Quote: (11-08-2012 04:40 AM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

So then why everyone complaining we're in debt and need cut spending? After all, we can afford spending 100B a year for a war.

There are many causes, but if 100B a year is not a waste for you, I definitely wouldn't trust you with any cuts.

Great point. Actually, about the debt... there was another question, asking you how the conservatives handled the debt in 2001-2009 when they were in power. Did you somehow miss it?

The Iraq War was not really necessary in my opinion, and I disagree with how the Afghan war was run. Since America has won the Cold War, I basically reject the idea of spending more than 3% at most on defence. We need to save our money for China. So I agree with you.

But 100bn is not that big a deal in the big picture. That's my point. About 1% of total output. If the government had NO other spending than defence, the taxes required to fund that war would've been minimal.

GWB was a disaster - for America and for the Republicans most of all. Just look? He's probably the main reason Romney lost! But I wouldn't call him a conservative after seeing how he ran things. A true conservative wouldn't have done it that way. GWB was a sell-out to the progressives, he did progressive things, and was basically hopeless.

A nation will get nowhere if it promotes wealth distribution above wealth creation. Economies and civilizations that have done this have always failed.

Quote: (11-08-2012 02:57 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

Quote: (11-08-2012 02:12 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Thing is, I actually agree with Tenderman on the above. But Republicans offer what? Tax cuts? That's going to shrink the deficit?

The idea is to cut marginal rates and compensate by broadening the tax base.

Broadening the base is the easiest and most efficient way to raise revenue. Cutting marginal rates leads to an immediate revenue loss, called the static effect (income effect), but because you have now changed the trade-off between leisure and labor, there will be a dynamic substitution effect as workers increase their labor/leisure ratio.

At tax rates in the US, this effect will be very strong for marginal tax rates of 35 percent. That's a rather high marginal tax on income, so the dynamic effects will be quite strong. They'll be much less strong at a lower rates.

The Reagan tax reform of 86 is touted as an example. Martin Feldstein showed that a 10% broadening of the tax base matched by a comparative rate reduction would lead to a 4% increase in revenue.
Let's say you take $100 you spend on tax exemptions, credits and loopholes, and spend $100 on a marginal tax-rate cut instead.

It will only cost you $60 to do this, because your tax revenue will increase $40. The reason the revenue increases is due to output growth, as you incentivize productive behaviour.

This was the point of the Romney plan, Simpson-Bowles and latest GOP offer to Obama (from Boehner yesterday).

The President however, wants to raise marginal rates on the highest earners. Which is stupid. The highest earners are not the country's richest people. The richest people in the country get most of their income from investments and savings. They don't even have jobs! The answer to that is to raise taxes on capital dividends and gains. I'm a conservative, and I'm very much in favour of this, as long as the corporate tax rate is halved. The US has the highest corporate tax rates in the world, and reducing these rates would increase FDI in the US and encourage businesses to have their income taxed in the US rather than elsewhere. In economics, always go for the carrot over the stick. I think 15-19% would be a good flat corporate tax rate, because it would put as at the lower end of the OECD.

In addition, there needs to be spending cuts. Like Dave Stockton, we should cut across the board:

Entitlements, defence and discretionary spending, and get rid of half of the federal government employees.

End the QE, starting prepping the country for higher interest rates, so we can get people back into bonds and fixed income and away from equity.

Solve immigration, go for negative low-skill immigration and a slight positive high-skill immigration until unemployment is below 3%. After that, go for low-volume high-skill immigration to keep innovation in the US.

Tax reform as described above.

Pay back all debt to the Social Security Fund, and use those funds for infrastructure investment in the US (toll roads, toll bridges, lease-back public buildings), or send it out to earn returns on the financial markets, or use it to do what the Chinese are doing and buy mines, assets and other stuff in 3rd world countries.

This sounds very reasonable.

hell yeezy theres hope nigga

hit me up on skype roscayiffs

Quote: (11-08-2012 02:06 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (11-08-2012 01:32 AM)deepcov3r Wrote:  

Quote: (11-08-2012 01:03 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

This is what economic collapse looks like:

http://demonocracy.info/infographics/usa...-2013.html

Great exposition-- sure looks scary to me as well.

