RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit

RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (11/14/2009 6:13:39 PM)
Wow, amazing. I used the same exact site on the last two quotes i posted. If your source cannot agree with itself, why should we bother to listen to it at all.

Raiikun -> RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (11/14/2009 6:24:27 PM)
Here's the thing. The "surplus" came from an influx of increased Social Security taxes due to the dot.com bubble. It's been borrowed from for years to pay against the Public Debt. Thing is, it's still debt, and the Dept of the Treasury still lists it as part of the National Debt. Someday those Social Security funds that were borrowed and added to the budget to create the "surplus" will have to be paid back. They predicted at the time that it'd be 2017 (IIRC) before the obligations of Social Security would catch up to the surplus causing the Federal Government to no longer be able to borrow from SS anymore. Trouble is, due to the recession this year being such a doozy, we've already hit that point, and will have to start paying back that debt.

dcnovice -> RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (11/14/2009 6:27:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: Did you miss the part where Clinton left office with not only a balanced budget but a surplus? A surplus that Bush quickly pissed away? You must have missed the part about a couple of jets going into buildings in NYC. Ignoring that, and the unilateral, bipartisan response to it to built up military spending and increase security, while the economy was making its first circle around the drain; only points to a vision of those times remembered though a carnival mirror of partisan agenda. But at least that's consistent. But didn't the Bush deficit begin before 9/11, with his revenue cuts? No. Bush signed the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 on June 7, 2001, cutting U.S. revenue by about 1.3 to 1.6 trillion dollars. That didn't play a role in our running a deficit?

Raiikun -> RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (11/14/2009 6:27:58 PM)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/31/politics/washingtonpost/main4906936.shtml "The Treasury Department has for decades borrowed money from the Social Security trust fund to finance government operations. If it is no longer able to do so, it could be forced to borrow an additional $700 billion over the next decade from China, Japan and other investors. And at some point, perhaps as early as 2017, according to the CBO, the Treasury would have to start repaying the billions it has borrowed from the trust fund over the past 25 years, driving the nation further into debt or forcing Congress to raise taxes."

tazzygirl -> RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (11/14/2009 6:41:24 PM)
It is worth digressing here for a moment to address one common misconception about the Social Security trust fund. A number of critics have attacked the "reality" of the trust fund, on the basis that the trust fund holds only "government IOUs." This attack is a red herring. In point of fact, the macroeconomic reality of the trust fund does not hinge on the assets that it holds, but rather on the issue of whether trust fund accumulations are backed by government saving. In the old regime, in which balancing the unified budget was taken to be the standard of adequate fiscal performance, the trust fund did not have great significance from a macroeconomic perspective (even though it is very "real" indeed for other purposes). And the same was true regardless of what assets the trust fund was invested in -- be they gold ingots, corporate shares, or Treasury securities. By contrast, in the new regime, in which the fiscal objective is to balance the budget excluding the Social Security surpluses, then the trust fund is fully "real" from a macroeconomic perspective, again without regard to whatever assets the trust fund may be invested in. The key is whether changes in the level of the trust fund are backed, dollar for dollar, by government saving. If they are, then - for my purposes as a macroeconomist - the trust fund is very real indeed. And this accomplishment - the fact that the Social Security trust fund now has real macroeconomic meaning - is, in my view, one of the most under-rated achievements of the Clinton Administration http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/ls1088.htm Again, your source.

Raiikun -> RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (11/14/2009 6:52:33 PM)
And yet all the handwaving from '99 and 2000 aside...that source still shows a debt increase every single year during the Clinton Administration. If there was a real surplus, the debt would have gone down. Pretty basic.

servantforuse -> RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (11/14/2009 6:54:15 PM)
The social security trust fund is a ponzi scheme. If those running it ( members of congress ) were in the private sector they would all be in prison. Berni Madoff is kindergarten class compared to these con artists.

tazzygirl -> RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (11/14/2009 7:10:27 PM)
~shrugs The Dept of Treasury didnt believe that. Even suggested the Bush Administration needed to complete what Clinton began.

