It's not about the money. by 1kiki

Quote:
Kiki:

Just a short while ago by historical standards, the federal government was in the black and paying down its debt. The end of all federal debt was in sight - down the road, but clearly in the future. That was a wonderful time, a mere decade or so ago.

Kiki,

This is not a defense of republicans, but an attakc on Clinton, when i say:

This is utter nonsense. It's complete propaganda. Runaway spending was going full tilt during the Clinton year, as it did duning all the Greenspan years, though not nearly as bad as during the Bernanke years as we now know. the only other years that created debt were under FDR.

Clinton added over a trillion to the debt. The only thing is, to make it look like he wasnt adding even *more* to the debt was that he robbed the social security trust fund to cover war expenses and sold off key american assets like the US gold supply, oil reservers, military bases and US ports.

Clintonominics was barely better than Bernie Madoff, and probably worse than having Al Capone run the economy.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 9, 2011 11:57 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Can you prove that what today's Tea Party wants would actually bring down the debt? That giving more tax cuts to the rich and handing virtually everything over to corporations would have any noticeable effect on bringing down the debt?

But you buy that pensions are "killing the states", that Social Security and Medicare should be privatized and dependent on Wall Street, I assume? You think that private enterprise will police itself and keep our air and water clean on their own? Yeah, the EPA's not great at it, but you want nothing at all, I take it?

Paul Ryan: "This isn't a budget, it's a CAUSE". He admits it straight up. It's not about jobs, as they promised, they just wanted to get into power to slather the country with their own agenda:

Slash education

Slash the arts

Slash Medicare

Slash Social Security

Tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires

Tax breaks for companies

Slash oversight of corporations

Subsidies for corporations

Break unions

Ship jobs to China

Make laws to deny women's healthcare, of which only a small portion is abortion providing.

Starve the poor

Deregulate Wall Street

Deregulate the EPA

Shut down the government

Perhaps the right wingers on this board can explain what the goal is? That was rhetorical; I already know the goal, but what does the above have to do with JOBS?? Besides sending them to China? And what kind of unskilled jobs will replace them?

We're self-destructing, and the Conservatives are pushing us over the cliff. Never in my wildest dreams did I believe my fellow countrymen could be so well duped and so blind.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 9, 2011 12:06 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

How did he do it? By raising taxes on the rich, raising the minimum wage which stimulated the economy and brought in revenue, and cutting military spending.

Clinton did do those things, and there was a economic boost, but it wasn't the cause & effect that you think.

Clinton benefited from a bit of good luck, incredible technological advances ( thank you, Bill Gates ), some crafty interest rate manipulation, and the dot com bubble.

Only a fool would think that by repeating what Clinton did that we'd see anything remotely like what we saw in the 90's. Not a chance in hell.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 9, 2011 1:06 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:
Kiki:

Just a short while ago by historical standards, the federal government was in the black and paying down its debt. The end of all federal debt was in sight - down the road, but clearly in the future. That was a wonderful time, a mere decade or so ago.

Kiki,

This is not a defense of republicans, but an attakc on Clinton, when i say:

This is utter nonsense. It's complete propaganda. Runaway spending was going full tilt during the Clinton year, as it did duning all the Greenspan years, though not nearly as bad as during the Bernanke years as we now know. the only other years that created debt were under FDR.

Clinton added over a trillion to the debt. The only thing is, to make it look like he wasnt adding even *more* to the debt was that he robbed the social security trust fund to cover war expenses and sold off key american assets like the US gold supply, oil reservers, military bases and US ports.

Clintonominics was barely better than Bernie Madoff, and probably worse than having Al Capone run the economy.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

The *only* other years that created debt were under FDR?

What were you saying about "utter nonsense"? We've had debt from Day One in this country. This nation was BUILT on debt, founded on it, in fact. On the first day this nation WAS a nation, we were $75,000,000 in debt. There's never been a moment when we were out of debt since.

The Social Security trust fund was robbed first in 1968, and has been robbed blind ever since, by both parties. The only reason there's any "crisis" at all in Social Security is because the money was spent (an awful lot of it on Iraq and Afghanistan), and once the economy collapsed in '07/'08, it really couldn't be repaid, and even MORE had to be robbed to make it keep looking like the banks were solvent.

If Clinton added a trillion to the national debt, that would practically be a new LOW in modern times.

Heck, Paul Ryan, that great bastion of cutting and saving, has proposed a budget plan that would leave the nation more than $5 trillion further in debt over the next five years. In his rush to be hailed as a fiscal savior, he's hoping to outspend everybody else as he shows us all how to spend our way to riches.

ETA: By the way, when it comes to increasing the percentage of the national debt, nobody holds a candle to ol' Honest Abe, who caused the debt to go from under ninety million to almost 2.7 BILLION, an increase of over 3000%! That's some damn fine fiscal conservatism right there...

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 9, 2011 1:15 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Only a fool would think that by handing the country over to the rich, Tea Party neophites and corporations, we would in any way lower the debt.

Clinton's entire boom was because he had a bit of good luck, eh? Wow...how simplistic can you get! So of course Bush's disasterous handling of the economy, Iraq, and the country, and the horrific position he left us in, was only because he had a bit of BAD luck, nothing more. Right.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 10, 2011 10:12 AM

Mike

People borrow money, yes, but that does not mean they are in perpetual debt. Nominal debts have been both borrowed and paid off many times in US history. I thought about Abe when I posted it, but his debt did not remain, so I didn't count it, as it is not a part of our debt.

