[Silver]

starting with you?

if our debt is increasing every second (and it is), then is this not the very definition of spending more than we can pay?

and if we default, why should we continue to be AAA? what would be the very point of a credit rating?

Stop being a retard, or stop trolling for a second.

Anyone who analogizes the credit situation of a household (live within our means) and the federal government is out to lunch, UNLESS THEY LIVE IN A HOUSEHOLD OF COUNTERFEITERS.

Sunny's post is a mish mash of Limbaugh/Tea Party BS. The fact that it's from a Navy spouse just makes it funny.

This "crisis" is as made up as a 10 year old drawing red dots on her crotch with a sharpie and going to school telling all her friends she has herpes.

 

[dante]

starting with you?

if our debt is increasing every second (and it is), then is this not the very definition of spending more than we can pay?

and if we default, why should we continue to be AAA? what would be the very point of a credit rating?

No, it is "spending more than we choose to bring in in tax revenue".

If my basic living expenses are $2,000/month, and my job brings in $1,500/month, I go out and get another job to bring in more revenue. You don't just throw your hands up and say "well, I'm not paying the mortgage this month..."

 

[jimmydean]

If my basic living expenses are $2,000/month, and my job brings in $1,500/month, I go out and get another job to bring in more revenue. You don't just throw your hands up and say "well, I'm not paying the mortgage this month..."

Maybe YOU don't, but many people have and continue to do so.

 

[Beef Supreme]

The two most dangerous words the tea party could ever learn are tax expenditure.

 

[$tinkle]

No, it is "spending more than we choose to bring in in tax revenue".

why do you emphasize taxing as a choice, but not spending? do you see all our spending as entitlement programs & obligations that we cannot get out of? "i promised the slinger i was good for 4 redtops/day" is not a legitimate fiduciary obligation

If my basic living expenses are $2,000/month, and my job brings in $1,500/month, I go out and get another job to bring in more revenue. You don't just throw your hands up and say "well, I'm not paying the mortgage this month..."

did you just lump in hundreds of wasteful gov't programs into the broad category of "basic living expenses"? i just want to be crystal clear

 

[dante]

why do you emphasize taxing as a choice, but not spending? do you see all our spending as entitlement programs & obligations that we cannot get out of? "i promised the slinger i was good for 4 redtops/day" is not a legitimate fiduciary obligation

The current government spending is what we (as citizens, represented by our elected officials) have demanded. About the only thing that a majority of Americans feels should be cut is foreign aid. THAT'S IT. We demand our Medicare, our Social Security, our military, our farm subsidies, our cotton subsidies, etc, etc, etc. Show me where Americans want *real* cuts in real *specific* programs, and I'll agree that those should be cut. Spending is a choice. Americans have chosen to want SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense, VA benefits, education spending, transportation, etc, etc, etc.

did you just lump in hundreds of wasteful gov't programs into the broad category of "basic living expenses"? i just want to be crystal clear

Do I have to post the NYT graphic (again) and ask where you would cut $1.6T from? If there are "hundreds of wasteful gov't programs", it should be a relatively easy feat, right? I'll wait. Should I point out that SS and Medicare are funded through their own separate taxes for 2011, and any cuts to the payouts from them should also have a corresponding decrease in the FICA taxes?

 

[stoney]

Please stop listening to whoever it is you listen to.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Are you on crack? That's exactly what's going on here.

1. Raising the debt ceiling = currency devaluation.

You are giving the govt additional ability to print money, which they will. If $100 is currently worth $100, does not adding $20 to the pool from which that $100 gets valued make the pool more dilute? If $120 now buys the same as $100, how is that not you devalue a currency.

2. Currency devaluation leads to reduced credit ratings and technical default.

As a holder of fixed dollar debt, every time the currency is devalued you lose money. Assume you loan someone $10k when $10k buys X, you expect to get $10k (worth X) + interest in return. If the currency is devalued so that $12k only buys X, you've been diluted by 20%. Not only has your principle been diluted by 20% but so has your interest.

It's simple math: FV = PV ( 1+i )^n does not equal (FV = PV ( 1+i )^n) *.8

Technical default occurs when you are paid less in return than what you loaned. If devaluing the currency is what it takes to get you there, then so be it. It's still a default.

