Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

I Totally Support the Occupy Movement...Follow

#352 Nov 10 2011 at 8:19 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
gbaji wrote:
I didn't sling any faulty data around.
Toe, heel, toe, heel, spin, tap tap tap!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#353 Nov 10 2011 at 8:21 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
he used a lot of words, he must be right. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#354 Nov 10 2011 at 8:27 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,954 posts
In the years leading up to WWII, our gov't spending jumped by quite a bit. But taxes didn't rise. As a result, our economy began to recover (following the Roosevelt recession).

When we entered WWII, our gov't spending skyrocketed. In time, tax rates also jumped (particularly for the wealthiest Americans).

Despite those increased taxes, our economy still boomed.

Shortly after the war, when the depression had been over for years, tax rates remained extremely high (and our national deficit was hardly small). They did reduce them, since our active military spending wasn't quite as high during the early Cold War as it was during WWII.

However, tax rates post war remained extremely high, especially when compared to before the war. That's because our economy had boomed and we were able to sustain those tax rates, and needed to repay the debt we had accrued getting ourselves out of the depression.

Gov't spending is needed when the economy is struggling. It is precisely those moments when we should stop caring about a balanced budget, because it is far more effective to spend to get us out and then tax more when our economy is healthy enough to support it.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#355 Nov 10 2011 at 8:34 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
I was speaking of "debt held by public", since everyone who isn't deliberately attempting to inflate the debt value for some political reasons (or is ignorant of the difference and just repeating figures someone else used to mislead them) uses that figure when calculating relative debt.


Says the guy ignoring 37% of the US debt to support his stance against raising taxes. Smiley: laugh


I'm not ignoring it. It's a bogus figure for this purpose. Anyone who uses it to make a point about how much debt we have relative to some other point in time is either deliberately using the wrong data to fudge the numbers, or doesn't know which numbers are the correct ones.



Quote:
Quote:

If you want, I'll explain exactly why you should never ever ever ever ever ever ever use the total debt figure when comparing relative debt over time.


I don't really want to read a novel but I am sure there will be lots to laugh at. Type away Captain Economy. Smiley: rolleyes


You honestly don't know the difference? Ignorance is bliss I guess. I honestly can't blame you though, since there are a **** of a lot of sources out there that also misuse the "national debt" figure. You're just repeating what you've heard without knowing it's wrong.


In the US, national debt is a tally of the dollar amount of all outstanding treasury bills. There are two methods by which t-bills become outstanding:

1. Public debt. This is when the treasury borrows money from the public (and has to pay it back). Typically, this is because of a budget deficit in a given year. The government collects less money in revenue than it spends, so it must borrow the difference. The treasury sells t-bills to the public (which can be anyone), with a promise to pay those bills back with interest. This is "real debt" in that the government must pay back the bills at some point.


2. Intergovernmental debt. This is when the government borrows from itself. When a government program is funded via act of congress (like in a budget that was voted on), it *must* allocate the amount of money that was mandated to that program. It's illegal not to. However, quite often the program doesn't actually require as much money as is budgeted. It has a budget surplus (in that one program). When this happens, the treasury takes the extra money from that program and hands it t-bills of equal value (because it would be illegal to just take the money). Then the money can be reallocated to other programs that are underfunded.


The reason why that second type of debt doesn't count is because it's not real debt. The government doesn't actually owe anyone any money. It thought it needed say $500M to fund some program this year, but the program only needed $400M. The extra $100M is reallocated elsewhere and is spent, but the $100M worth of t-bills the program has doesn't need to be paid back because the program will be budgeted an additional amount next year. It doesn't need that money because it didn't spend it during that year. But since the money was budgeted to that program by act of congress, only an act of congress can deallocated it. And congress does just this. Periodically, it goes through the books and looks for the billions of dollars (trillions actually) of t-bills in this state and then administratively zeros them out. Violla! Debt gone and no one misses it because the programs are funded yearly, so past year surpluses aren't going to be needed or missed.


Intergovernmental debt is a purely administrative thing. It's not real debt. You should *never* include it in a debt calculation, doubly so if you're comparing debt levels in different years. This is because depending on how recently congress has done of of those housekeeping bills to clean up those t-bills, the "national debt" can be several Trillion dollars higher or lower.


