RE: two things.

RE: two things. (Full Version)

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

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: two things. (9/20/2013 6:17:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Nope, but we didn't have a dime left in the checkbook. So, "late on payments is late on payments" didn't accurately portray anything, and, yet, our credit rating was devalued. I'm sure it had nothing to do with our racking up ever increasing amounts of debt, though, right? [8\|]

mnottertail -> RE: two things. (9/20/2013 6:39:33 AM)
Yeah, it rather accurately reflected the situation, the credit downgrade was because we couldnt make any payments, as we was skint, extraordinary measures were taken to meet the payments. (and there were state payments (internal) that went wanting during that time). Then they raised the debt ceiling, fater the carnage was complete. So, look, if cheap shotting the shit while eliding the prolifigate borrow and spend, and absolute fiscal irresponsibility and ineptitude and disasterous policies, and innumeracy of the nutsuckers is the point, it is not gonna be lost on the cognizant citizen. Big damage done, in the name of nutsuckerism.

DesideriScuri -> RE: two things. (9/20/2013 6:50:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Yeah, it rather accurately reflected the situation, the credit downgrade was because we couldnt make any payments, as we was skint, extraordinary measures were taken to meet the payments. (and there were state payments (internal) that went wanting during that time). Then they raised the debt ceiling, fater the carnage was complete. So, look, if cheap shotting the shit while eliding the prolifigate borrow and spend, and absolute fiscal irresponsibility and ineptitude, and innumeracy of the nutsuckers is the point, it is not gonna be lost on the cognizant citizen. Big damage done, in the name of nutsuckerism. It's not cheap shotting. The profligate spending is being reduced, which would reduce the amount we have to borrow. Sounds a bit like fiscal responsibility.

mnottertail -> RE: two things. (9/20/2013 6:51:31 AM)
Not at all, reducing the spending from 80 times your income to 79 times your income does not even reside in the same reality as the universe.

DesideriScuri -> RE: two things. (9/20/2013 7:24:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Not at all, reducing the spending from 80 times your income to 79 times your income does not even reside in the same reality as the universe. While that is true, we aren't talking about reducing from 80x to 79x, are we? Obamacare is, what, $1.2T over 10 years? While that is, roughly, 3.4% of spending ($120B/yr. average compared to $3.537T in 2012 total outlays), it is 4.8% of receipts ($2.45T in 2012 revenues). Instead of spending 44.4% more than we bring in, isn't it, in reality, better to only spend 39.5% more than your income? While spending 40% more than income is still ridiculous, it's a tick less ridiculous than spending 45% more than income.

mnottertail -> RE: two things. (9/20/2013 7:45:57 AM)
Nope, you cant pay back a dollar, you cant pay back 85 trillion, same fuckin difference. So, our reciepts are too low, so we raise defense 20% and cut foodstamps to insure that we have starving troops should we need to invade north korea and Iran. No, reducing mindlessly with across the board cuts designed to show how nutsuckers do not understand the economy while sinking 20% more into an already borrow and spend hole in defense which doesn't do much for the country other than provide corporate welfare. . . And you treat these as separate illnesses when it is clear they are all the same symptoms in the disease of the body politik.

DesideriScuri -> RE: two things. (9/20/2013 8:01:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Nope, you cant pay back a dollar, you cant pay back 85 trillion, same fuckin difference. So, our reciepts are too low, so we raise defense 20% and cut foodstamps to insure that we have starving troops should we need to invade north korea and Iran. No, reducing mindlessly with across the board cuts designed to show how nutsuckers do not understand the economy while sinking 20% more into an already borrow and spend hole in defense which doesn't do much for the country other than provide corporate welfare. . . And you treat these as separate illnesses when it is clear they are all the same symptoms in the disease of the body politik. Again, we aren't talking $1 vs. $85T. And, we are also talking about the third highest receipt total in the history of the US. 2013 estimate for receipts (2.712T would beat the current highest by $145B). Revenues are near all-time highs. Spending is the issue.

mnottertail -> RE: two things. (9/20/2013 8:11:21 AM)
And who gives the glimmer of a fuck? If I make 2712 and 3865 is my expenditures, or my income is less than my outlay by 30%, what the fuck do meaningless statistics as a percentage of historical highs and nutsucker lows got to do with anything? The reality is the reality, there is no need to measure in dishonest ways and introduce non-sequiturs and red herrings to see that the nutsuckers are fiscally irresponsible and going deeper off the hook. Revenues are the issue, and spending is the issue, and what we are spending on, and how we are spending it on those things is the issue. So, if we outlay like 2007 (sub-prime crisis, recession) we should be in good shape? You gonna get the corporations to charge 2007 prices and pay 2007 wages?

