|
Consideration required
wrote in message
... On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 17:14:18 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 16:37:16 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message m... On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:31:17 -0500, bpuharic wrote: The reason why Clinton showed a surplus was because he could borrow from Social Security and call it income although it was still increasing the debt. uh huh. bet that trick was never tried before or since It has been done by every president since LBJ, who signed the legislation. Unfortunately it was too late to help him. Nixon got the only other balanced budget since Eisenhower, using the SS surplus. Ike did it by actually cutting spending. Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased? A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not. http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...federal. html Which year did the debt actually go down? I didn't think so. Taking one piece of the debt (the money you borrow from SS) and applying it to lowering your deficit is basically paying your Visa card bill with your Mastercard. Ike actually had a year when the debt went down. So, you're unwilling to believe a non-partisan group... whatever. I believe what they say, I just question what that really means. When you are using borrowed money to balance your budget you are lying to yourself. From where are you claiming he borrowed money? As they said, even if you include the SS "borrowing," there was still a surplus. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
wrote in message
... On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 10:24:04 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: From where are you claiming he borrowed money? As they said, even if you include the SS "borrowing," there was still a surplus. -- Ever since 1940 the government has been borrowing the surplus from the "trust fund". We put a similar treasury bond in there as we give the Chinese. The question is only which one we will cash first if money gets tight. The major difference started in the last year of L:BJ when they changed the bookkeeping rules to show that surplus as revenue for the government and not a trust fund for the future SS recipients. (it was put "on budget"). They still borrow it and spend it issuing a bond and putting it on the debt but the money shows up as revenue when we compute the deficit. It was a trick to hide the cost of the Vietnam war. As I said, Nixon actually got a surplus ... for one year 1969. The debt still went up. I stand by my original statement and link. I would expect no less ;-) The fact still remains that when they spend the surplus it becomes debt and by it being "on budget" it does not show up on the deficit. "when they spend the surplus it becomes debt"???? Well, eventually. Again, what's your point Sleazy Vietnam era accounting trick that makes the budget look better than it is. It is all academic anyway because in a year or two that surplus will peak and be dropping, totally gone in 6 years or so. I will be curious how they juggle the books to make the SS deficit, not show up on the budget deficit. (the down side of it being "on budget"). Clinton was well past the "Sleazy Vietnam era." -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
Harry wrote:
On 2/7/10 11:30 AM, bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:25:04 -0500, wrote: The national debt story. http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16 Look at the increase in revenues during those years. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy...s/hist15z1.xls Reagan wasn't in office by then... FYI, the economy grew 6% in the last quarter... the best in SIX years! Statistical spin. When you hit rock bottom, and upward movement is statistically huge. even if you subtract effects of inventories, the economy grew. which is more than we can say about bush Bruce is one of those Republithugs who doesn't want any sort of economic turnaround. Improvement in the economy will make it more difficult for the Republithugs. Bruce hates America. Sure, Harry. That's exactly what I said, right? |
Consideration required
wrote in message
... On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 13:44:06 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 10:24:04 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: They still borrow it and spend it issuing a bond and putting it on the debt but the money shows up as revenue when we compute the deficit. It was a trick to hide the cost of the Vietnam war. As I said, Nixon actually got a surplus ... for one year 1969. The debt still went up. I stand by my original statement and link. I would expect no less ;-) The fact still remains that when they spend the surplus it becomes debt and by it being "on budget" it does not show up on the deficit. "when they spend the surplus it becomes debt"???? Well, eventually. Again, what's your point It becomes debt but because of the LBJ trick it does not show up in the deficit. Sleazy Vietnam era accounting trick that makes the budget look better than it is. It is all academic anyway because in a year or two that surplus will peak and be dropping, totally gone in 6 years or so. I will be curious how they juggle the books to make the SS deficit, not show up on the budget deficit. (the down side of it being "on budget"). Clinton was well past the "Sleazy Vietnam era." True but he still got the $105 billion extra in his budget from that sleazy accounting trick in 1999 to show a surplus. You act like the debt is something that's so horrible we're going to shrivel up at any moment. What do you think the consequences would be of not doing that? The gov't runs out of money and throws people out of their jobs among other nasty things. Your solution? -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
wrote in message