FDR borrowed a new 2 trillion 2000 dollars, and that was the only incident of creating long term debt in this country until Greenspan. Greenspan made it national policy. The rate of debt creation during Greenspan is a straight line. In 2006, policy changed, because Bernanke took over, and the rate of debt increase about doubled.

IMHO, that's because Greenspan wanted to endlessly collect interest on sustainable debt. I think Bernanke intends to crash the American economy, and buy it up on the cheap, during a fabricated depression.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 10, 2011 10:13 AM

Niki

You win the strawman award. You just created an argument, and then argued against it.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 10, 2011 11:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Mike

People borrow money, yes, but that does not mean they are in perpetual debt. Nominal debts have been both borrowed and paid off many times in US history. I thought about Abe when I posted it, but his debt did not remain, so I didn't count it, as it is not a part of our debt.

FDR borrowed a new 2 trillion 2000 dollars, and that was the only incident of creating long term debt in this country until Greenspan. Greenspan made it national policy. The rate of debt creation during Greenspan is a straight line. In 2006, policy changed, because Bernanke took over, and the rate of debt increase about doubled.

IMHO, that's because Greenspan wanted to endlessly collect interest on sustainable debt. I think Bernanke intends to crash the American economy, and buy it up on the cheap, during a fabricated depression.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

Second try. Let's see if the ether can keep from eating my post this time...

I'm sorry, but what you purport bears absolutely no relation whatsoever to reality.

If you borrow money for a house, and borrow money for a car, and before you pay either of them off, you borrow money against your house loan, and trade the car in for a newer car before the old one is paid off, and do that in perpetuity, then yes, you ARE in perpetual debt.

Show me ONE YEAR in the history of the United States of America where we had zero debt. Borrowing money from a loan shark to pay off your credit card doesn't make you debt-free. This nation has absolutely been perpetually in debt. What else would you call it when we've owed millions, billions, or trillions from the day the nation was formed, in a single unbroken line through until today? Sure, we've paid some debt DOWN from time to time (very rarely), but there's never been a day when we weren't in debt. 220+ years seems pretty "perpetual" to me. Just because you take out a loan to pay off another loan doesn't make you not in debt. It just doesn't. It just makes you in debt to someone else.

As to FDR, you seem to be making up your figures out of thin air.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo3
.htm

Using some rough rounding, figure FDR coming in in '32 with $20 billion in debt, and finishing up with $260 billion. That's a thirteen-fold increase in the national debt, which should definitely be worrisome, although as Rappy points out, a lot of that can be chalked up to some incredibly bad luck (that whole Great Depression and WWII thing, natch).

If he borrowed 2 trillion dollars, then you should also credit him for paying back about 1.8 trillion of them. I'd say that's a pretty neat trick during some of the most trying times of our country.

Put that up against Honest Abe.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo2
.htm

He comes in with around 65 million dollars in debt, and dies leaving the country - HALF THE COUNTRY, that is - owing almost $2.7 BILLION. That's more than a 41-fold increase in our debt, or a 4100% increase. If you're going to hate FDR for his debt creation, you should probably hate Lincoln over three times more.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 10, 2011 3:58 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Ain't one, but there's this.

Quote:
In 1835, Jackson managed to reduce the federal debt to only $33,733.05, the lowest it had been since the first fiscal year of 1791.

And how do you think he did that, ehe ?

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 10, 2011 5:16 PM

By trying to abolish the central bank - which worked, for a time, but also led to wild inflation and a depression which almost immediately upped the national debt yet again...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 10, 2011 5:25 PM

Mike

1. I said "2000 dollars" See below on the chart were those 2 trillion are.

2. $19 to $258 isn't an increase?

3. Rolling debt is not perpetual debt.

Every time I have to pay taxes on property, that's a debt. I pay bills, they are always owing, that's a debt, as it is paid, I incur new debt, no?

That's different from borrowing into a hole so large that all I ever pay is interest on the debt.

Bernanke bump

this one shows post 1974 start point, the end of the gold standard, some do, some show a reagan-greenspan start, it seems to depend on how you weigh the figures. No chart seems to contradict the idea that Bernanke is a special disaster, or that FDR and greenspan were.

Here again, with the Bernanke bump
http://www.thefinancialphysician.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/U
nited-States-Government-Spending.bmp

Not arguing the honest abe, I agree. But the FDR debt is still owing.

This graph also dates to post-nixon-gold
http://www.die.net/musings/national_debt/

So I'm forced to concede that Paul Volcker is also guilty. He started in 1975 as the NY fed, and then the fed (which ny fed is 90% of), close enough for govt. work.

You can see Abe disappear. Nothing goes to zero, because there are always new expenses, just like you have new bills each month, all corporate balances are likewise. The only way to have no liability is to have no employees or services.

This graph is not acknowledging reality on the right side. The official GDP is 14.12 trillion. The official debt is 14.28 trillion. That's > 100%. Also, the US has now backed up to 8 trillion in mtg bongs, i mean bonds with fed guarantee, and up to 23 trillion in corporate bonds through tarp.

Also, we now have many forms of debt, 55.3 trillion, plus liabilities, which we didn't have until the new deal, >70 trillion. It's an issue.