DesideriScuri -> RE: two things. (9/20/2013 8:41:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail And who gives the glimmer of a fuck? If I make 2712 and 3865 is my expenditures, or my income is less than my outlay by 30%, what the fuck do meaningless statistics as a percentage of historical highs and nutsucker lows got to do with anything? The reality is the reality, there is no need to measure in dishonest ways and introduce non-sequiturs and red herrings to see that the nutsuckers are fiscally irresponsible and going deeper off the hook. We agree. So, stop with the non-sequiturs and red herrings. quote: Revenues are the issue, and spending is the issue, and what we are spending on, and how we are spending it on those things is the issue. So, if we outlay like 2007 (sub-prime crisis, recession) we should be in good shape? You gonna get the corporations to charge 2007 prices and pay 2007 wages? Fuckin' A! 2007 outlays would almost balance the budget compared to the estimated 2013 revenues! Works for me. At least, as a starting goal. Revenues are up. 2007 and 2008 are the highest ever, and they are about to eclipsed. Spending isn't going down at all. If we held spending at 2013 estimates, and our revenue projections bear out, we'll have a budget surplus in 2017. Of course, our budget deficit estimate is $484B for 2017, but whatever, right? [8\|]

JeffBC -> RE: two things. (9/20/2013 8:41:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail What does this mean for the economy? You want my guess? Nothing much. I no longer believe "the economy" is controlled by any of the mechanisms we see. I see it as just more political drama... game of thrones stuff. The actual controllers of the economy won't allow the status quo to change if they can avoid it.

graceadieu -> RE: two things. (9/20/2013 10:00:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri It will also put a pause in the business community as they can't forecast future activities without knowing wtf is going to happen, regarding Obamacare, and I'm sure most or all of them are interested in the developments. Right. If you have no idea what's going to happen next month, let alone next year - whether the government will default on it's debt and make it difficult to borrow money, whether your patients will recieve Medicare or your defense contract will be renewed or the national park that brings your customers will stay open or whatever your business is - how can you make any plans for the future? High taxes and increased benefit requirements are a pain, but if you know it's going to happen, you can plan for that. You can't plan when nothing is certain. This constant Republican brinksmanship is bad for business and probably a significant part of what's holding the recovery back.

graceadieu -> RE: two things. (9/20/2013 10:07:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Several million people suddenly out of work won't affect the economy? Since when? Any support for your claim of "several million people suddenly out of work?" And, which one of the two conditions were you making that claim about? If the government shuts down that will put several million people out of work directly and indirectly. So, no. No citations. Got it. Do you think there are no federal government employees? Do you not understand if a large group of people become unemployed the reduction in spending will result in other job losses? So, no citations in support of your claim, then. Got it. http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962/ 2.7 million federal civilian employees. A government shutdown would result in most of those, some would stay on the job as essential to national security, being out of work. Now what the fuck are you trying to claim? How long would they be out of work? How many would actually be out of work? A two-week shutdown would impact the economy long term, how? Based on '96, almost all of them would be out of work and unpaid for the duration of the shutdown. IIRC they had some key workers come in and work unpaid, but on the whole, pretty much everybody stayed home and didn't get 1¢.

graceadieu -> RE: two things. (9/20/2013 10:09:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail After the fact. Late on payments is late on payments, and we have payments due every nanosecond. Were we actually late on payments, though? No, but because we paid with literally hours to spare and we were really public about how we almost didn't pay at all, it made us look like a risky proposition. That's why the lowered our credit rating.

mnottertail -> RE: two things. (9/20/2013 10:12:04 AM)
And some big juking by the Treasury

DomKen -> RE: two things. (9/20/2013 11:02:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Several million people suddenly out of work won't affect the economy? Since when? Any support for your claim of "several million people suddenly out of work?" And, which one of the two conditions were you making that claim about? If the government shuts down that will put several million people out of work directly and indirectly. So, no. No citations. Got it. Do you think there are no federal government employees? Do you not understand if a large group of people become unemployed the reduction in spending will result in other job losses? So, no citations in support of your claim, then. Got it. http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962/ 2.7 million federal civilian employees. A government shutdown would result in most of those, some would stay on the job as essential to national security, being out of work. Now what the fuck are you trying to claim? How long would they be out of work? How many would actually be out of work? A two-week shutdown would impact the economy long term, how? Almost 1% of the total US population missing even one paycheck would have no negative economic repercussions? Do you really believe that?