... On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 13:44:06 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 10:24:04 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: They still borrow it and spend it issuing a bond and putting it on the debt but the money shows up as revenue when we compute the deficit. It was a trick to hide the cost of the Vietnam war. As I said, Nixon actually got a surplus ... for one year 1969. The debt still went up. I stand by my original statement and link. I would expect no less ;-) The fact still remains that when they spend the surplus it becomes debt and by it being "on budget" it does not show up on the deficit. "when they spend the surplus it becomes debt"???? Well, eventually. Again, what's your point It becomes debt but because of the LBJ trick it does not show up in the deficit. Sleazy Vietnam era accounting trick that makes the budget look better than it is. It is all academic anyway because in a year or two that surplus will peak and be dropping, totally gone in 6 years or so. I will be curious how they juggle the books to make the SS deficit, not show up on the budget deficit. (the down side of it being "on budget"). Clinton was well past the "Sleazy Vietnam era." True but he still got the $105 billion extra in his budget from that sleazy accounting trick in 1999 to show a surplus. FYI: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...l-debt-ceiling -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
wrote in message
... On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 18:33:07 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "when they spend the surplus it becomes debt"???? Well, eventually. Again, what's your point It becomes debt but because of the LBJ trick it does not show up in the deficit. Sleazy Vietnam era accounting trick that makes the budget look better than it is. It is all academic anyway because in a year or two that surplus will peak and be dropping, totally gone in 6 years or so. I will be curious how they juggle the books to make the SS deficit, not show up on the budget deficit. (the down side of it being "on budget"). Clinton was well past the "Sleazy Vietnam era." True but he still got the $105 billion extra in his budget from that sleazy accounting trick in 1999 to show a surplus. You act like the debt is something that's so horrible we're going to shrivel up at any moment. What do you think the consequences would be of not doing that? The gov't runs out of money and throws people out of their jobs among other nasty things. Your solution? The debt will sink us long before global warming. We are taxing at about 18% of GDP right now but in 30 years that won't even be enough to cover the interest on the debt if you take the worst case GAO projections. Most of the projected spending is in entitlements, not discretionary spending so somebody is not only going to have to touch the third rail, (SS, Medicare, Medicaid) they have to grab it and rip it out. That won't happen. And, you believe that the economy will never recover significantly enough to make progress toward reducing the debt... well, that's pretty pessimistic I think. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
wrote in message
... On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 20:26:23 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The debt will sink us long before global warming. We are taxing at about 18% of GDP right now but in 30 years that won't even be enough to cover the interest on the debt if you take the worst case GAO projections. Most of the projected spending is in entitlements, not discretionary spending so somebody is not only going to have to touch the third rail, (SS, Medicare, Medicaid) they have to grab it and rip it out. That won't happen. And, you believe that the economy will never recover significantly enough to make progress toward reducing the debt... well, that's pretty pessimistic I think. Simple answer ... no ... there is not going to be enough growth to sustain the ponzi schemes we have contracted with the boomers and beyond. I thought we were talking about jobs, not schemes. You're saying you don't think jobs will return? Because basically that's what creates an economy capable of dealing with the debt. It is simple demographics. 2.1 workers per retiree can not sustain the same benefit package the greatest generation extracted from short sighted politicians when it was 18 workers per retiree. Yet, that's exactly what Obama is trying to do... look at the long term. He's being vilified for that on a daily basis. Barry Goldwater warned us about this problem in 1964, when we might have been able to actually do something about it but we denied there was a problem and continued to kick the can down the road for another 46 years even adding to the problem with new entitlements. My kids have a better chance of seeing a unicorn than they do of seeing a social security check. The only question is whether the US as we know it will still be here. Well Sen. Goldwater had other problems... 1964 was a long time ago, and he warned us about a lot of things. As much as I hate the idea of losing my benefits, I think we will have to cut back on SS somehow and we really need to cut the COST of medical care, not just get the government to pay for it. Unfortunately that means we will be rationing care and there will not be the kind of extravagant treatments for dead people than we are used to. Up to half of the total medical expenditures most people have are in their last 6 months of life and it really only buys them a month or so. The gov't isn't going to be "paying" for anything. The point is to offer competition through a public option. That would do what you want, even though you may not want to believe it. If you're worried about end of life counseling then have a chat with Palin and the nut jobs who are calling it death panels. Personally I don't want that kind of care but I am not the usual person. If I ever got that sick I would just want out. It's called a living will. But, according to those on the right, that a death panel decision not an individual decision. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
wrote in message