And your suggestion, with numbers and dates-- to fix it?

Gold standard tomorrow morning?

I'm not trying to minimize inflationary danger or whatever, but what's the point of bringing it all up if you have no suggestion whatsoever of specifically what should be done?

Stop QE totally, tomorrow? Seriously, I don't know, it' s not a rhetorical question except to the degree I'd like to see what people think--specifically-- besides "the sky is falling"

I can barely find a parking spot here in the malls in California, so the economic collapse hasn't happened here. I know Detroit looks a lot different.

The only way to stop the USA from dying is by reducing government spending.

That's never going to happen, so we'll have hyperinflation.

I agree politicians have no choice but to inflate their way out of the debt. It also helps us default on China ( and Japan). But why, and exactly when is the hyperinflation going to happen if at all?

Looks possible to me-- but again, without the time element, people can say that forever. So what objective referent would you have to see, by when, to say it won't happen. Saying " x is going to happen, I have no idea when", seems like saying nothing at all.

I say this because people have been predicting hyperinflation for a decade or more.

I assume your answer to "what to do" then is something like buy physical gold or a cabin in Idaho?

Quote: (11-08-2012 03:56 AM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

That was really nice, bro.

Too bad you vented off too early, right when I was prepared to learn how the hell we managed running up such huge national debt when there was surplus after Clinton.

Also I heard there were some pretty wars which cost some money, you're so good with the numbers, could you please enlighten me who was that bad liberal socialist dude who started them? Could you tell me how much they cost so far? I've seen some really scary numbers.

I'm dying to hear from you bro. Just don't bring your guns, your cowboy boots and your pickup truck, they scare me!

Uh, you may be successful and all, and you may be -- well whoever you are -- but you are as bad at history as you are at math.

So, let me get something straight for you.

THE MONEY WE SPENT ON THE WARS IS GONE!!!!

The argument you trot out is tired and predictable.

Me: We have this huge looming fiscal crisis.
You: BBBBBBUUUTTT we spent all this money on the wars!!
Reality (cue smack upside Nemesis' head): GUESS FUCKING WHAT? WE CAN'T GET THAT MONEY BACK!!

Got it? I know you and your ilk would love to turn back the clock and all, but we can't do that in this particular universe we inhabit.

As far as Clinton and his surplus is concerned -- I know some like to invoke the God Clinton -- three things to keep in mind.

1. We had a Republican House run by the golem Newt Gingrich who got Clinton to triangulate and get us to a balanced budget (remember, all spending has to originate in the House).

2. Clinton CUT capital gains taxes and did Welfare Reform (a Republican idea that saved tons of money) both to the howls of psuedo-pain from englightened left wing Democrats.

3. And finally, Clinton was president during a time of unprecedented improvements in productivity (largely driven by Baby Boomers in their prime working years, see Steve Jobs), especially in technology, medicine, and engineering.

So trust me, if we brought Clinton back (which I would actually applaud), we STILL have this fiscal catastrophe looming.

Now that you have been set straight, you can go back to sticking your tongue out at Fox News.

Quote: (11-08-2012 01:47 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

60bn is nothing compared to the size of those economies. The blue states, CA, IL, NY are bankrupt. They have also all been under one-party democractic rule for years.

California's pension fund has about 242 Billion in assets in every investment all over the world . I looked at the list of companies, it's 200 pages long.

They pay out something like 10 billion a year in pensions, and somewhat less than that on health care for retirees. Current workers paying soething like 10 Billion a year. People are screaming "We're broke" to try to get that money over to Wall Street. Good luck.

When your pension fund has 200 billion, post here again and lecture us on frugality. It sucks to be on the losing side.

Maybe us "fruits and nuts" in California aren't quite so dumb. Let us know how much your pension fund has.