Since public debt is an aggregate tally of deficits over time, it includes all of the money the country has actually had to borrow to pay for all the things it does. It's the only figure you should use (or need to use) to determine whether the country is borrowing too much money or "going more in debt". Anyone using the total national debt figure is misleading you (or ignorant of what that figure really means). Any honest assessment of relative debt will use public debt. And if they're really being honest, they'll measure public debt against GDP (with some concession given to times when GDP may drop of course).


Not quite a novel, but hopefully, it clarifies the issue. Don't use national debt. Use public debt. What's interesting is that the site you linked clearly does know the difference, but chooses to use total national debt instead. Which is dishonest.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#356 Nov 10 2011 at 8:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
In the years leading up to WWII, our gov't spending jumped by quite a bit. But taxes didn't rise. As a result, our economy began to recover (following the Roosevelt recession).


In terms of GDP growth, yes. In terms of employment? Nope. Sound familiar? It's the same problem we're having now. The "economy" has recovered in the sense of the GDP and markets. But the jobs aren't coming back. Not surprising, since the Dems are basically following FDRs play book today (and getting more or less the same stagnant results).

Quote:
When we entered WWII, our gov't spending skyrocketed. In time, tax rates also jumped (particularly for the wealthiest Americans).

Despite those increased taxes, our economy still boomed.


Uh... That's a really subjective measurement. If by "boomed" you mean that the government built a lot of tanks and planes and people were employed (which was an improvement to be sure), yeah. But that was also a time of incredibly scarcity in the US. We had rationing of most goods, and some things simply were not available at all. It was hardly booming in the sense of consumer options and livelihood.

Quote:
Shortly after the war, when the depression had been over for years, tax rates remained extremely high (and our national deficit was hardly small). They did reduce them, since our active military spending wasn't quite as high during the early Cold War as it was during WWII.


I'm striking out the subjective bit. Many people, like myself (and the folks who wrote the WSJ article I linked to), don't believe that the depression was ended by WW2, but that its symptoms were masked by the war effort. The basic problems in the private workplace still existed and had not been resolved.

Quote:
However, tax rates post war remained extremely high, especially when compared to before the war. That's because our economy had boomed and we were able to sustain those tax rates, and needed to repay the debt we had accrued getting ourselves out of the depression.


Didn't read the article, did you? They may have remained high for a year or two, until the new tax rates took effect. But congress basically took the first opportunity to lower taxes, especially on corporations. And their argument back then, just like the conservative argument is today, is that corporate profits drive job creation. And they were right.

Quote:
Gov't spending is needed when the economy is struggling.


I disagree. Sometimes, existing government programs become more expensive because the need for them becomes greater, but that does not mean that expanding the actual role of the government during bad economic times is the right thing to do. I can argue (have in fact) that when you do this, you make those economic downturns longer and deeper than they would otherwise have been. By attempting to reduce the negative harm from job losses, you also reduce the rate at which new jobs are created, thus making more people dependent on those government services and lengthening the time it takes to recover.

Quote:
It is precisely those moments when we should stop caring about a balanced budget, because it is far more effective to spend to get us out and then tax more when our economy is healthy enough to support it.


Show me evidence that this has ever been the case. From what I've seen, it appears like when government keeps spending constant (or perhaps increases it but just slightly), we tend to recovery quickly. When we embark on grand spending plans to fight the downturn, it tends to make things worse, not better. I get that for some people, they just can't accept that money in the hands of the rich benefits anyone else, but it's funny just how often allowing the rich to keep a larger share of their profits does result in exactly the sorts of economic benefits for the whole economy which conservatives predict. At some point, I would hope some people would stop burying their heads in the sand about this, and actually question the assumptions they've been taught. How many examples of the liberal economic strategy you're parroting failing utterly do we have to have before you'll question that too?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#357 Nov 10 2011 at 8:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
The reason why that second type of debt doesn't count is because it's not real debt. The government doesn't actually owe anyone any money. [...] Periodically, it goes through the books and looks for the billions of dollars (trillions actually) of t-bills in this state and then administratively zeros them out. Violla! Debt gone and no one misses it because the programs are funded yearly, so past year surpluses aren't going to be needed or missed.

Not entirely true. Most intergovernmental debt doesn't come from just taking a few bucks from the manhole cover fund and moving them to the Pentagon lightbulb fund, they came from raiding Social Security, federal pension and Medicare trust funds. Either those T-Bills need to actually be paid back (i.e. they're real debt) or else Congress is purposefully destroying the solvency of those programs.