3. We have spent more than we can afford and now the piper's calling. No company or individual can spend an unlimited amount of money despite not having it, without be charged criminally for fraud. Why does the govt get away with it?

4. Sunny's right, Americans are too "special" to have to give up anything that they "earn". *Earn is a loose term because those who are govt subsidized think they earn the money they are given* Everybody needs to make cuts except *me*, because I earn my check.

If we raise the debt ceiling, and we keep our credit rating, but raise taxes, this will have an effect on new job growth. The private sector people who are small-business owners, who are paying salaries and paying taxes will be some of the hardest hit, and will be less likely to go out and invest in their businesses and hire new people. They are not making any more money, they are still in a tough economy, yet they are still expected to pay more. I dunno, would you be trying to expand your business or would you be paring down? Most households and businesses are paring down.

1. It's called supply and demand. If there is no demand for your product it is either too expensive or has no value to your proposed buyers. If your product is selling, then you will hire accordingly. There are many small businesses that are prospering (this guy for example) because they make products that people want. The idea that people will buy a product, just because they have money, is false logic.

2. The government 'providing' money will not solve any of our problems. We MUST stop spending and entirely close the gap between spending and "earning". If that means we need to close ALL of the tax loopholes and go to a simple tax structure, then that is what needs to happen.

3. The arbitrary target of taxes for those making over $250k is just that, arbitrary and too low. When the AMT law was instituted in 1969 $250k was equivalent to $1.5mm today. That's 42x the average national income! That's truly wealthy people. Today's $250k was $42k then, which was ~6.75x the average national income. Now it's 6x the average national income.

The value of that $250k is far, FAR less than what it was just 50 years ago. It's moving closer to the average national income too, which means it is even less extraordinary.

lots of stuff

Entirely agree. Now that I've had time to step back from the banking world, the ridiculousness of it is clearly apparent.

The structure of our spending system is flawed. Just look at home prices as % of income: 1969 - 2.6x; 2011 - 5.8x. For some reason people think that it's justifiable to spend almost 6x their annual income to buy a house.

Why do you think we have a debt problem? It is accepted that spending more than what you have is fine. Add that the govt has bailed people and businesses out for being stupid and it's quite clear.

We are in a society of people who have no sense of repercussions or consequences of their actions. It's always 'I'll take care of it tomorrow' and that attitude is pervasive in govt too.

 

[jimmydean]

The structure of our spending system is flawed. Just look at home prices as % of income: 1969 - 2.6x; 2011 - 5.8x. For some reason people think that it's justifiable to spend almost 6x their annual income to buy a house.

I think we need to relocate Washington DC to someplace cheaper like Detroit. Then our tax dollars will go farther because we have reduced our monthly mortgage payment. Right?

 

[stoney]

I think we need to relocate Washington DC to someplace cheaper like Detroit. Then our tax dollars will go farther because we have reduced our monthly mortgage payment. Right?

Ha. I've said this before and I still believe it, but we need to really increase the number of representatives in this country. If you were to double the reps, then there would be a true need to compromise. By having a larger number of reps at the Federal level, you will get more region specific reps who have fewer people to answer to. In doing so, you will see more impact and focus from those individuals on doing what is best for their citizens.

Also, we really need to enact a constitutional amendment that prevents Congress from passing any law or rule from which they are exempt. And require that any fiscal conflict of interest (personal holdings and contributions) disbar them from voting on or participating in any negotiations under that conflict. Watch bribery go away real fast.

 

[gonefirefightin]

Americans have chosen to want SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense, VA benefits, education spending, transportation, etc, etc, etc.

I didnt choose

 

[Silver]

Are you on crack? That's exactly what's going on here.

Which is why the interest rates on treasuries is skyrocketing, right?

 

[Andyman_1970]

Posted this on my FB page.

During WWII, the US raised income taxes and people viewed buying war-bonds as patriotic. Today while we are fighting two wars overseas, people are fighting to keep mortgage interest deductions on million-dollar vacation homes and to keep the 15% federal tax bracket on hedge fund manager's annual income. It saddens me to say this, but we are a completely different and greedier country today than we were back then.