Quote: (11-08-2012 09:19 AM)deepcov3r Wrote:  

Quote: (11-08-2012 02:06 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (11-08-2012 01:32 AM)deepcov3r Wrote:  

Quote: (11-08-2012 01:03 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

This is what economic collapse looks like:

http://demonocracy.info/infographics/usa...-2013.html

Great exposition-- sure looks scary to me as well.

And your suggestion, with numbers and dates-- to fix it?

Gold standard tomorrow morning?

I'm not trying to minimize inflationary danger or whatever, but what's the point of bringing it all up if you have no suggestion whatsoever of specifically what should be done?

Stop QE totally, tomorrow? Seriously, I don't know, it' s not a rhetorical question except to the degree I'd like to see what people think--specifically-- besides "the sky is falling"

I can barely find a parking spot here in the malls in California, so the economic collapse hasn't happened here. I know Detroit looks a lot different.

The only way to stop the USA from dying is by reducing government spending.

That's never going to happen, so we'll have hyperinflation.

I agree politicians have no choice but to inflate their way out of the debt. It also helps us default on China ( and Japan). But why, and exactly when is the hyperinflation going to happen if at all?

Looks possible to me-- but again, without the time element, people can say that forever. So what objective referent would you have to see, by when, to say it won't happen. Saying " x is going to happen, I have no idea when", seems like saying nothing at all.

I say this because people have been predicting hyperinflation for a decade or more.

I assume your answer to "what to do" then is something like buy physical gold or a cabin in Idaho?

Someday you're going to die. I don't know when, but you will. But because I don't know when, it means I'm bullshitting you? Bad logic.


Again, this is simple math. Either we stop deficet spending, or else there will be hyperinflation. That's the logical outcome of every bankrupt nation. You can check the economic history books if you don't believe me.


As for what to do? There's probably nothing you can do. Most of us are going to be completed fucked, and either

a.) Suffer hardcore
b.) Get killed

In the ensuing aftermath.

Were you hoping for a happy ending? Sorry man, read some more history. Most of history are good times followed by bad times. During the bad times, people die.


We're going into the bad times, because we gave women the vote and women suck with money. Women elect people who don't give a shit about deficit spending, who then dig us a grave.

Americas fiscal problems are definitely solvable. For instance, look at Social Security in Chile. They adopted it in the 1920's, long before the US, and by the 1980's their system was bankrupt like ours is now. They reformed it based on free market principles under well defined government oversight and gave people the choice to go into the new system or remain in the old one. 92% of the people chose the new system within a few years because they get more benefits, more choice, better interest on their investment, and when they die they can leave what's left to their heirs. Compared to the US, Chilean Social Security is a much better deal and if we adopted their reforms we would be much better off.

The problem is our politicians have no will or incentive to reform anything. It's the 21st Century yet our entitlement programs are based on 75 year old models that bankrupt the country and are a shitty deal. In the 1960's the average employee paid about $120 a year on social security, today it's almost 20% of every paycheck and will continue rising just to keep the program slogging along.

It's pretty sad our leaders are so gutless that they see the problems and do absolutely nothing to fix them.

Quote: (11-08-2012 04:45 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

A true conservative wouldn't have done it that way. GWB was a sell-out to the progressives, he did progressive things, and was basically hopeless.

Bush squandered the surplus and created a mountain of debt with the help of many so called true conservatives. Many of them said Yes to everything Bush wanted - the wars, the large entitlement program, tax cuts, etc. Nothing budgeted for.

In his defense, Bush wasn't alone. He doesn't deserve all the blame.

And I don't understand why so many people buy whatever their parties sell.

Democrats say government doesn't have all the answers, but many act as if government can indeed spend many of our problems away.

Republicans preach smaller government and fiscal responsibility. But the truth is that the size of government has consistently grown under the watch of both parties.

When you stand in the middle, it's easier to see all the hypocrisy that comes from both sides.

Quote: (11-08-2012 09:29 AM)deepcov3r Wrote:  

California's pension fund has about 242 Billion in assets in every investment all over the world . I looked at the list of companies, it's 200 pages long.