T-Bills owed to the Social Security Trust Fund alone was $2.4 trillion in 2010. I'm not saying a distinction shouldn't be made between intergovernmental and public debt but it certainly doesn't deserve the handwaving you're giving it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#358 Nov 10 2011 at 9:07 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
Quote:
In the US, national debt is a tally of the dollar amount of all outstanding treasury bills. There are two methods by which t-bills become outstanding:


You obviously don't know what a government of a democratic nation is, and who ultimately has responsibility. Every dollar that the US government owes, its people owe while it might be shown as direct cost, and inter-government cost it is still all one cost (the cost to run the USA). Such is the wonderful nature of a government by the people for the people. You can try and spin it anyway you like the total debt of the USA is currently over 100%, the only time it was previously was during WW2. The difference between now and then is they actively took steps to curb crazy debt, like increasing taxes, and reducing spending, and the total debt is the number that matters, because it represents the actual cost of running the USA.

Presently that debt increase has slowed, large in part to the massive spending to stop the bleeding, but until you can agree on cuts and taxes you won't seal the wound.


On a somewhat related topic I am excited to see what Canada does with its new lead position in the G20. American bankers are probably ******** themselves at the idea of having to give up massive profits to prevent massive bailouts.




____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#359 Nov 10 2011 at 9:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,519 posts
With the T-Bills owed to Social Security, that was money paid to the US by its own people in trust that it would be re-disbursed back to them at a later date. It's not so much intergovernmental debt as it is debt that the US owes is own citizens.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#360 Nov 10 2011 at 9:19 PM Rating: Good
I've always wondered Gbaji, are you this much of a know it all windbag in real life?
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#361 Nov 10 2011 at 9:22 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,954 posts
Technogeek wrote:
I've always wondered Gbaji, are you this much of a know it all windbag in real life?


I doubt it. He's still alive after all.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#362 Nov 10 2011 at 9:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
The reason why that second type of debt doesn't count is because it's not real debt. The government doesn't actually owe anyone any money. [...] Periodically, it goes through the books and looks for the billions of dollars (trillions actually) of t-bills in this state and then administratively zeros them out. Violla! Debt gone and no one misses it because the programs are funded yearly, so past year surpluses aren't going to be needed or missed.

Not entirely true. Most intergovernmental debt doesn't come from just taking a few bucks from the manhole cover fund and moving them to the Pentagon lightbulb fund, they came from raiding Social Security, federal pension and Medicare trust funds. Either those T-Bills need to actually be paid back (i.e. they're real debt) or else Congress is purposefully destroying the solvency of those programs.

T-Bills owed to the Social Security Trust Fund alone was $2.4 trillion in 2010. I'm not saying a distinction shouldn't be made between intergovernmental and public debt but it certainly doesn't deserve the handwaving you're giving it.


Yeah. I was trying to give the shortened version. Social Security and Medicare funds are a separate animal, and are frankly a lot more complex in terms of the economic effects of borrowing from them than I felt like going into. You're correct that this does have an effect on costs over time, and those things *may* result in future deficits which might otherwise have been avoided. But that's subject to a whole host of factors which aren't as simple as just looking at a current dollar amount of "debt".


In the context of comparing relative debt levels (presumably in the context of deficit changes over time), public debt is the correct value to use. The future effects of the portion of intergovernmental debt which is owed so social security and medicare is important, but it's important in a slightly different context.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#363 Nov 10 2011 at 9:51 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
catwho wrote:
With the T-Bills owed to Social Security, that was money paid to the US by its own people in trust that it would be re-disbursed back to them at a later date. It's not so much intergovernmental debt as it is debt that the US owes is own citizens.


Yup. But it's still not the same as a debt owed to someone who paid for X amount of t-bills and now wants his money back with interest. We can legislatively change how we structure social security payments over time (and do already for reasons unrelated to this btw). We can't pass a law and decide we're not going to pay someone the face value on a t-bill. Well, we can, but that's called defaulting on our debt.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#364 Nov 10 2011 at 9:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Yeah. I was trying to give the shortened version.

You mean the completely dishonest version where you claim all that debt is just zeroed out and doesn't exist at all rather tghan being a massive looming issue swiftly coming to bite us hard.

Understood.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#365 Nov 10 2011 at 10:05 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
You obviously don't know what a government of a democratic nation is, and who ultimately has responsibility.


I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion based on my previous posts. It looks more to me like you don't understand how debt is calculated and measured.