AnimusRex -> RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (11/14/2009 7:27:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl It is worth digressing here for a moment to address one common misconception about the Social Security trust fund. A number of critics have attacked the "reality" of the trust fund, on the basis that the trust fund holds only "government IOUs." This attack is a red herring. In point of fact, the macroeconomic reality of the trust fund does not hinge on the assets that it holds, but rather on the issue of whether trust fund accumulations are backed by government saving. In the old regime, in which balancing the unified budget was taken to be the standard of adequate fiscal performance, the trust fund did not have great significance from a macroeconomic perspective (even though it is very "real" indeed for other purposes). And the same was true regardless of what assets the trust fund was invested in -- be they gold ingots, corporate shares, or Treasury securities. By contrast, in the new regime, in which the fiscal objective is to balance the budget excluding the Social Security surpluses, then the trust fund is fully "real" from a macroeconomic perspective, again without regard to whatever assets the trust fund may be invested in. The key is whether changes in the level of the trust fund are backed, dollar for dollar, by government saving. If they are, then - for my purposes as a macroeconomist - the trust fund is very real indeed. And this accomplishment - the fact that the Social Security trust fund now has real macroeconomic meaning - is, in my view, one of the most under-rated achievements of the Clinton Administration http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/ls1088.htm Again, your source. Damn, you go girl! Of course, if I couldn't even get across the point that 3.5 (Spending) minus 2.1 (Revenue)= 1.4 (Deficit) then I have scant hope that your reasoning will make the point. But sally forth anyway and fight the good fight!

tazzygirl -> RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (11/14/2009 7:38:42 PM)
LOL... they wont get it.. but its out there. And, again, 1 trillion for a war ( which really isnt a war) certainly took care of that surplus in record time. However, if we had not invaded, put out the man power for all these years, the economic picture may have changed. We will never know.

Raiikun -> RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (11/14/2009 7:41:16 PM)
You mean the negative surplus (ie deficit) according the the Treasury Dept? :p

tazzygirl -> RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (11/14/2009 7:47:59 PM)
I do believe you are working under the myth that the budget will ever be completely zero.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (11/14/2009 7:49:56 PM)
Yeah bullshit is what you are full of. Master Chen (my former Tai Chi Teacher) would have you bow at the waist or on your ass for such arrogance. It is a sign of respect, and has been pointed out to you, is very complex in the nuances when done. You hijack so many threads with your bullshit, I cannot believe that the Mods allow you to continue to post. You show you have no clue what courtesy is, you make assanine comments, and very little substance to back up your hatred and irrational tirades. I recommend that everyone just put your ass on hide, and let you wallow in silence, until you can learn a modicum of decency towards intellectual discourse. Yeah there will be some personal attacks, hijacks, and the like in a section such as this, but your posts and behavior are plain disruptive, counter-productive, and causes a complete waste of bandwidth. So long Sanity, you are banished from my reality, and I hope others follow suit. quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Bull shit. Bowing means you are submissive to them. Why not polish his knob while he's down there because thats the implication. You bow to indicate that your head is theirs to lop off or otherwise for them to do with as they please. If hes your god then bow. If hes a man then you wave to each other to prove your hands are free of weapons then you might shake his hand as a sign of trust, especially if you are the leader of a free people.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (11/14/2009 7:53:37 PM)
Obama has disappointed some before with the lack of "change" in his administration. Just look at the political coin he could have gained for healthcare reform, just by pushing through something to bring Medicare waste under control. Look at some of the same political theater he uses, that has disgusted many of us in the past. If he actually reduces some waste, and forces the government to be more effecient, then that would be a great thing, but I do not expect him, or any politician to do anything of substance. Remember this is all a football game, and just done for entertainment purposes. quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales quote: When it becomes an act instead of just another lie in a litany of them, it will be a positive. ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy I'm going to save this post, Willbeur...and when and if it comes to pass, I'm going to see if you have the ethics, honesty and guts to say that it is a positive or if you'll just twist it into another mindless anti progressive rant.

Sanity -> RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (11/14/2009 8:41:49 PM)
I'm sorry you feel that way Orion, but I certainly understand why you might feel that way. I have a few people on ignore myself, its just something you have to do sometimes. Best wishes.

rulemylife -> RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (11/14/2009 8:51:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Thank you rml, thats awesome. We've found agreement on something. Everyone agrees, there is plenty of room to cut "non-discretionary" spending. Obama agrees, the Republicans agree... Everyone agrees, except Animus. The only thing I'm confused about though is why Republicans seem to be speaking out of both sides of their mouths. On one hand they claim the Democrats bill would be "killing Grandma" while on the other hand their proposal puts forth the same measures to cut waste that the Dems propose.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama Takes On The Deficit (11/14/2009 8:53:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/31/politics/washingtonpost/main4906936.shtml "The Treasury Department has for decades borrowed money from the Social Security trust fund to finance government operations. If it is no longer able to do so, it could be forced to borrow an additional $700 billion over the next decade from China, Japan and other investors. And at some point, perhaps as early as 2017, according to the CBO, the Treasury would have to start repaying the billions it has borrowed from the trust fund over the past 25 years, driving the nation further into debt or forcing Congress to raise taxes." The important thing here is that "borrowing from Social Security" is no different than "borrowing from anywhere else". A bond is a bond is a bond. If Social Security didnt buy US Treasuries it would have to invest its surplus somewhere else, assuming more risk and potentially distorting the market with the size of its transactions. Ultimately it comes full circle to spending and taxes.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 5 [6]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875