... On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 23:13:57 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 20:26:23 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: And, you believe that the economy will never recover significantly enough to make progress toward reducing the debt... well, that's pretty pessimistic I think. Simple answer ... no ... there is not going to be enough growth to sustain the ponzi schemes we have contracted with the boomers and beyond. I thought we were talking about jobs, not schemes. You're saying you don't think jobs will return? Because basically that's what creates an economy capable of dealing with the debt. There just are not enough young people out there to support the number of old people we have, even if they did get good jobs There are, depending on how it's structured, how much costs can be reduced, and possibly a change in benefits. It is simple demographics. 2.1 workers per retiree can not sustain the same benefit package the greatest generation extracted from short sighted politicians when it was 18 workers per retiree. Yet, that's exactly what Obama is trying to do... look at the long term. He's being vilified for that on a daily basis. Agreed, and so has every other politician who tries to touch the third rail. The "third rail" is typically Social Security. Barry Goldwater warned us about this problem in 1964, when we might have been able to actually do something about it but we denied there was a problem and continued to kick the can down the road for another 46 years even adding to the problem with new entitlements. My kids have a better chance of seeing a unicorn than they do of seeing a social security check. The only question is whether the US as we know it will still be here. Well Sen. Goldwater had other problems... 1964 was a long time ago, and he warned us about a lot of things. Yes he warned us about a lot of things, most of which were right. Like what? He changed his views on several things. The fix for Social Security really had to happen a long time ago. Completely untrue. It's an ongoing problem and solution set. As much as I hate the idea of losing my benefits, I think we will have to cut back on SS somehow and we really need to cut the COST of medical care, not just get the government to pay for it. Unfortunately that means we will be rationing care and there will not be the kind of extravagant treatments for dead people than we are used to. Up to half of the total medical expenditures most people have are in their last 6 months of life and it really only buys them a month or so. The gov't isn't going to be "paying" for anything. The point is to offer competition through a public option. That would do what you want, even though you may not want to believe it. If you're worried about end of life counseling then have a chat with Palin and the nut jobs who are calling it death panels. Of course the government/tax payer was going to pay. This will start out as a modest health plan and then become the same boondoggle Medicare has become, over budget, deficit spending with a 15-20% fraud rate. We will never agree to the taxes necessary to support "free" health care. Nobody has ever proven to anyone who actually looks that this will be cheap. According to you. And, you're wrong. Personally I don't want that kind of care but I am not the usual person. If I ever got that sick I would just want out. It's called a living will. But, according to those on the right, that a death panel decision not an individual decision. The death panel is simply the people who decide whether a person without a living will gets extraordinary measures in the last few days of their life. I am for death panels. Personally I will just want the nitrous oxide, hold the oxygen. (the dentist's preferred form of punching out) Right now, the rich live, the poorer die. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
wrote in message
... On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 10:08:51 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 23:13:57 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: There just are not enough young people out there to support the number of old people we have, even if they did get good jobs There are, depending on how it's structured, how much costs can be reduced, and possibly a change in benefits. You really think 2.1 kids for each SS recipient is "enough"? My SS check will be $1946 a month when I plan on taking it in 2012 (age 66). That means each one of those 2.1 kids will be paying $11,120 a year just for my SS check and that doesn't cover my Medicare ... assuming SSA doesn't have any overhead. $15,000-$18,000 a year is a better number when you look at overhead, SSI and other things SSA will have to fund out of that FICA tax. It is simple demographics. 2.1 workers per retiree can not sustain the same benefit package the greatest generation extracted from short sighted politicians when it was 18 workers per retiree. Yet, that's exactly what Obama is trying to do... look at the long term. He's being vilified for that on a daily basis. Agreed, and so has every other politician who tries to touch the third rail. The "third rail" is typically Social Security. Yes, that is what we are talking about but the Obama and the Senate also found out you get a lot of mail when you say you are taking money out of Medicare. Barry Goldwater warned us about this problem in 1964, when we might have been able to actually do something about it but we denied there was a problem and continued to kick the can down the road for another 46 years even adding to the problem with new entitlements. My kids have a better chance of seeing a unicorn than they do of seeing a social security check. The only question is whether the US as we know it will still be here. Well Sen. Goldwater had other problems... 