how Matthews pointed out a nasty plan of attack on the congressman from utah. I'd say fuck it go with the nuclear option and nail that little disengenous bastard.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
The problem with not using deficit spending is that no matter how big the deficit is, it's always worth it for us to spend $1 billion to save $2 billion.
my (someone limited) understanding of the national debt is this. Almost every economist agrees that having some debt is healthy, and that if we let it grow out of control that would be really bad. Almost no one agrees on just how much debt is too much, though.
Pi-r8 on
0
SpectrumArcher of InfernoChaldea Rec RoomRegistered Userregular
my (someone limited) understanding of the national debt is this. Almost every economist agrees that having some debt is healthy, and that if we let it grow out of control that would be really bad. Almost no one agrees on just how much debt is too much, though.
Technically, so long as we have someone (in recent years China) to service our debt, it really doesn't matter. It's just a big number people are bludgeoned with.
my (someone limited) understanding of the national debt is this. Almost every economist agrees that having some debt is healthy, and that if we let it grow out of control that would be really bad. Almost no one agrees on just how much debt is too much, though.
Technically, so long as we have someone (in recent years China) to service our debt, it really doesn't matter. It's just a big number people are bludgeoned with.
well there's only so much debt that other nations are willing to service, though.
Debt does matter somewhat to me, since paying interest on it puts a hole in the budget. The trick IMO would be to wait until the economy's a bit better, then cut military spending while raising the top marginal rate so we can start paying it down.
However, the party who have appointed themselves deficit hawks typically likes to cut taxes while raising spending in a demonstration of completely hypocritical behavior...
I also liked how Matthews pointed out a nasty plan of attack on the congressman from utah. I'd say fuck it go with the nuclear option and nail that little disengenous bastard.
Oh hey, the C-span footage was 700 views yesterday.
Today? 38,200.
I think that's something like 50x their record.
It thought it would cap out at 9999 like RPG damage.
agoaj on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited January 2010
Can you guys explain how debt is good? I'm a little baffled at that.
Henroid on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited January 2010
I mean, the fact of the matter is, is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own party. You've given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you've been telling your constituents is, this guy is doing all kinds of crazy stuff that's going to destroy America.
Oh hey, he did put it out there plainly in front of them.
Too bad a quick browsing at Google saw that the media is saying Obama is 'trash talking' Republicans.
Can you guys explain how debt is good? I'm a little baffled at that.
It gives the creditor an interest in our stability. You don't go to war with a country that owes you a bunch of money.
It's the new MAD.
U.S. treasury bonds are also the safest place to put your money that exists. Rich people and corporations basically use the public debt as a savings account.
Can you guys explain how debt is good? I'm a little baffled at that.
It gives the creditor an interest in our stability. You don't go to war with a country that owes you a bunch of money.
It's the new MAD.
U.S. treasury bonds are also the safest place to put your money that exists. Rich people and corporations basically use the public debt as a savings account.
When I finally have an income, I'm loading up on those things.
MKR on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Can you guys explain how debt is good? I'm a little baffled at that.
It gives the creditor an interest in our stability. You don't go to war with a country that owes you a bunch of money.
It's the new MAD.
U.S. treasury bonds are also the safest place to put your money that exists. Rich people and corporations basically use the public debt as a savings account.
... what? You can withdraw money you invest in bonds?
Let's take this to the economy thread, I don't mean to veer this thread too much. I'm gonna quote this tree over there.
Henroid on
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited January 2010
Let's also keep in mind that every (developed?) country runs a debt, so we also own the debt of other countries, which helps the balancing act.
I mean, the fact of the matter is, is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own party. You've given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you've been telling your constituents is, this guy is doing all kinds of crazy stuff that's going to destroy America.
Oh hey, he did put it out there plainly in front of them.
Too bad a quick browsing at Google saw that the media is saying Obama is 'trash talking' Republicans.
I mean, the fact of the matter is, is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own party. You've given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you've been telling your constituents is, this guy is doing all kinds of crazy stuff that's going to destroy America.
Oh hey, he did put it out there plainly in front of them.
Too bad a quick browsing at Google saw that the media is saying Obama is 'trash talking' Republicans.
edit: oh shit, the cast of jersey shore will return for season 2! :winky:
Are you not entertained?
Cantido on
3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited January 2010
The thing I saw was from the LA Times, it made it to the top of the Google "Latest News" list when I went to the page. I was trying to find it again but all I could get was stuff on the State of the Union, which seems to be shadowing this Q&A.
Though, I do see an article from the Kansas City Star titled, "Obama's ineptness quite clear after one year."
Norway don't have a debt do they? I seem to remember them paying it off with their oil-money.
Norway still has a national debt as there are bonds issued years ago that its not cost effective to buy back. Norway is a special case though, in that its sovereign wealth fund dwarfs the outstanding debt and is litteraly to big to spend. Norway has got around 300 billion stashed away for a rainy day, but can't use most of it. If they do they wreck their own economy.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
It's something that needs to be seen by every fucking Republican in the United States
We all know how the constituents are going to react. They're going to accuse the House members present of not getting Obama when they had the chance, or being weak, or that they're now traitors and not representing them. This will especially be true if the lawmakers actually took this to heart and act on it.
It's sorta too bad I'm still not cooped up in the truck on my way here, 'cause I know I'd hear Limbaugh's big fat mouth go on about this topic. I bet he's already made a statement.