Must spread rep+++

 

[Silver]

I didnt choose

Representative government, how the **** does it work?

 

[Silver]

Must spread rep+++

I negative repped him for having a facebook page that he posts on.

 

[$tinkle]

Americans have chosen to want SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense, VA benefits, education spending, transportation, etc, etc, etc.

i just want what i put in, & nothing more. we should provide for our most vulnerable, and demand those who can chip in do so. from the unimaginably rich down to the able-bodied leeches

i take great offense to have my pockets picked and then have to "qualify" to get my money back from teh pickpocket

I didnt choose

"if you weren't conscripted, then you did" - silver

 

[dante]

2. The government 'providing' money will not solve any of our problems. We MUST stop spending and entirely close the gap between spending and "earning". If that means we need to close ALL of the tax loopholes and go to a simple tax structure, then that is what needs to happen.

Your "loophole" is someone else's cherished deduction. We need to raise revenue in the most moral and responsible way. That does *not* necessarily mean ending all deductions/loopholes/etc.

3. The arbitrary target of taxes for those making over $250k is just that, arbitrary and too low. When the AMT law was instituted in 1969 $250k was equivalent to $1.5mm today. That's 42x the average national income! That's truly wealthy people. Today's $250k was $42k then, which was ~6.75x the average national income. Now it's 6x the average national income.

The value of that $250k is far, FAR less than what it was just 50 years ago. It's moving closer to the average national income too, which means it is even less extraordinary.

Bullsh!t. "Average" doesn't mean squat. The *median* family income in this country is ~$50k. Just because the top 1% are astronomically richer than they were 50 years ago doesn't mean that everyone's income has gone up that much. $250k is *definitely* rich in this country, even if those people don't believe it.

The structure of our spending system is flawed. Just look at home prices as % of income: 1969 - 2.6x; 2011 - 5.8x. For some reason people think that it's justifiable to spend almost 6x their annual income to buy a house.

Now you're really confusing the numbers. The median home price is ~$180k, if I can remember. The median household income is $50k, meaning homes are slightly more expensive than the long-term average (3x).

 

[stoney]

Your "loophole" is someone else's cherished deduction. We need to raise revenue in the most moral and responsible way. That does *not* necessarily mean ending all deductions/loopholes/etc.

I was thinking more business and on the upper incomes. Notably the cap gains vs. income taxation rates. If cap gains are your only source of income, that's an income stream. If you are doing a job such that your income is sourced directly from cap gains, that's income.

Bullsh!t. "Average" doesn't mean squat. The *median* family income in this country is ~$50k. Just because the top 1% are astronomically richer than they were 50 years ago doesn't mean that everyone's income has gone up that much. $250k is *definitely* rich in this country, even if those people don't believe it.

Everything is about location. If you live in NYC, SF, LA, Chicago, etc than $250 is middle-class at best. Cost of living is a realistic factor that nobody wants to acknowledge. Making what I was in Michigan is wealthy. Making what I was making here is middle-class. Everything has a perspective.

Now you're really confusing the numbers. The median home price is ~$180k, if I can remember. The median household income is $50k, meaning homes are slightly more expensive than the long-term average (3x).

Avg National Income (2010): $46,326

Avg National Home Price (2010): $271,600

$271,600 / $46,326 = 5.8x

 

[stevew]

Ha. I've said this before and I still believe it, but we need to really increase the number of representatives in this country. If you were to double the reps, then there would be a true need to compromise. By having a larger number of reps at the Federal level, you will get more region specific reps who have fewer people to answer to. In doing so, you will see more impact and focus from those individuals on doing what is best for their citizens.

just another 500+ people who need to die.

 

[stoney]

just another 500+ people who need to die.

Someone just got put onto a list written by those who own black helicopters.

 

[$tinkle]

just another 500+ people who need to die.

 

[rockofullr]

Ha. I've said this before and I still believe it, but we need to really increase the number of representatives in this country. If you were to double the reps, then there would be a true need to compromise. By having a larger number of reps at the Federal level, you will get more region specific reps who have fewer people to answer to. In doing so, you will see more impact and focus from those individuals on doing what is best for their citizens.