1964 was a long time ago, and he warned us about a lot of things. Yes he warned us about a lot of things, most of which were right. Like what? He changed his views on several things. Social Security, Vietnam, Cuba, all consuming government. One quote you should like from later in his life "I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass." The fix for Social Security really had to happen a long time ago. Completely untrue. It's an ongoing problem and solution set. How do you figure that? If we had made substantial changes 2 or 3 decades ago, it wouldn't be going broke before the end of this one. The only solution now is that ~$16,000 per worker tax I pointed out above. I know your knee jerk reaction is to just tax the rich people more but there are not that many rich people. The government owes Social Security over $2 trillion dollars and even if they had it to give, they program is still broke in 2043. Unfortunately we don't have the $2 trillion to give so it is really going to be in trouble in 2016 according to the trust fund report from SSA. Of course the government/tax payer was going to pay. This will start out as a modest health plan and then become the same boondoggle Medicare has become, over budget, deficit spending with a 15-20% fraud rate. We will never agree to the taxes necessary to support "free" health care. Nobody has ever proven to anyone who actually looks that this will be cheap. According to you. And, you're wrong. Facts ma'am, give me some facts. If they are not cutting the cost of care itself, it won't be cheaper and the plan is adding 40 million people, most of which probably won't be able to pay a fraction of their bill. We all will have to make up that difference. The CBO report on the Senate bill said costs would go up for those who have insurance now. That was pretty definitive for me. Personally I don't want that kind of care but I am not the usual person. If I ever got that sick I would just want out. It's called a living will. But, according to those on the right, that a death panel decision not an individual decision. The death panel is simply the people who decide whether a person without a living will gets extraordinary measures in the last few days of their life. I am for death panels. Personally I will just want the nitrous oxide, hold the oxygen. (the dentist's preferred form of punching out) Right now, the rich live, the poorer die. I ran those numbers for you all here a while ago and people without insurance die at about the same rate as people who have insurance. (using the "lack of insurance kills 43,000 people a year" factoid and "41 million don't have insurance" as a starting point). The difference is a few percent and other factors like crime, lifestyle and living conditions will easily cover that difference. Run those numbers against national death rates yourself and see. If you are saying poor people live in more dangerous neighborhoods, have a higher illegal drug use rate and have more dangerous lifestyles/jobs, I agree but giving them insurance won't really change that much. I'm sorry, but you seem to have all the answers, most of which appear to be either made up or twist and turn like a winding road in the mountains. It's just not worth it. On the one had you claim that jobs is the answer, and on the other you claim the debt is going to destroy us. Debt in a recession is a good thing. It's not even out of bounds... about the same as the "decades" ago you claim... about the same % of GDP as in the 70s. If you want to believe people don't die for lack of insurance, go for it. If you want to believe that Obama is somehow at fault and he's incompetent, that's fine with me. If you want to believe that Goldwater was some kind of prescient god, that's fine. None of these things actually turn into facts, however. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
|
Consideration required
wrote in message
... On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 23:45:41 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: None of these things actually turn into facts, however. They will Come talk to me in 2012 (when the end of the SS surplus is in sight) and see what everyone is talking about, including the Democrats. I guarantee it will be the debt crisis and the impending failure of Social Security. Umm... everyone knows about the coming problem with SS. It won't fail, just as the economy won't fail. That's a chicken little attitude. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 23:45:41 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: None of these things actually turn into facts, however. They will Come talk to me in 2012 (when the end of the SS surplus is in sight) and see what everyone is talking about, including the Democrats. I guarantee it will be the debt crisis and the impending failure of Social Security. Umm... everyone knows about the coming problem with SS. It won't fail, just as the economy won't fail. That's a chicken little attitude. Of course it won't fail. Obama is going to bail out SS. Right Nom? It's probably the only thing he could do to redeem himself at this point. |
Consideration required
|
Consideration required
"John H" wrote in message
... On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:11:30 -0500, wrote: On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 23:45:41 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: None of these things actually turn into facts, however. They will Come talk to me in 2012 (when the end of the SS surplus is in sight) and see what everyone is talking about, including the Democrats. I guarantee it will be the debt crisis and the impending failure of Social Security. That would be true only if those particular Democrats have enough sense to see what's going on. Plenty of those. It would be nice if someone in the Republican party stopped acting like a spoiled child who can only say no, no, no, while shaking his head from side to side. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
wrote in message
... On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:35:19 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 23:45:41 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: None of these things actually turn into facts, however. They will Come talk to me in 2012 (when the end of the SS surplus is in sight) and see what everyone is talking about, including the Democrats. I guarantee it will be the debt crisis and the impending failure of Social Security. Umm... everyone knows about the coming problem with SS. It won't fail, just as the economy won't fail. That's a chicken little attitude. OK, economies never fail. Keep telling yourself that. Perhaps it is time to remind you of the Alexander Tyler quote. I never said "economies never fail." I said ours wouldn't, especially not because of a SS crisis. "A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury." "From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship." "The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years" Umm... Roman Empire = 900 years? We are running on borrowed time ... and borrowed money. I suggest you move to Wyoming and buy a gun. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