They pay out something like 10 billion a year in pensions, and somewhat less than that on health care for retirees. Current workers paying soething like 10 Billion a year. People are screaming "We're broke" to try to get that money over to Wall Street. Good luck.

When your pension fund has 200 billion, post here again and lecture us on frugality. It sucks to be on the losing side.

Maybe us "fruits and nuts" in California aren't quite so dumb. Let us know how much your pension fund has.

Here's another guy that doesn't understand math.

It's not about current payouts -- it's about UNFUNDED LIABILITIES.

That's why communities like Stockton and San Bernadino are slowly, inexorably, going bankrupt. Don't think it can't happen on a big scale. It can...and guess what? If we don't change, it will.

Read this.
http://www.governing.com/columns/public-...ffery.html

Money quote-emphasis mine.

Quote:Quote:

But the simple math is that, when you include both the pension and the retiree medical benefits (OPEB) obligations, we are facing a $2.5 trillion problem with state and local government retirement deficits. Most of the state reforms made to date focus on prospective benefits changes, often with increased employee contributions and sometimes with higher retirement ages for new hires. But they seldom address the massive unfunded liabilities of the plans. Very few states have seriously attacked the unfunded liabilities, which leaves the bills for these debts to the next generation —

What's worse mathematically, not even one state has adopted laws to require public employers to begin funding their OPEB plans on an actuarial basis. Not one.

So let me get this straight:

Clinton does not deserve much credit for what happened under his watch because he had a Republican House and favorable conditions.

From other posts that you've made, it's safe to say that in your eyes, Obama deserves all the blame for the current state of our country.

That sounds like a fair and balanced viewpoint.

Quote: (11-08-2012 09:25 AM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

As far as Clinton and his surplus is concerned -- I know some like to invoke the God Clinton -- three things to keep in mind.

1. We had a Republican House run by the golem Newt Gingrich who got Clinton to triangulate and get us to a balanced budget (remember, all spending has to originate in the House).

2. Clinton CUT capital gains taxes and did Welfare Reform (a Republican idea that saved tons of money) both to the howls of psuedo-pain from englightened left wing Democrats.

3. And finally, Clinton was president during a time of unprecedented improvements in productivity (largely driven by Baby Boomers in their prime working years, see Steve Jobs), especially in technology, medicine, and engineering.

So trust me, if we brought Clinton back (which I would actually applaud), we STILL have this fiscal catastrophe looming.

Now that you have been set straight, you can go back to sticking your tongue out at Fox News.

Quote: (11-08-2012 12:31 AM)deepcov3r Wrote:  

Tenderman, Old Nemesis is an extremely intelligent and successful individual who has also displayed remarkable tenacity in pursuing long-term goals in his life. I won't go into details because of privacy, but your patronizing post mostly reflects on you, showing you (a) don't know him, and (b) are willing to insult people inaccurately whom you don't know.

Patronizing is as patronizing does. I have friends in the states he dissed. To hell with him.

Some people need to get a metaphorical smack on the head, even if they are presumably "accomplished."

Quote: (11-08-2012 11:02 AM)Tbone Wrote:  

So let me get this straight:

Clinton does not deserve much credit for what happened under his watch because he had a Republican House and favorable conditions.

From other posts that you've made, it's safe to say that in your eyes, Obama deserves all the blame for the current state of our country.

That sounds like a fair and balanced viewpoint.

Clinton deserves credit, but not as much as some think. Unlike President Campaigner, he actually WAS bi-partisan.

Like I said, I'd love to have him back, especially compared to President God-Damn America.

President Golf Pants shouldn't be blamed for the state of our country he inherited 4 years ago. But virtually everything President Halt the Rise of the Oceans has done --and especially the things he's NOT done -- have made things worse.

Quote: (11-08-2012 01:38 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

There are plenty of stupid folks who vote both ways. The real brains vote conservative, simply because they know the liberal narrative is a lie, a siren song, a false promise that appeals to the weakest in people.