ETA: Note the 2nd term of Clinton stunts debt growth. This is voodoo, and I don't credit it. When you sell off part of your country, its assets, defenses, etc., it's like selling off an essential part of your company, like the factory you are still using, it's still debt, because you still have to buy it back in order to be out of debt. As long as Britain owns are ports and China owns our naval bases, and Kuwait owns our reserves, the US is not independent and free from debt. We will need to buy these things back if we want to become independent.

Also, putting Halliburton in the military to replace the quartermasters corps just delayed the cost, and came back to bite us in the ass as far more money than it saved. Bill Clinton is directly responsible for making Cheney de facto president, which was of course his intention, as they are best buddies, as they both are with the Bushes. They're not even trying to hide it. Treating these people like opposition to one another is ... I'm at a loss for words
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 10, 2011 7:42 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

I find this graph fascinating. Looks like the problem really took off in 1982. Who was President then-- I forget his name? And it looks as if the problem was beginning to get under control in the late 1990's, only to jump off again in about 2002. Kinda confused about whose policies were in control during those years.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 11, 2011 4:48 AM

Point taken, except that the *way* Clinton balanced the budget was by selling off pieces of America and robbing the soc sec trust, which okay, lots of people had been doing. But his getting rid of the nat'l reserves, his sale of our ports and our military infrastructure to corporations and foreign govts. That's not on the chart, but it's no way to run an economy. If you wanted to set America right again, economically, you'd have to buy all that back, and it wouldn't come as cheap as it was sold, because the guys like their foothold.

Reagan was a big spender, but they all have been, since the fed started shifting monetary policy. One way to put that is no one has spent like Obama, who in two years has spent more than all the presidents since FDR together, and add in the debt he's accepted, he's taken on more debt than the history of the US combined.

Another way to put that is to blame it on Bernanke, since he's the guy in power. 2007-2008 was when the change really sets in. You could be partisan and blame the democratic congress, but that's just people with their mindless political mindset. It ain't the politicians, is the point I've been trying to make, it's the people setting monetary policy.

Clinton's voodoo trick can hide some debt, but doesn't stop the fact that we're taking on debt.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 11, 2011 6:03 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Seems this thread got jacked into debates about the debt, which is amusing because the point was that "It's not about the money". To me, it's not; it's about the agenda and manipulation for POWER. It seems so clear, given that after hollering "jobs, jobs, jobs" and getting elected on that, the GOP has headed straight for social issues, and now is using the economy only to eradicate what they don't like and give more to corporations and the rich. Maybe it's too late...maybe the Supreme Court's decision on Citizens is our death knell. Or maybe the better title would be "It's not JUST about the money", because while it's NOT about the money insofar as what they said to get elected, it IS about the distribution of money upwards.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 11, 2011 7:51 AM

OPPYH

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

Slash education

Break unions

I live in Michigan, and gov. Snyder is doing everything in his power to do the above. What a piece of work.

How about just eliminate the blue collar worker altogether? Super rich, and sub poor citizens.
That's what republicans are striving for. No more middle class.

----------------------------------------------------------------

70's TV FOREVER

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 11, 2011 10:54 AM

FREMDFIRMA

OPPYH, you ain't the only one, and don't even get me started about that pissant Mike Cox, grrr

That said, there's some intent on giving his ass the Elmer Parraghi treatment.
http://firericksnyder.org/

Of course, other folk whinge about the supposed difficulty of getting the signatures, but honestly, I'd fucking DRIVE sixty miles to Lansing, even on $4/gallon gas, just to put that much of a finger in the bastards eye - that financial managers bullshit is straight up feudalism, any way you slice it.

Wouldn't take long, neither, hehehe...
For the record, asking your security guy who is a former cabbie for a lift, and telling them it's a family emergency is not advised for the weak of heart, lmao.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 11, 2011 11:03 AM

BYTEMITE

Taxi drivers are awesome! It's paying a six dollar charge to ride a rollercoaster instead of the usual $40 plus for any cheapo amusement park!

The best time is when you actually get air off the top of speed bumps!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 11, 2011 12:04 PM

Niki,

Actually, it was the topic. Not a threadjack. If you want rid of the debt, it helps to understand where it's coming from. Seems the current plan is to stimulate the economy by borrowing more money and handing it to wealthy corporations. So far, that's not working out so well for us, but they're doing okay with it

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 11, 2011 12:45 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

Only a fool would think that by handing the country over to the rich, Tea Party neophites and corporations, we would in any way lower the debt.

Clinton's entire boom was because he had a bit of good luck, eh? Wow...how simplistic can you get! So of course Bush's disasterous handling of the economy, Iraq, and the country, and the horrific position he left us in, was only because he had a bit of BAD luck, nothing more. Right.

Sweetie, the commie err... 'community activist of chief' is exploding the debt, far more than did his predecessor.

Things Bush did wrong? I'll give you the farm subsidy bill, the prescription drug bill ( which , despite my strong objection, is looking pretty damn good now, compared to O-care ), the 'comprehensive immigration' debacle, Harriet Myers, and yes... inexcusable cost over runs in defense spending.

OK, a couple of those things didn't really impact the economy at all, but it felt good saying them.

Funny, but the economy was doing fine until the Dems took power. Pure coincidence, huh ? I'm sure you'd think so.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 11, 2011 1:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Niki,

Actually, it was the topic. Not a threadjack. If you want rid of the debt, it helps to understand where it's coming from. Seems the current plan is to stimulate the economy by borrowing more money and handing it to wealthy corporations. So far, that's not working out so well for us, but they're doing okay with it

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

Niki's point was that these fools DON'T "want rid of the debt"; that's nothing more than a campaign slogan they use to run on. Teabaggers have no interest in getting rid of the debt. If they did, they wouldn't be JUST about cutting spending on ONLY social programs.