Quote:
Every dollar that the US government owes, its people owe while it might be shown as direct cost, and inter-government cost it is still all one cost (the cost to run the USA).


Yes, but it's important to know who is owed. Intergovernmental debt is like raiding your kids college fund to pay for the electricity bill this month. A bill collector isn't going to show up demanding that you pay, or they shut of your power. What it means is that (in this example), you will have less money to pay for your kids college some number of years down the line. It's still the same total revenue coming in and the same spending going out that matters in terms of "real debt". The fact that your promised to send your kid to Harvard and had to settle on the local state university is a whole different animal to having your home foreclosed upon because you can't pay the mortgage.


Quote:
Such is the wonderful nature of a government by the people for the people. You can try and spin it anyway you like the total debt of the USA is currently over 100%, the only time it was previously was during WW2.


Repeating this kind of statement doesn't really help your argument. Yes. Debt is high right now. But debt was higher back then, and we got out of it, not by raising taxes and increasing spending, but by lowering taxes and decreasing spending. So perhaps we ought to consider doing something similar today?

Quote:
The difference between now and then is they actively took steps to curb crazy debt, like increasing taxes, and reducing spending, and the total debt is the number that matters, because it represents the actual cost of running the USA.


I'm again confused how one represents proof of the other. What we do about it is a different question than whether the debt is "high" or not. And you're wrong. They didn't raise taxes. They lowered them. I agree with the spending bit too of course. Now if only we could get the Democrats to agree to decrease spending, we'd be in good shape.

Quote:
Presently that debt increase has slowed, large in part to the massive spending to stop the bleeding, but until you can agree on cuts and taxes you won't seal the wound.


How the **** does massive spending help slow down the rate of debt increase? I'm starting to suspect you're just randomly mashing on the keyboard at this point. Spending is what causes debt. You spend more than you take in. Revenue drops when the economy goes into a downturn. That's normal and natural. You can expect higher deficits during those downturns and some increase in debt. But when you combine that with massive spending increases, you get massive increase in debt, like we've seen in the past few years.


Debt is an accumulation of deficits. Deficits are a yearly calculation of the difference between spending and revenue. Spending is a direct effect on deficit (and therefore on debt). However, tax rates have only a somewhat direct effect on revenue, and they are not the only effect. As I believe I stated earlier, if we were sitting at 4-5% unemployment and were not collecting enough revenue, then we might consider that taxes were too low (assuming spending isn't abnormally high of course). But we're at 9% unemployment (and more who are off the list). Because of that, the revenue problem isn't about tax rates, but about employment rates. Our objective should be to create jobs.

The problem is that there are two competing theories about how to do this. The left believes that the government should spend money employing people, and the right believes that the government should lower taxes (or in this case just promise not to raise taxes) and loosen regulations which may affect hiring in order to encourage private markets to employ people. Obviously, I believe in the second option, but regardless of which side you stand on, that is the question facing us right now. Simply repeating that "we're in debt, so we must do X" isn't really productive IMO.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#366 Nov 10 2011 at 10:06 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Yeah. I was trying to give the shortened version.

You mean the completely dishonest version where you claim all that debt is just zeroed out and doesn't exist at all rather tghan being a massive looming issue swiftly coming to bite us hard.


I've already explained why they are different. As someone else pointed out as well, one is a promise of future benefits to our own citizens, while the other is a legally binding debt. To call both a "debt" is dishonest. It's interesting to note that this has the same sort of "negative versus failing to provide a positive" relationship as many of the things conservatives and liberals disagree over have. Liberals tend to see no difference between failing to provide something to someone and taking something away from someone. Conservatives see a big difference between those things.

As a result, I see not giving someone benefits differently than taking money from someone and failing to pay them back. And yes, I'm aware of the issue with social security and medicare being things we've paid into. But as I also pointed out earlier, the issues with those programs and their future solvency go so far beyond the amounts of money that have been "raided" from them that it's really a whole topic on its own.

Edited, Nov 10th 2011 8:09pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#367 Nov 10 2011 at 10:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I've already explained why they are different.

Inaccurately and dishonestly, yes. We've covered that.
Quote:
As a result, I see not giving someone benefits differently than taking money from someone and failing to pay them back

Really? You didn't understand that those benefits aren't some gift or token of heart-felt gratitude but rather part of their salary agreement and wages? And that you're very much so taking from them and not paying them back when you accept their work and fail to uphold your end of the salary agreement?