Phydeaux -> RE: two things. (9/20/2013 11:08:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: graceadieu quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri It will also put a pause in the business community as they can't forecast future activities without knowing wtf is going to happen, regarding Obamacare, and I'm sure most or all of them are interested in the developments. Right. If you have no idea what's going to happen next month, let alone next year - whether the government will default on it's debt and make it difficult to borrow money, whether your patients will recieve Medicare or your defense contract will be renewed or the national park that brings your customers will stay open or whatever your business is - how can you make any plans for the future? High taxes and increased benefit requirements are a pain, but if you know it's going to happen, you can plan for that. You can't plan when nothing is certain. This constant Republican brinksmanship is bad for business and probably a significant part of what's holding the recovery back. Snicker. Governmet is not business. Constant government intervention in EVERY aspect of life these days is whats bad for business. New rules outlawing coal power plants - check. New labor negotion rules - check New requirements for healthcare - check. And next week. And next week. And next week. Uncertainty - will taxes be raised - check. Yeah it has nothing to do with consumers lack of confidence in the job market. Nothing to do with massive unemployment. Its all big business'es fault. No wait.. I forgot. Its all Bush's fault.

mnottertail -> RE: two things. (9/20/2013 11:16:44 AM)
Snicker, government is business. That is why governments are formed. More nutsucker borrow and spend. Check. More nutsucker destruction of constitution. Check More nutsucker legislation to control womens vaginas. Check. More nutsucker fiscal iresponsiblity and innumeracy. Check. More nutsucker legislative ineptness. Check. More nutsucker corporate welfare. Check More nutsucker give to the rich and take more from the poor. Check.

DesideriScuri -> RE: two things. (9/20/2013 11:31:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Several million people suddenly out of work won't affect the economy? Since when? Any support for your claim of "several million people suddenly out of work?" And, which one of the two conditions were you making that claim about? If the government shuts down that will put several million people out of work directly and indirectly. So, no. No citations. Got it. Do you think there are no federal government employees? Do you not understand if a large group of people become unemployed the reduction in spending will result in other job losses? So, no citations in support of your claim, then. Got it. http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962/ 2.7 million federal civilian employees. A government shutdown would result in most of those, some would stay on the job as essential to national security, being out of work. Now what the fuck are you trying to claim? How long would they be out of work? How many would actually be out of work? A two-week shutdown would impact the economy long term, how? Almost 1% of the total US population missing even one paycheck would have no negative economic repercussions? Do you really believe that? You do realize that you haven't answered any questions or cited anything that shows that millions of people would suddenly be out of work. Nor have you cited anything that shows what that effect would have on the economy.

DomKen -> RE: two things. (9/20/2013 12:49:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri You do realize that you haven't answered any questions or cited anything that shows that millions of people would suddenly be out of work. Nor have you cited anything that shows what that effect would have on the economy. If the federal government does not have a budget it has no authorization to spend money on payroll. When that happens the only federal employees even allowed to come into work are those deemed essential and the only way any of them get paid for that time is if when the spending authorization is finally passed it includes a special provision authorizing that pay. do you really think the Republicans in the House would pass such a measure? If you have any actual questions why not ask them? All you've done in response to my posts is demand links to fairly obvious information.

DesideriScuri -> RE: two things. (9/20/2013 1:14:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri You do realize that you haven't answered any questions or cited anything that shows that millions of people would suddenly be out of work. Nor have you cited anything that shows what that effect would have on the economy. If the federal government does not have a budget it has no authorization to spend money on payroll. When that happens the only federal employees even allowed to come into work are those deemed essential and the only way any of them get paid for that time is if when the spending authorization is finally passed it includes a special provision authorizing that pay. do you really think the Republicans in the House would pass such a measure? If you have any actual questions why not ask them? All you've done in response to my posts is demand links to fairly obvious information. I have asked questions (asking for citations is neither demanding nor is it not asking questions). You continue to talk in platitudes and refer to stuff that could be very credible. But, you have no proof it is. Therein lies your issue. MN went on about sequestration already having an effect. I showed government employment had dropped slightly, but that when compared to the previous year, it was almost non-existent. And, on top of all that, private employment continued to rise well beyond what was cut (even taking the assumption that all 28k jobs lost were due to sequestration). I put the numbers on the page. I tried to put the graphs on the page, too, but that didn't work for some reason.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.785156E-02