wrote in message
... On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:34:18 -0500, John H wrote: Come talk to me in 2012 (when the end of the SS surplus is in sight) and see what everyone is talking about, including the Democrats. I guarantee it will be the debt crisis and the impending failure of Social Security. That would be true only if those particular Democrats have enough sense to see what's going on. The reality of the loss of the SS surplus will be on our door in 2012. If nothing else, they will not have that slush fund to attempt to balance the budget with, although with a deficit approaching $1T that is an insignificant number. The real question will be whether China decides to cash out of treasuries or what interest rate we will need to offer to keep them attractive. According to you. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
|
Consideration required
wrote in message
... On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:29:55 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:34:18 -0500, John H wrote: Come talk to me in 2012 (when the end of the SS surplus is in sight) and see what everyone is talking about, including the Democrats. I guarantee it will be the debt crisis and the impending failure of Social Security. That would be true only if those particular Democrats have enough sense to see what's going on. The reality of the loss of the SS surplus will be on our door in 2012. If nothing else, they will not have that slush fund to attempt to balance the budget with, although with a deficit approaching $1T that is an insignificant number. The real question will be whether China decides to cash out of treasuries or what interest rate we will need to offer to keep them attractive. According to you. If you do much reading, you will find a lot of financial people are asking the same questions about how long we can continue the raise the debt limit and how we will deal with the entitlements when they explode in our face.. Huh?? Lots of financial people (aka economists) ask those questions. We can't continue to raise it forever, but it's no where near an unusual dept to GDP crisis. The end of the SS surplus is straight from the trustees report on SSA.GOV, The demographics of the number of baby boomers vs the following generations who have to pay the bill is available from the census. The amount of our debt that is held by foreigners is from the treasury department. The percentage of discretionary spending vs entitlements, out in the future is from OMB. You may disagree with how I connect the dots but the dots are fact. Typically, dots are connected with some sort of logic. :) -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
In article ,
says... On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:52:24 -0500, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:17:08 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: According to you. If you do much reading, you will find a lot of financial people are asking the same questions about how long we can continue the raise the debt limit and how we will deal with the entitlements when they explode in our face.. Huh?? Lots of financial people (aka economists) ask those questions. We can't continue to raise it forever, but it's no where near an unusual dept to GDP crisis. The end of the SS surplus is straight from the trustees report on SSA.GOV, The demographics of the number of baby boomers vs the following generations who have to pay the bill is available from the census. The amount of our debt that is held by foreigners is from the treasury department. The percentage of discretionary spending vs entitlements, out in the future is from OMB. You may disagree with how I connect the dots but the dots are fact. Typically, dots are connected with some sort of logic. :) The warnings are out there but sometimes you just have to let the baby touch the stove. See you in 2012 At least one elected official knows what to do: http://wcbstv.com/local/governor.chr...2.1487727.html The problem with the US economy is the biggest chunk of our spending in 10 years will be "entitlements" that you can't "freeze". They grow on their own, unless you want to throw grandma from the train. You have to start somewhere. And, it is good to know that someone has the political courage to do what is needed. |
Consideration required
wrote in message
... On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:17:08 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: According to you. If you do much reading, you will find a lot of financial people are asking the same questions about how long we can continue the raise the debt limit and how we will deal with the entitlements when they explode in our face.. Huh?? Lots of financial people (aka economists) ask those questions. We can't continue to raise it forever, but it's no where near an unusual dept to GDP crisis. The end of the SS surplus is straight from the trustees report on SSA.GOV, The demographics of the number of baby boomers vs the following generations who have to pay the bill is available from the census. The amount of our debt that is held by foreigners is from the treasury department. The percentage of discretionary spending vs entitlements, out in the future is from OMB. You may disagree with how I connect the dots but the dots are fact. Typically, dots are connected with some sort of logic. :) The warnings are out there but sometimes you just have to let the baby touch the stove. See you in 2012 Come on... you're claiming that the world is going to end in 2012. Taint happenin... Perhaps you should vote for Ron Paul, assuming he's still in office. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
wrote in message