Well, if that's the difference between conservatives and liberals, thank God I'm liberal.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#368ThiefX, Posted: Nov 11 2011 at 8:12 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) And we are 8 pages into a thread that started out with Idiggory not knowing who he is protesting and yet he keeps talking............
#369 Nov 11 2011 at 8:17 AM Rating: Excellent
ThiefX wrote:
And we are 8 pages into a thread that started out with Idiggory not knowing who he is protesting and yet he keeps talking............
We are 23 pages into a thread that mostly is about alma thinking that gays are icky, and shouldn't be in the military. What is your point?
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#370varusword75, Posted: Nov 11 2011 at 8:54 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) lol the occupy movement has degenerated to such a point that tb is breaking out because all the dirty liberal whack job hippies don't seem to realize the importance of good hygiene. And in Oakland havn't there been shootings? H*ll I hear the bums in san fran are praying for the day when they will be delivered from all these dirty liberal hippies.
#371 Nov 11 2011 at 9:12 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
Gumbo Galahad wrote:
lol the occupy movement
I bet it really stings that your state is treating them so nicely. If only any of you had balls to actually do anything other than fluffing their pillows and helping them build tents they would be having trouble in Tennessee, too. Smiley: smile
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#372varusword75, Posted: Nov 11 2011 at 9:33 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) lagaga,
#373 Nov 11 2011 at 9:34 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
Gumbo Galahad wrote:
Unlike yankees we can be civil to people who don't think like we do.
Yes, I'm already well aware you lie to people's faces and talk behind their backs because you have no balls and are afraid of what other people think of you.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#374 Nov 11 2011 at 9:35 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
varusword75 wrote:
lagaga,

Unlike yankees we can be civil to people who don't think like we do.



Oh, you. Smiley: clown
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#375 Nov 11 2011 at 9:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
When they're not busy calling them lying whores, anyway Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#376varusword75, Posted: Nov 11 2011 at 9:49 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Joph,
#377 Nov 11 2011 at 10:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Just like Jesus!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#378 Nov 11 2011 at 11:05 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,954 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Joph,

Quote:
When they're not busy calling them lying whores, anyway


But at least we say it with a smile on our face.



So you ENJOY insulting others? Got it.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#379 Nov 11 2011 at 11:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,004 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Joph,

Quote:
When they're not busy calling them lying whores, anyway


But at least we say it with a smile on our face.



So you ENJOY insulting others? Got it.


I assumed as much.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#380varusword75, Posted: Nov 11 2011 at 11:20 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) proteinguy,
#381 Nov 11 2011 at 11:22 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
Gumbo Galahad wrote:
I've never been insulted
Comprehension is too hard for you.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#382 Nov 11 2011 at 11:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
******
20,015 posts
varusword75 wrote:
And in Oakland havn't there been shootings?

Yeah, the police shot a Marine veteran in the head with a canister.

Quote:
It's a good day.

Scumbag.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#383 Nov 11 2011 at 12:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
varusword75 wrote:
lagaga,

Unlike yankees we can be civil to people who don't think like we do.


Bless your heart...
#384varusword75, Posted: Nov 11 2011 at 12:55 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Debo,
#385 Nov 11 2011 at 1:25 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,015 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Debo,

Quote:
Scumbag.


Those filthy little occupiers are aren't they.

We all know how much you despise the military.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#386 Nov 11 2011 at 4:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
12,053 posts
varusword75 wrote:
proteinguy,

I've never been insulted, I wouldn't know. lol


I guess this could be true if your standards are low enough to take insults as compliments.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#387 Nov 11 2011 at 4:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
As a result, I see not giving someone benefits differently than taking money from someone and failing to pay them back

Really? You didn't understand that those benefits aren't some gift or token of heart-felt gratitude but rather part of their salary agreement and wages? And that you're very much so taking from them and not paying them back when you accept their work and fail to uphold your end of the salary agreement?


If that were true, you'd have a point. But this is not a case of taking money out of their salary and then owing them their money back. Social Security and Medicare cost more than the amount the recipients pay into it (both individually on average *and* collectively). You aren't getting "your money back", or even the amount that is owed to you. The benefits come from the money workers are paying into those systems today, not from the money the recipients paid into it. That money went to pay for the benefits for people who were retired when they were working. While it doesn't have all the elements of a ponzi scheme, it has many of them (as do most pension plans as well btw).