If you really want to address the debt, addressing deficits is only one tiny piece of it. At some point, you really should start PAYING DOWN THE ACTUAL DEBT, because until you do that, you're just pissing away money servicing the debt and paying the interest on it. And to actually start paying down the debt, it would likely require more taxation, from everybody - including corporations.

But as Niki pointed out in the original thread, that's never been the REAL goal. It's funny, because you're arguing with her about it, while you actually agree with her that it's not the goal of any of these so-called "fiscal conservatives".

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 11, 2011 1:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Sweetie, the commie err... 'community activist of chief' is exploding the debt, far more than did his predecessor.

Things Bush did wrong? I'll give you the farm subsidy bill, the prescription drug bill ( which , despite my strong objection, is looking pretty damn good now, compared to O-care ), the 'comprehensive immigration' debacle, Harriet Myers, and yes... inexcusable cost over runs in defense spending.

Sweetie, you left out Iraq. That was one HUGE thing Bush did wrong. Cost us trillions. Of course, now that those bills are actually coming due, you want to just run away and cry about it, and pretend it's those greedy, nasty teachers who are robbing you blind, but it was you and your kind who did this, and fucked us all. But of course you'll blame it on the black guy. What else could we expect from you?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 11, 2011 1:23 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Kwickie -

Per usual, you're wrong re: Iraq

"Trillions"? Plural ?

Not even ONE , yet, and Bush has been out of office for over 2 years now. What's Obama done to bring the troops home ?

Oh, that's right..he's sent MORE over to the Middle East, to kill MORE muslims. Alright!

" [T]he aspirations of the Libyan people must be realised."

As for the aspirations of the American people ? Barry says - ' screw'em' !

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 11, 2011 6:01 PM

Mike

Agreed, but NO ONE who is running wants rid of the debt. This is because the debt is what controls the govt. and the candidates all work for the banks.

On paying the debt, I'm with Ron Paul, who seems to be slated to end up as the actual GOP candidate rather than the Tea Party, who keeps changing their minds, now they want Michelle "I'm dumber than Sarah Palin" Bachmann...

But the simple is: Debt we owe to China, Japan, etc. has to be paid, because we borrowed it.

Debt owed to the Federal Reserve is not owed, because it was inferred by the printing of money, which is very much unconstitutional. The power to issue the currency lies with the Treasury under direction of congress, not with a private corporation. I think that the banks should be *charged* for the interest which has already been paid to them, and that this money should be used to pay off the foreign debts.

That is, if you actually wanted to save the system. I would like to see the system destroyed because I think it's a war machine which has done nothing but slaughter non-whites since its inception, and will never ever change. The only good thing the US govt. could do is dissolve.

I spent some time recently economically taking apart the civil war, and I decided that it really came down to a conflict between land based capital yield and loan based interest bearing fiat, and that these two economic systems were in competition with one another, the southern one required slavery, and the northern one required taxation and war, and that both were basically unsalvageably evil, and there was no point in choosing one over the other.

That said, I vote we vote in state govts. that will write the constitution into their state constitutions, then enforce it, and get rid of this federal govt. by getting rid of its power to levee taxes. States do things I sometimes disagree with, but they never invade Afghanistan.

Anyway, yes, I agree with you and Niki and kiki here, I was just defending the not a threadjack of it, which was, it is a thread about the debt and how to deal with it.

That does mean understanding where it comes from, and that where is the federal reserve. Who is chair of the fed has had a tremendous impact on policy, esp. the new guy.

I think we need to end the fed, and they will never let us do that, so my other tack would be just encourage the corruption and bad behavior until the system collapses under the weight of its own decadence.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 12:33 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Taxi drivers are awesome! It's paying a six dollar charge to ride a rollercoaster instead of the usual $40 plus for any cheapo amusement park!

The best time is when you actually get air off the top of speed bumps!

Eff speedbumps, this is Michigan, and Detroit, you can get hang time off the damn POTHOLES, lol.

I've certainly given pause to a fare or two who offered me phat loot to make it to DTW in time to catch their flight, but the wildest run was taking someone FROM the airport - some nimrod snatched his laptop bag and booked, and when the perp jumped into the accomplices car, I kicked open the passenger side door and flicked the meter as a hint, he jumps right in and off we went - we chased him all the way onto I-94, off into Taylor, round and round while the Wayne County PD kept getting lost and confused, till finally they bogged down the (stolen) car and bailed out on foot - never did get them, but we got the guys laptop back, it was on the back seat, and he paid the meter, a hell of a tip, and bought dinner besides.

Damn I miss driving a cab.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 3:44 AM

BYTEMITE

That would make a good screen play.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 11:55 AM

Kane just posted something by this republican blogger youtuber guy, and it was pretty interesting, he does visualizations of fiscal policy, and here's his debt road trip. It's just an interesting way of looking at it. (Again, I think that this is not all the president's doing, and I think he grants congress an impact, I would add the Fed leadership as also being key)

ETA: Damn, video not showing for me. Anyone else having this problem?

Mike, You use firefox on Snow Leopard, right? Can you see this video?

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 2:03 PM

DT: Nope, no video - but I'm also not using Firefox lately. I've switched over to RockMelt. I dig it.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 17, 2011 9:23 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money. The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq, or $6,300 per U.S. citizen."