... On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:52:24 -0500, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:17:08 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: According to you. If you do much reading, you will find a lot of financial people are asking the same questions about how long we can continue the raise the debt limit and how we will deal with the entitlements when they explode in our face.. Huh?? Lots of financial people (aka economists) ask those questions. We can't continue to raise it forever, but it's no where near an unusual dept to GDP crisis. The end of the SS surplus is straight from the trustees report on SSA.GOV, The demographics of the number of baby boomers vs the following generations who have to pay the bill is available from the census. The amount of our debt that is held by foreigners is from the treasury department. The percentage of discretionary spending vs entitlements, out in the future is from OMB. You may disagree with how I connect the dots but the dots are fact. Typically, dots are connected with some sort of logic. :) The warnings are out there but sometimes you just have to let the baby touch the stove. See you in 2012 At least one elected official knows what to do: http://wcbstv.com/local/governor.chr...2.1487727.html The problem with the US economy is the biggest chunk of our spending in 10 years will be "entitlements" that you can't "freeze". They grow on their own, unless you want to throw grandma from the train. ?? It's already something like 2/3 of the Federal budget... something like that.. Here's a link... I just glanced at it. http://www.infoplease.com/cig/econom...e-economy.html -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
wrote in message
... On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:20:49 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:17:08 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: According to you. If you do much reading, you will find a lot of financial people are asking the same questions about how long we can continue the raise the debt limit and how we will deal with the entitlements when they explode in our face.. Huh?? Lots of financial people (aka economists) ask those questions. We can't continue to raise it forever, but it's no where near an unusual dept to GDP crisis. The end of the SS surplus is straight from the trustees report on SSA.GOV, The demographics of the number of baby boomers vs the following generations who have to pay the bill is available from the census. The amount of our debt that is held by foreigners is from the treasury department. The percentage of discretionary spending vs entitlements, out in the future is from OMB. You may disagree with how I connect the dots but the dots are fact. Typically, dots are connected with some sort of logic. :) The warnings are out there but sometimes you just have to let the baby touch the stove. See you in 2012 Come on... you're claiming that the world is going to end in 2012. Taint happenin... Perhaps you should vote for Ron Paul, assuming he's still in office. The world isn't going to end in 2012, just the rising SS surplus. It will peak and quickly decline to the point where FICA won't support outlays in 2016. That is not my opinion. It is from SSA.GOV. And then the end of the world, right? Well, despite your ominous thoughts, we'll be just fine. . I do think Ron Paul is right on a lot of things but I can't vote for him because he is in Texas. I did vote for the Libertarian pres candidate in 92, 96, 00 and 04. In 08 I voted for Paris Hilton. She had the best ad. How did all that Libertarian voting work out for you? It was a great ad. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
wrote in message
... On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 17:00:13 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: I do think Ron Paul is right on a lot of things but I can't vote for him because he is in Texas. I did vote for the Libertarian pres candidate in 92, 96, 00 and 04. In 08 I voted for Paris Hilton. She had the best ad. How did all that Libertarian voting work out for you? It is just my way of saying "none of the above" I certainly understand that choice, but I don't agree with it, because it is, in essence, removing yourself from the process. I have no problem with third party candidates, but they need to be mainstream enough in their rhetoric to have a chance. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
wrote in message
... On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:29:55 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The real question will be whether China decides to cash out of treasuries or what interest rate we will need to offer to keep them attractive. According to you. Me and the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/bu...yuan.html?_r=1 Could you possibly cite something a bit more current. Obama wasn't even president yet. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
wrote in message
... On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 18:53:14 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:29:55 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The real question will be whether China decides to cash out of treasuries or what interest rate we will need to offer to keep them attractive. According to you. Me and the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/bu...yuan.html?_r=1 Could you possibly cite something a bit more current. Obama wasn't even president yet. Sorry about the link, I heard the issue about the declining Chinese investment today on CNN and assumed it was the same story. It is true that China just dropped behind Japan as our biggest benefactor. I suspect it is actually somewhat that they do not have the surplus of dollars because we aren't buying as much There could even be a tactic to bully us into keeping low tariffs on their products. The effect on the auction will be the same though. If demand on our paper goes down the interest we will have to pay to make it attractive will go up. Don't get me wrong... I absolutely agree that it's a problem, especially if we don't get our act together. I think all of the world's significant economies recognize that our exit from this recession is essential to their economies, and that there's got to be an improvement in our debt situation. -- Nom=de=Plume |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:49 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com