The idea that you're paying into those programs to provide for your own future is really false. What we're really doing is forcing the people working today to pay for the retirement needs of those retired today. That's it. Covering that over with a layer of BS frosting doesn't change the reality of how those programs work. And while we can certainly say that's a good thing to do. And those retired today can certainly argue that they gave up some of their earnings to pay for the retired back then and deserve to have the workers of today do the same for them, it's *not* the same as a legally defined loan (which is what you're doing when you buy t-bills).

If I lend you money, and we write up a loan document where you promise to pay me back the money with X interest, you are legally bound to pay me back. You actually owe me the money I gave you. But these programs somehow assume that because I give money to someone when they needed it, you are now required to give money to me when I need it. And even more bizarrely that my need is more important than your ability to pay.

It's not the same as a direct "you borrowed from me, and owe me my money back" relationship.

Quote:
Well, if that's the difference between conservatives and liberals, thank God I'm liberal.


Someone who disguises social spending programs as some sort of payment for a debt? Someone who is confused about a lot of things? Yes, I'm sure confused people thank god for their blissful confusion all the time. Doesn't mean that the rest of us should put much weight in their ideas though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#388 Nov 11 2011 at 6:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
If that were true, you'd have a point.

It is true, so thanks! Smiley: smile

$1.3 trillion of that debt that "doesn't count" is from retirement trust funds. Those are benefits directly owed to people who were promised those benefits when they put forth their service. I suppose conservatives don't mind stealing from those people -- look at how much they spit at union workers for wanting their pensions when they retire -- but I'm of the crazy notion that we should actually be paying back those funds (or better yet, not raiding them in the first place).

Quote:
Someone who is confused about a lot of things?

I'm sorry to hear you weren't confused earlier when you wrote your misleading statements about the debt. It just means you're a straight liar.

Edit: I also think it's wrong to raid the SS and Medicare trust funds, spend the money on whatever and then tell the American people "Oh, sorry! No money left for you so we have to change the rules and don't you dare complain because those were just future benefits we spent and you're not owed anything!" But since I'm talking to a guy who thinks it's okay to steal wages from retirees, I'm not even going to try and tackle that one.

Edited, Nov 11th 2011 6:28pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#389 Nov 11 2011 at 6:48 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
Quote:
But since I'm talking to a guy who thinks it's okay to steal wages from retirees, I'm not even going to try and tackle that one.


I gave up when he said that inter government debt is not real debt. You have a lot more patience then I do.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#390 Nov 11 2011 at 6:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
If it actually worked like he said (and largely got wrong), he;d have more of a point. Except he made it sound as though the government was taking from overfunded programs and wiping out the IOU's.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Social Security, Medicare and retirement benefits are overfunded. Well, except Gbaji, I guess.

Edited, Nov 11th 2011 6:52pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#391 Nov 11 2011 at 8:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
If it actually worked like he said (and largely got wrong), he;d have more of a point. Except he made it sound as though the government was taking from overfunded programs and wiping out the IOU's.


Sigh. Which is *exactly* what intergovernmental debt is.

Quote:
I don't think anyone is arguing that Social Security, Medicare and retirement benefits are overfunded. Well, except Gbaji, I guess.


Ah... The patented "I don't think anyone..." argument, usually when the person in question doesn't actually know what the **** they're talking about. Why not stop and do some research first. You'll discover that the reason those funds were able to be "raided" was because for most of the last decade or so they have been running a surplus.

I'm not commenting on the wisdom of having taken money from those funds via intergovernmental transfer given that we know they wont continue to run surpluses in years to come, however, it's absolutely true that the reason that money could be transfered was because those programs had surpluses in the years in question. Did someone hit you over the head with the stupid stick or something?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#392 Nov 11 2011 at 9:59 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
I can't wait to see the gyrations it is going to require to explain how the 74 times he posted an "I don't think anyone ..." argument are all exceptions.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#393 Nov 11 2011 at 10:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,519 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I can't wait to see the gyrations it is going to require to explain how the 74 times he posted an "I don't think anyone ..." argument are all exceptions.


IOKIYAG.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#394 Nov 11 2011 at 10:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I can't wait to see the gyrations it is going to require to explain how the 74 times he posted an "I don't think anyone ..." argument are all exceptions.


The issue isn't about just using the phrase (but good for you for being consistent and zeroing in on the exact wrong thing). It's about using that phrase as the sole support for your argument.