Now, this is out of date, final costs are estimated to be higher, which indeed puts Iraq into the trillions.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 17, 2011 9:31 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:

Funny you should ask -
Reagan 1981 1989
GHW Bush 1989 1993
Clinton 1993 2001
Dumbya 2001 2009

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 17, 2011 9:49 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

DT

If you look at TAX REVENUES and not the deficit you will see that TAX REVENUES went UP IMMEDIATELY after the tax increase was passed. And if you look at the deficit chart you will see that the deficit rates started to drop immediately after the tax increase as passed. TAX REVENUES have nothing to do with any sales you claim were done, and the deficit rate started to drop BEFORE any of those claimed sales.

Indeed, raising tax rates DID BOTH INCREASE TAX REVENUES AND DECREASE THE DEFICIT.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/taxes-and-revenues-another
-history-lesson/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 18, 2011 2:44 AM

Not to take arms against a sea of democrat true believers, but:

Sales I think took place? Where do you think Halliburton came from? You missed the Clinton deals.

I don't recall mentioning a tax increase, though any short term mind would see it raise revenues. Equally obviously, it undermines the economy, and reduces future revenues by destroying jobs, businesses and reducing the price competitiveness of American products and services sat home and abroad

I wouldn't balance a household budget by adding a mortgage or selling off the house room by room.

The goal of US govt. policy is to create as much debt as possible. This goal is set by advisors, who are bankers, and use this debt to control US policy.

I already posted the spending vs. revenue graph you're talking about:

http://www.thefinancialphysician.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/U
nited-States-Government-Spending.bmp

Sorry I couldn't find it in jpg format, but now here it is

Why anyone would want to take money from the poor and give it to the rich is beyond me, but that what taxation does.

Anyone who thinks that taxing the "rich" aka "high wage earners" takes money from the rich and gives it from the poor has not thought about it past the simplest level:

1) Taxes paid by anyone working for any corporation, lawfirm, hospital, etc. including internal to govt. are going to increase the prices of products and services.

2)The poor and middle class spend all their money on products and services, whereas the rich spend only a tiny portion.

3) Because of our tax structure, 75% of everything is tax. That seems like it would tax 75% of the poor's assets, but a tiny portion of rich's.

4) The wealthiest 1% of the population (300M) = 3 million, have 50% of the total assets ($60T) = $30T, = $10 million on average.

5) The top 1% of wage earners have earnings of 1 million. This figure like the one above it, is averaging in those who make $200,000 with those who make $200,000,000.

6) Lots of people with these incomes are part of the operating costs of places where you spend your money. If they were not taxed, those schools, hospitals, govt. agencies and corporations could operate on a far lower budget.

7) Sure, they would initially keep the money, but in all cases but govt, they would then face immediate competition with businesses which *did* cut costs, and would fail if they did not follow suit.

8) Now track where those dollars go.

Some taxes will also go to veteran pensions which I think fall under entitlements but come out of the tax revenue, or used to.

9) In addition to taxes raising the cost of all things in your budget by a factor of 4, they also decrease the value of the dollars you earn. If you are poor or middle class, the real 14% annual inflation rate means (compounded) that the dollar will lose half of its value every 5 years, and will do so in perpetuity, because of the debt, which requires the creation of more dollars, which is the where inflation really comes from. This should be self evident.

10) If you are poor or middle class, your primary asset is your "salary" which is valued in fixed dollars. If you're rich, you hold stocks, bonds, land or other currencies, none of which are valued in fixed dollars and are more or less exempt from this "inflation tax."

If you happen to get a raise, you might think that you are getting more money, but unless you get more than a 14% annual raise and pay no taxes, you're not getting a raise, but a slightly lower demotion each year.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 18, 2011 5:16 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

DT

I agree that when corporate taxes are raised (though not necessarily personal income tax) prices are raised to maintain profits. However, in the meantime the government has to borrow less and **IF** money is **ALSO** aggressively redistributed as services (or, if you raise the minimum wage like Bill Clinton) it takes one trip to the bottom before it recirculates back to the top. But that is where money has its function - in circulation. Money just sitting in funds or banks might as well not exist at all.

And I know you believe in the low tax mantra. But every chart and graph you show, and the ones you don't show, prove the opposite. When taxes on the wealthy are low - Reagan's 'voodoo economics' - the economy stagnates. When taxes are high, even as high as 90%, the economy thrives.

That is a consistent observation.

As for those sales - I did find that the MANAGEMENT CONTRACT of some ports were awarded to Dubai, but that was GW Bush, not Clinton.

Clinton did propose sell about 1.5B in gold, but it was IMF gold reserves, it was for debt forgiveness of poor nations, and it was to take place over 10 years. The Swiss were to sell off the biggest portion, other countries including the US were to sell off smaller amounts. I couldn't find a record of the proposed sale going through, but even if it did, it would account for a mere ~100M of revenue per year out of appx 20 trillion, certainly not enough to swing the US deficit around.

And so on. I have to go, but I want to say that all of your claims are without merit.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 18, 2011 7:23 AM

Quote:
I agree that when corporate taxes are raised (though not necessarily personal income tax) prices are raised to maintain profits.

Not what I was saying. When you have an "income tax" the corporations pay that tax. The workers don't. It doesn't matter who in the corporation pays it, whether it's the high or low wage workers. Whoever is not paying the tax, their salary will be slashed, so their post-tax income will remain the same, as will the amount that the govt. is getting and the corporation as paying, as will the % of the product which is tax. The debate about where to tax is a fallacy, no one is really taxing the rich.