I didn't like Tenderman's post. But the debt will crush America. There is no doubt. We're wasting time and money on placating minorities and activists, believing Obama's false promises government will fix all these problems it in fact created, while the Chinese are buying up commodities with our worthless dollars from corrupt African states that are too dumb to realize that money isn't worth the paper it's printed on. This is not doom and gloom, these are facts.

You are very correct that the debt is a problem, but it is a long-term problem. No other country in the world is better-equipped to deal with it than USA, to whom creditors are actually paying just for the privilege of holding their money.

Of course even the USA can't do it forever. So debt needs to be reduced eventually and kept low. But the time to do that is during booms, not during recessions. You first have to restore growth, otherwise you will just dig yourself deeper. By trying to reduce debt in a recession, you're ruining your ability to service debt faster than you can actually reduce debt levels.

Now, I'm not saying the current government is great on this matter. I'm sure you can find faults in both its recovery and debt servicing policies. But what is the alternative? The last period of constant growth was during those 8 years of Bush... and he used it to recklessly widen the deficit. The proposals advocated by his party are now even worse. I just don't think there is anything that can be done that the government isn't already doing with its stimulus / QE attempts. There are no radical turns that the government can take to make the debt go away.

Tax cuts or increases will do nothing to put a dent in the fed defecit. Despite the wide range of personal and corporate taxes that have existed over the last several decades, actual tax revenue has been pretty much a constant.

Agree w Sam, the only way out of this is reduced spending. Future historians will note the profound amount of damage done by Bush/Cheney and wonder why they weren't tried as criminals. If people had any scope of just how much they've fucked over the U.S., and the world, the amount of people that have died at their hands, there would be riots in the streets. OWS? Hahahahaha yeah great job guys. Our involvement in Iraq will have cost us about $2.5 TRILLION by the time interest is paid off on the loans to fund that war. Where did it get us? What about the indirect costs of taking care of (or not) our veterans? That was just the Iraq war. Between that and his financial deregulations, if there was anyone that drove in the final nail in murdering the American financial system it's him. Remember, he walked into a SURPLUS. You think Obama, or any other human being could have undone all the damage that was done between 2000 and 2008? Fuck no.

Agree that Obama won't fix this, but Romney wouldn't either. We are in a deep, deep hole thanks to GW and the men behind him. Ultimately, he's far too stupid to do anything he did. I have no doubts in my mind he was merely a puppet for the men who run the world to do his bidding. They are the men behind the banks.

Quote: (11-08-2012 04:45 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

GWB was a disaster - for America and for the Republicans most of all. Just look? He's probably the main reason Romney lost! But I wouldn't call him a conservative after seeing how he ran things. A true conservative wouldn't have done it that way. GWB was a sell-out to the progressives, he did progressive things, and was basically hopeless.

You know what, it is the same with communists. Every time you point out a communist-like regime to them in attempt to prove that communism doesn't work, they always tell you that this wasn't true communism, and the real communist would do the things better. Well, it doesn't work this way. The Republican party endorsed him and didn't back off; now they are endorsing Romney, and we have every reason to expect Romney to be the same fiscal disaster as Bush was - after all, maybe he wouldn't end up being "true conservative" either.

And the devil about "things to do" is in the details. For example, "solve the immigration problem". Hell yeah, you would hardly find anyone who isn't for solving the immigration problem. However as soon as you start asking them for details, you find out most of the people have no real idea about how to solve it, and their solutions range from unreal to extremely costly.

Quote: (11-08-2012 11:06 AM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

Clinton deserves credit, but not as much as some think. Unlike President Campaigner, he actually WAS bi-partisan.

Like I said, I'd love to have him back, especially compared to President God-Damn America.

President Golf Pants shouldn't be blamed for the state of our country he inherited 4 years ago. But virtually everything President Halt the Rise of the Oceans has done --and especially the things he's NOT done -- have made things worse.

Excuse me, what on earth does this mean? What's with all the goofball names?

Aloha!

Quote: (11-08-2012 10:06 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Someday you're going to die. I don't know when, but you will. But because I don't know when, it means I'm bullshitting you? Bad logic.