Oh. It's Doubly absurd when in this case Joph is simply wrong. He knows it too. It's only possible to do an intergovernmental transfer from a program when that program's yearly budget exceeds its yearly expenses. By definition, it has to run a surplus for it to have money to be raided, yet he attempted to hand wave it away with a pretty incredibly lame appeal to (popular) ignorance. Yeah, I made up that fallacy, but it seems appropriate.

Edited, Nov 11th 2011 8:35pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#395 Nov 11 2011 at 11:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
9,356 posts
gbaji wrote:
it has to run a surplus for it to have money to be raided


Only if you don't understand how investments, pensions, social service plans etc. work. The whole point of something like Employment Insurance (a form of social security we have here) is that the fund accumulates money so that when people need it, it is there.

Taking money that was specifically put away for contingencies isn't spending profit, it is stealing from the people who worked hard and paid into the social security net who are basically being told to F off now.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#396 Nov 12 2011 at 12:12 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
Quote:
Sigh. Which is *exactly* what intergovernmental debt is.


Smiley: lol Smiley: lolSmiley: lol It is still a debt you idiot. Robbing from peter to pay paul doesn't eliminate debt it consolidates it, and currently the US national debt is over 100% of the US GDP.

I anticipate incoming talking points that skirt the debt issue to further your anti tax increase position. It is laughable at best, to say the least.

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#397 Nov 12 2011 at 12:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Ah... The patented "I don't think anyone..." argument, usually when the person in question doesn't actually know what the **** they're talking about.

Irony.

Quote:
You'll discover that the reason those funds were able to be "raided" was because for most of the last decade or so they have been running a surplus.

Not really a "surplus" since it was known that money would be required to pay future obligations. But I'll let you prove you already knew this and try to weasel out...

Quote:
I'm not commenting on the wisdom of having taken money from those funds via intergovernmental transfer given that we know they wont continue to run surpluses in years to come

I wouldn't either if I were you. I'd hate for you to look stupider than you already do. Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#398 Nov 12 2011 at 4:41 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
"It just is," huh. Kind of expected that. Can't say I'm not disappointed though. I was kind of hoping it'd have been more entertaining. Oh well.

Anyway, real reason for this post: I just spent the day in Times Square taking part of the Occupy Mario Land demonstrations. Nintendo took over Military Island with pipes and end flags and had people dressed up as Mario and such. Got myself a couple of pairs of tanooki ears. It was a lot of fun.

Edited, Nov 12th 2011 5:43pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#399 Nov 12 2011 at 4:54 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,954 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
"It just is," huh. Kind of expected that. Can't say I'm not disappointed though. I was kind of hoping it'd have been more entertaining. Oh well.

Anyway, real reason for this post: I just spent the day in Times Square taking part of the Occupy Mario Land demonstrations. Nintendo took over Military Island with pipes and end flags and had people dressed up as Mario and such. Got myself a couple of pairs of tanooki ears. It was a lot of fun.

Edited, Nov 12th 2011 5:43pm by lolgaxe


WHY IS EVERYTHING FUN THE WEEKEND I'M NOT ABLE TO DO ANY OF IT?

Seriously. I bought Skyrim at midnight on Thursday. I've played 45 minutes of it. I got invited to the Old Republic stress test this weekend. And my ROOMMATE played because I couldn't (though, to be fair, I can play tomorrow). Now I hear there were awesome occupy shenanigans? >:( I was free ALL last weekend.

Random venting. Carry on.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#400 Nov 12 2011 at 6:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
******
20,015 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
"It just is," huh. Kind of expected that. Can't say I'm not disappointed though. I was kind of hoping it'd have been more entertaining. Oh well.

Anyway, real reason for this post: I just spent the day in Times Square taking part of the Occupy Mario Land demonstrations. Nintendo took over Military Island with pipes and end flags and had people dressed up as Mario and such. Got myself a couple of pairs of tanooki ears. It was a lot of fun.

FUCKBAG

I was there this morning. We stood in line for over an hour and a half, then the "line" collapsed into a mob which we were stuck at the back of. My son was throwing a fit at that point so we said fuck this and went to chase pigeons across Bryant Park.

You owe my wife a Tanooki tail!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#401 Nov 14 2011 at 8:20 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
She'll have to fight my wife for it. I'm pretty sure she killed a seven year old to get her tanooki tail.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 33 All times are in CST
Timelordwho, Anonymous Guests (32)