That said, "corporate income tax" is not the same as "personal income tax." It's like this:

If you have wages $40,000 as a worker, and you are able to save $4,000, your "personal income tax" is on the whole $40,000 (ignoring nominal deductions)
If a company has revenue of $40 million, and saves $4 million (profit) it is taxed on that $4 million, not the whole $40 million.

This is a fallacy as well, corporate income tax is on profits. If personal income tax were on profits, there would be a lot fewer complaints.

Quote:
However, in the meantime the government has to borrow less

Long term, the govt. only borrows less if it spends less. Since most of its spending falls under military and paramilitary in discretionary, and in corporate and personal welfare to millionaires in the mandatory, I think we can all agree that there's room for spending cuts without ever adversely affecting the poor.

Quote:
and **IF** money is **ALSO** aggressively redistributed as services

not sure what you meant here.

Quote:
if you raise the minimum wage

This is a more complex issue. I oppose the idea, I think it ignores economies of scale, prevents the formation of any black owned businesses, and helps ship jobs overseas. But it's really aside from the point.

Quote:
Bill Clinton

Can we, for the love of God or lack there of, leave partisan politics out of this. It's all that I can do to not launch into a rant about what a genocidal racist traitor I think Bill Clinton is, and how he should be handed over to the Hague for war crimes, and if someone wants to do the same thing to George W. Bush, I'm not going to stand in their way.

This was a debate about fiscal policy, mainly under the oversight of Volcker, Greenspan and Bernanke, in the post-gold standard fiat economy, none of whom have any party affiliation.

Quote:
it takes one trip to the bottom before it recirculates back to the top.

Lost me again. I don't see debt or spending going anywhere but up.

Quote:
But that is where money has its function - in circulation. Money just sitting in funds or banks might as well not exist at all.

I really agree. I think that a perishable currency is a decent model. That's why I oppose capitalism. It supports money which just sits there from generation to generation, and endorses a class structure based on inheritance. I have never seen anything from either party to oppose that.

Sometimes we're offered terrible choices. Does opposing Nazis demand you support Soviets who killed three times people? What about Mao vs. Chiang Kai Shek? How about the VC vs. Khmer Rouge? Sometimes it's hard to tell which is better, but both options are so terrible that you need to opt for a third choice.

Capitalism is probably the second worst system after Socialism. Others might disagree, but those who would openly support one as "good" boggle my mind. I think this logic only makes sense in a viewpoint system that only considers two options. When it comes to Democrats vs. Republicans, I honestly can't say which one is worse. I don't think either one is actually going to support any real change in either direction.

Quote:
And I know you believe in the low tax mantra.

Historically, civilizations with high taxes fall. The total tax rate should never exceed the growth rate of the economy, which is historically around 7-9%.

I also think that you should not tax things you want to encourage. If you tax imports, as the constitution allows under article I, section 8, then you discourage outsourcing, encourage american industry, and have plenty of money to run a govt. If you really want to tax corporate income as allowed under the 16th amendment, you are only taxing unspent profits. If you want to take the questionable stance that the US govt. has taken and tax personal income, and you were to limit it to "profits" under a similar model, under the theory that, if corporations are people, people are corporations, then you could tax savings, and people might grumble, but it wouldn't be universally destructive to the economy.

Quote:
But every chart and graph you show, and the ones you don't show, prove the opposite. When taxes on the wealthy are low - Reagan's 'voodoo economics' - the economy stagnates. When taxes are high, even as high as 90%, the economy thrives.

I don't see this at all. You mean federal revenue increases? Why do I want federal revenue to increase? That's just stoking the war chest. The economy did well in the 80s, "under reagan" there was a brief recession "under bush 41", and then it did well again "under clinton"

But a real world analysis might say this: The economy did well under the boom of electronics and limited spending, and then it suffered during the collapse of the USSR, *(which suffered a staggering economic collapse, and was our largest trading partner) and then recovered strongly with the birth of the internet (and limited federal spending.) But presidents have little to do with the economy.

If you really took this president thing seriously, how would you explain the second largest market collapse (86% vs 89% in 1929) in 2000-2001? Clinton's govt. and economic team along side the GOP congress, the exact same team that did that "budget balancing" in Clinton's second term wrote both the 2000 and 2001 budgets through the end of 2001:

Resulting in the second worst financial catastrophe in US history, and then in 2008, the people who gave us that recovery then gave us this:
http://www.tradingstocks.net/assets/images/nasdaq_chart_2008_s.JPG

It's hard to make a case in favor of any govt. as an overseer of the economy, if you give them credit as such, without deliberately omitting serious data.

Quote:

As for those sales - I did find that the MANAGEMENT CONTRACT of some ports were awarded to Dubai, but that was GW Bush, not Clinton.

You can't be serious. The sale of the army quartermaster's corps to Dick Cheney as CEO of Halliburton? 97 I think it was. Sale of US ports, 98.

Quote:

debt forgiveness of poor nations

Sorry. You can't be this thick. "Debt Forgiveness" is spin on for "bank bailout" Some bank made a bad loan. When you "pay off a third world debt" you're not paying the third world country, you're paying the bank.