Henroid on
0
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
Posts
Not something I would be confused about, but I have a feeling that a not so small number of Americans might have the notion we went from having 200 billion in the bank to a 9 trillion dollar debt.
Honestly, it's not even a partisan thing. Hearing Bush raised the debt from 5 to 9 trillion dollars over 8 year still sounds about as bad as something like that can sound.
SteamID: devCharles
twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
I'm pretty sure we never have. I remember there being a graph of such things in my AP History book, but that was a long time ago and a high school textbook.
Anyway, the point is that if the government is sitting on cash like that something has gone horribly wrong/corrupt.
Dude, people have been hearing about how huge the debt is since at least the end of Reagan's term. It's so deeply ingrained in our culture I was vaguely aware of it in like, 1991, when I was six.
When I had my macroeconomics class here at UF, I remember someone asking my professor about money we had in the bank in 2000. It could be an isolate incident, but it's kind of stuck with me.
Edit: the quote chain was getting long
SteamID: devCharles
twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
God fucking damn it, any time there's a cap on something that's supposed to scale upward, my rage switch flicks on and I go RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RICH PEOPLE. I didn't even know there was such a cap on SS tax on income.
If a cap is placed in the opposite direction, so that people have money to freaking eat, no problem. Past a certain income point, % it out.
Also, he was you know, mocking them for being unserious.
They're very serious...about being unserious. Just listen to the first part of that first question.
SteamID: devCharles
twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
It's been that way for awhile now.
Back in the 1980s, Alan Greenspan was tasked with making some changes to Social Security so it wouldn't run out of money, so what they did under Reagan was to increase payroll taxes, raise the retirement age, and make more of the benefits taxable. These tax raises and cuts were far more than necessary to cover those receiving current benefits at the time, so it gave surpluses with the supposed purpose of saving up for the coming retirements of the baby boomers.
However, the Social Security Trust Fund has a lot of smoke and mirrors in terms of budgeting along with this. The payroll taxes supposedly to pay for Social Security are simply added to the general pot of government funds, where the Trust Fund is given IOUs in the form of special US Treasuries to account for that. So basically the Trust Fund just has a number where it is the amount that has gone into the fund minus the amount paid out in benefits, and the money taken in through taxes is just shipped off to whatever else the government wants to spend it on.
The Trust Fund has had an annual surplus for awhile now, but the "crisis" of Social Security is that with the baby boomer retirements coming soon, it'll start to run a deficit. Which means that instead of having a money stream that the government will be able to squander on death rays, they'll actually have to start paying it back. It's an entitlement, which means that the coming retiring boomers are entitled by law to receive those benefits. It's not discretionary spending.
Of course, people are worried that "entitlement reform" will just be a backdoor way to fuck the people over by cutting benefits or raising taxes to cover for the squandering that has already taken place.
That's the real legacy of Reagan for you: cut taxes for the rich, raise taxes on the poor and middle class while promising them something in return in the future, but instead just squander that money on death rays and then die before the consequences have to be faced.
I'm not sure if it would be to Obama's benefit to directly attack Reagan's legacy and the core of the GOP, but he seems to have taking the approach of subtly poking at it here and there while at the same time making appearances of being a nice guy. He sure hasn't put up a consistently leftist assault on the GOP's perversion that they call conservatism, no matter how you slice it.
I also liked how Matthews pointed out a nasty plan of attack on the congressman from utah. I'd say fuck it go with the nuclear option and nail that little disengenous bastard.
pleasepaypreacher.net
However, the party who have appointed themselves deficit hawks typically likes to cut taxes while raising spending in a demonstration of completely hypocritical behavior...
Today? 38,200.
I think that's something like 50x their record.
It thought it would cap out at 9999 like RPG damage.
Too bad a quick browsing at Google saw that the media is saying Obama is 'trash talking' Republicans.
It gives the creditor an interest in our stability. You don't go to war with a country that owes you a bunch of money.
It's the new MAD.
U.S. treasury bonds are also the safest place to put your money that exists. Rich people and corporations basically use the public debt as a savings account.
When I finally have an income, I'm loading up on those things.
... what? You can withdraw money you invest in bonds?
Let's take this to the economy thread, I don't mean to veer this thread too much. I'm gonna quote this tree over there.
Comparing anybody to Nordic countries is just unfair.
really? my google news has the christian sci monitor saying Obama in the Republican lions’ den: Obama 2, lions 1
edit: oh shit, the cast of jersey shore will return for season 2!
Are you not entertained?
Though, I do see an article from the Kansas City Star titled, "Obama's ineptness quite clear after one year."
Norway still has a national debt as there are bonds issued years ago that its not cost effective to buy back. Norway is a special case though, in that its sovereign wealth fund dwarfs the outstanding debt and is litteraly to big to spend. Norway has got around 300 billion stashed away for a rainy day, but can't use most of it. If they do they wreck their own economy.
We all know how the constituents are going to react. They're going to accuse the House members present of not getting Obama when they had the chance, or being weak, or that they're now traitors and not representing them. This will especially be true if the lawmakers actually took this to heart and act on it.
It's sorta too bad I'm still not cooped up in the truck on my way here, 'cause I know I'd hear Limbaugh's big fat mouth go on about this topic. I bet he's already made a statement.
There are only four countries that don't.
Brunei, Palau, Liechtenstein and Macau.
That's it. That's the whole list. Everyone else is in debt to somebody somewhere.