It doesn't mean you're bullshitting him, but it makes your statement utterly useless. Using the same logic you can claim the debt isn't important because someday the Sun will stop shining, the life on Earth extincts, and nobody would be worried about the national debt anymore.

What you said was more like a doomsday prediction. We have heard tons of them already, and so far none of them ever happened. So based on the past knowledge it makes little sense to listen to those kinds of predictions.

Quote:Quote:

We're going into the bad times, because we gave women the vote and women suck with money. Women elect people who don't give a shit about deficit spending, who then dig us a grave.

I heard women elected Clinton, who actually did very good with the money.
And I never heard it were women who elected GWB, which really screwed up with money.
Your logic seem to be a bit off.

Quote: (11-08-2012 04:31 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

What you said was more like a doomsday prediction. We have heard tons of them already, and so far none of them ever happened. So based on the past knowledge it makes little sense to listen to those kinds of predictions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_...tructuring

Only dozens of examples in the last 200 years...

Dooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmsday

Quote:Quote:

Quote:Quote:

We're going into the bad times, because we gave women the vote and women suck with money. Women elect people who don't give a shit about deficit spending, who then dig us a grave.

I heard women elected Clinton, who actually did very good with the money.
And I never heard it were women who elected GWB, which really screwed up with money.
Your logic seem to be a bit off.

Did you know there are about 600 other candidates women vote for besides the Prez?

Quote: (11-08-2012 11:02 AM)Tbone Wrote:  

From other posts that you've made, it's safe to say that in your eyes, Obama deserves all the blame for the current state of our country.

I'd add here that Obama had the Republican house too for quite a while, doesn't look like it helped at all.

But arguing with people like him is waste of time. But again, it doesn't matter, they're a dying breed anyway.

Quote: (11-08-2012 04:55 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Did you know there are about 600 other candidates women vote for besides the Prez?

So basically every time the leader is good those are men who elected them.
And every time the leader is bad those are women who elected them.
You're reading too much bible. Stop doing that, it is bad for your sanity.

To the original poster: you write off those "unimportant" states at your own risk: especially if you come from a state that has laden its constituents down with per capita debt.

Wait? What's that I hear? Its unfair that one guy from one state is responsible for a bigger debt than another?

http://truthinaccounting.org/uploads/fil...urdens.pdf

If you come from New Jersey, you are personally responsible for $34,600 per capita debt. Wah wah unfair isn't it? Especially considering that Montana people only owe $700 each for their budget? Or Wyoming people actually don't owe anything, and have accrued $15,100 assets?

Those "unimportant" states like South Dakota, Utah, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Wyoming not only have NO debt- their citizens have net assets.

Let me casually remind you that new age ideas are "modern" but also "a fucking expensive financial black hole." Let me also remind you that these states that make up the United States are still individual states banded together. I'll bet you are the first to run to redder pastures from your "modern" state's tax collectors when they start getting desperate to pay off that ugly number. HR procedural analyst? Pull those weeds, boy!

Quote: (11-08-2012 09:00 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

Quote: (11-08-2012 04:55 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Did you know there are about 600 other candidates women vote for besides the Prez?

So basically every time the leader is good those are men who elected them.
And every time the leader is bad those are women who elected them.
You're reading too much bible. Stop doing that, it is bad for your sanity.

You're reversing the flow of my logic, which is an error on your part.

My claim:

Code:
You're attempting to say,

Code:
Doesn't follow.


I said, "If A then B." You're saying, "If B then A." This is a logical error on your part.

It's like if I claimed that "If it's raining, it is wet outside." And then you chime in, "If it's wet outside, it must be raining." This is called a mistaken reversal in logical terms:

http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/con...itive.html

So the question is, if you are like nemesis, and you can't do math, and you can't do logic, and you seem to have a hard time distinguishing between the past, the present and the future, but you can sneer about a cable network that gets at most 9 million viewers, and you can slam bunch of states as a single entity when there are many millions of people in them...

...well then who the FUCK are you??