The bank doesn't need the money. Here's how these deals work:

1) The bank makes a loan to a third world country through an international agency which is not a bank and doesn't really have much money (like the IMF or world bank) so that it can avoid accountability.
2) Said bank insures the loan, in case it goes bad
3) The bank then uses its influence in the country to make sure that money gets spent in contracts to its own subsidiaries, if this weren't the case, they wouldn't have made the loan in the first place
4) The bank collects a high rate of interest for as long as their patsy stays in power. This amount usually exceeds the loan, but they've already gotten the loan money back in contracts, and the patsy never pays down principle, because he's a patsy.
5) Some new govt. comes in and the IMF or whomever goes in and starts cutting down the forest and strip-mining the land to pay off the "debt" which now just exists in the minds of the imperialist international banking institutions, because it's already been paid twice.
6) Eventually, the country's ability to pay has hit zero, so there is no way to get the money out. This is when the bank tries to collect on its insurance.
7) With no possible future "payments" of the assumed "debt" remaining, a debt already paid, and taken out by a govt. that is no longer in power, the banks then appeal to world patsy govts. and sometimes even well meaning morons around the globe to "pay off the third world debt" these crooks and idiots claim or think that they are helping someone in africa, when really they're handing more money to the banks which have already made a fortune on the deal.

Debt forgiveness is part of "economic aid to developing nations" the largest and most destructive scam on the planet. It's just blatantly worse than war in loss of life, fortune and especially in destruction of the environment.

Quote:
The Swiss were to sell off the biggest portion, other countries including the US were to sell off smaller amounts. I couldn't find a record of the proposed sale going through, but even if it did, it would account for a mere ~100M of revenue per year out of appx 20 trillion, certainly not enough to swing the US deficit around.

My recollection was that the major sale was of US gold reserves to foreign govts. Kuwait, but I don't recall the specifics, I can look them up later.

Quote:
And so on. I have to go, but I want to say that all of your claims are without merit.

Oh, too bad you didn't open with this, then I could have not taken you seriously at all, and just ignored the entire post. I thought you wanted to debate the topic. If you are going to cling to a religious worship of a Clinton, whom, btw, I would classify as "worse than pol pot, but not as bad as hitler" which is probably about where I'd put G.W. Bush, then screw it, this is a waste of time. I hope you'll look over some of what I posted anyway and try to apply some objective economic analysis.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 18, 2011 7:34 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:

I find this graph fascinating. Looks like the problem really took off in 1982. Who was President then-- I forget his name? And it looks as if the problem was beginning to get under control in the late 1990's, only to jump off again in about 2002. Kinda confused about whose policies were in control during those years.

Funny you should ask -
Reagan 1981 1989
GHW Bush 1989 1993
Clinton 1993 2001
Dumbya 2001 2009

Of course I knew that. I was being sarcastic. Rhetorical question time...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 18, 2011 7:39 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Well, I just wanted to spell it out for people who night not know. I find there is a great disconnect between younger people and myself - younger people who don't remember Vietnam, Reagan, the Anchorage earthquake, TMI or even Chernobyl. So, in the interest of dotting the "i's" and crossing the "t's" I thought I would post the info - even at the risk of looking pedantic.

I didn't mean to be insulting though, so if I insulted you, I apologize.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 18, 2011 7:44 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

DT

I think you are trying to make a greater point - to get across your worldview. However, in a discussion if someone says that Clinton put the government in the black by doing XYZ, and you come back and say no it was 123, and the first poster says no, it wasn't 123 because ... you then can't complain about the counter argument to you BECAUSE it talks about whether Clinton did 123.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 18, 2011 7:47 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

So anyway,

it's pretty obvious that the moves made in Wisconsin and elsewhere have ZERO to with with the deficit - since the targets of those moves did not cause the deficit in the first place, and aiming at them will not get rid of it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 18, 2011 8:17 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Well, I just wanted to spell it out for people who night not know. I find there is a great disconnect between younger people and myself - younger people who don't remember Vietnam, Reagan, the Anchorage earthquake, TMI or even Chernobyl. So, in the interest of dotting the "i's" and crossing the "t's" I thought I would post the info - even at the risk of looking pedantic.

I didn't mean to be insulting though, so if I insulted you, I apologize.

not insulted. I was aiming my remarks at those who do know- the neo-cons, the Tea partiers, , the economic conservatives, the other liars.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 18, 2011 8:19 AM

HARDWARE

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Interesting graphic. I note that this is only discretionary spending. Mandatory spending and interest on the national debt is a whole 'nother pie that is larger than this one. Sure, making defense spending look like it is over 50% of what we spend is a great tactic to make the evil military industrial complex look like the root of our problem, but it isn't so. Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and other entitlement programs are the big hogs at the federal trough.

Slaughtering time.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 18, 2011 9:01 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Social Security is ALREADY PAID FOR for the next 75 years through past decades of Social Security taxes. Let me reiterate: it is ALREADY PAID FOR FOR THE NEXT 75 YEARS. Just because the government is disbursing that money (which BTW is NOT counted in the annual budget) doesn't mean it's digging in its general tax-funds pocket to pay the bill.

SOCIAL SECURITY IS **NOT** A CAUSE OF THE DEFICIT.

**GOT THAT?**

Meanwhile, the BUDGETED Department of Defense spending accounts for nearly 20% of the budget. IF we were to take Social Security out of the total as we should (Social Security not being funded through the same general tax funds) it would be 25% of the budget. A full 25% of BUDGETED EXPENDITURES goes to military spending alone.

If you truly, deeply felt that the deficit was the primary problem, one that needed to be solved no matter what - you would look at REAL causes, and you would look at ALL the options. Like reducing military expenditures and increasing tax revenue.

Are you doing that?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 18, 2011 10:01 AM

Kiki,

Never assume yourself to be more knowledgeable, or older, than your audience.

ETA: This thread was not about Wisconsin.

NOB: I think you'll find economic conservatives to be smarter than you think (Except for Clinton, who prided himself on being an economic conservative. Okay, he wasn't an idiot, but he was an SOB. For the record, I don't think Bush was an economic conservative, you can't spend like that, with no income, borrow, etc... but he was a bastard all the same.)

Hardware: It was intended to be a graph of discretionary spending, since that was the topic. That is where Fed Inc. Tax $ go. Entitlement spending has its own very regressive tax system, which I think we already covered. I don't think anyone was under that illusion.

ETA 2:

Kiki

Thanks for the chart. I think that chart actually supports Hardware's case. It has three fourths of spending* as: (descending order)
Roughly 75%:
Soc. Sec. 19.5
Defense 18.7
Welfare 16.1
Medicare 12.8
Medicaid 10.2

Another way of looking at that:

Welfare 35.6%
Healthcare 23%
Defense 18.7%

* HW, The budget *is* Discretionary Spending, it does not vote on entitlements.

If you wanted to trim that, start with 67% of soc. sec. goes to millionaires, only about 10% or so of welfare, dollarwise, goes to the actual poor. Many states have programs to ensure that welfare goes to the poor. A federal program like that would help.

Healthcare costs are out of control, and the govt. isn't allowed to negotiate. If some drug company says something costs $700 a pill, the govt. should be able to say "And yet costs the same to make as aspirin." Healthcare for the poor should be a welfare program as well, and no one should be profiting from it.

I also favor splitting these up by states. I figure the states have a better record on fighting for fairness in their spending, and also, this reduces greatly the chance that this money will be hijacked for defense.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 18, 2011 1:31 PM

HARDWARE

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Social Security is ALREADY PAID FOR for the next 75 years through past decades of Social Security taxes.

If you truly, deeply felt that the deficit was the primary problem, one that needed to be solved no matter what - you would look at REAL causes, and you would look at ALL the options. Like reducing military expenditures and increasing tax revenue.

Are you doing that?

Right. And that would be true, except for this little thing we did called the Vietnam War that raided Social Security for funds to wage that war. And the dozen or so other times that congress has dipped into the piggy bank to fund this and that.

I mean, if social security was paid for, why would senators Paul, Graham and Lee feel the need to introduce legislation to stabilize it and assure its presence for the next 75 years?

http://www.randpaul2010.com/2011/04/sen-paul-unveils-social-security-s
olvency-and-sustainability-act/

And if you think that is propaganda, here's a nice article with a pretty graph that shows the expected deficit. Oh, and it is from CNN. A known right-wing mouthpiece.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/29/news/economy/fixing_social_security.fo
rtune/

And here's the graphic.

I look forward to you documenting your sources. Every source I can find shows social security in a whole heap of trouble.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 18, 2011 1:48 PM

That assumes that nothing changes, but it will.

They don't want to tick off the wealthier retired people, because those folks give the most to political campaigns. So they're instead just maybe push back retirement age a little bit, push up tax a little bit, and patch it with the occasional bailout, which they'll then steal for something else, and then try to prevent anyone else from entering the system. Buyouts, opt-outs, etc.

Here's what's already on the table: Push age to 70, have an option to get 1/2 at 65, and less at 62. Also, if you get medicare, it's cost is taken out of your Soc. Sec, even though we all paid for medicare anyway. Then, you are taxed on soc. sec, including the portion they deducted to pay for medicare. So, yeah, they'll fudge the figures forever, and the system will just get worse and worse.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 18, 2011 1:55 PM

Why not just lift the cap on payroll taxes?

Currently, if I make $106,800 in a year, 5.2% of that goes to Social Security as taxes. However, that's the cap - every dollar I make above and beyond that amount has no Social Security tax at all attached to it. So if I make $1,068,000/yr, my payroll tax goes to 0.52%.

So lift the cap. 5.2% of every penny of income you make, across the board. After all, if Bill Gates is going to COLLECT Social Security, shouldn't he pay into it on a fair and equitable basis?

Lift the cap, and Social Security is funded into perpetuity.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 18, 2011 1:56 PM

BTW, didn't Al Gore try to put Social Security's funds in what he called a "lockbox", to keep them OUT of the thieving hands of Congress? How'd that proposal work out? Did the "fiscal conservatives" vote for it?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 18, 2011 2:44 PM

Mike,

That's a decent idea to repair a really sunken ship, and they'll probably do it, the resistance is coming from the campaign contributions of those higher income voters.

Remember of course that every FICA dollar that is coming out of your "income" has to be matched by your employer, and if you're self employed, you have to pay both halves, so really it's twice that for Soc. Sec., plus there's medicaid. Either way, you're taking home less the full amount, just a question of how much you get taxed twice on.

Re: Al Gore, who was he going to give the keys to the box, his VP Joe? ;)

It's truly hopeless no matter how you look at it.

I have a plan: Let's accept that it's completely doomed and just open a new mint and print money...

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 18, 2011 4:49 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

It's truly hopeless no matter how you look at it.

What I find interesting, DT, is that you keep portraying social security/ medicare /medicaid as if they are bankrupt and deeply in debt, without a single fact backing it up. In fact, they are not, and you are wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 18, 2011 6:05 PM