If this is true then why is the Senate the only place where we see compromise happening? Is it because Senators are less beholden to any individual group and can therefore afford to do something unpopular but necessary?

The problem is that "doing what is best for their citizens" is not the same as doing what will earn them votes in a particular district.

 

[Pesqueeb]

Ha. I've said this before and I still believe it, but we need to really increase the number of representatives in this country. If you were to double the reps, then there would be a true need to compromise. By having a larger number of reps at the Federal level, you will get more region specific reps who have fewer people to answer to. In doing so, you will see more impact and focus from those individuals on doing what is best for their citizens.

Also, we really need to enact a constitutional amendment that prevents Congress from passing any law or rule from which they are exempt. And require that any fiscal conflict of interest (personal holdings and contributions) disbar them from voting on or participating in any negotiations under that conflict. Watch bribery go away real fast.

Maybe its the heat and the TBI talking but it sounds like your advocating for more government.

 

[jimmydean]

$271,600 / $46,326 = 5.8x

This is why I went back to renting, at least for now. While I make "good" money, I can't afford to buy a house around here, but renting is still an option for now. If prices continue to slide, that might change.

I can't afford to lose my ass a 3rd time with a home purchase. Next time its either a cash deal, or just too good to pass on.

 

[$tinkle]

If this is true then why is the Senate the only place where we see compromise happening? Is it because Senators are less beholden to any individual group and can therefore afford to do something unpopular but necessary?.

b/c senators serve 6 yr terms (vs 2 for reps), they're not forever campaigning. i expect this to translate into more moderation, but we are talking about congress at large, after all

 

[Pesqueeb]

With President Obama and Republican leaders calling for cutting the budget by trillions over the next 10 years, it is worth asking how we got here — from healthy surpluses at the end of the Clinton era, and the promise of future surpluses, to nine straight years of deficits, including the $1.3 trillion shortfall in 2010. The answer is largely the Bush-era tax cuts, war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, and recessions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=1

 

[jimmydean]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=1

WOW, I had no idea.

Cool story, bro. It's a good thing we aren't going to cut the Bush tax cuts any time soon, the y should trickle down any minute.

 

[stoney]

Maybe its the heat and the TBI talking but it sounds like your advocating for more government.

Not in the sense of more bureaucracy. We could and should go through the entire govt with an axe and go to town - Office space anyone?

More representatives though. Break the 1,000,000:1 ratio down to 500,000:1 or less. More reps means it's more difficult to gerrymander districts for one, and them answering to less people. That means the squeaky wheel gets louder and can be even more difficult in a re-election.

Sure there would be more problems, but you expect that with everything.

Also think we need a max term in the legislature. Something like 6 yrs (3 terms) house and 12 years (2 terms) Senate. It really cuts down the ability to be a lifer in the govt as a rep.

 

[stoney]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=1

The Clinton surpluses were somewhat of a farse. There was a surplus but it wasn't being put where it should have been, which is pending liabilities. IIRC, it was an accounting slight of hand.

But yes, Bush is roughly 50% at fault for what we are dealing with now with regards to actual current fiscal debt. However, whoever it was that allowed for borrowing from SS is truly the source of most our current budget/debt problem.

 

[Pesqueeb]

WOW, I had no idea.

Cool story, bro. It's a good thing we aren't going to cut the Bush tax cuts any time soon, the y should trickle down any minute.

Haven't received your trickle down payment yet? You should look into that. Got mine and all I could think was "Thank God almighty, free at last!"

From an Atlantic Opinion piece where I first saw the chart.

It demonstrates the utter incoherence of being very concerned about a structural federal deficit but ruling out of consideration the policy that was largest single contributor to that deficit, namely the Bush-era tax cuts.

The full consequences of a default or even the serious prospect of default by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. The Nation can ill afford to allow such a result.
- Ronald Reagan

Reagan proved deficits don't matter.
- Dick Cheney

 

[stevew]

If this is true then why is the Senate the only place where we see compromise happening? Is it because Senators are less beholden to any individual group and can therefore afford to do something unpopular but necessary?

The problem is that "doing what is best for their citizens" is not the same as doing what will earn them votes in a particular district.

congressmen spend 18 months of their 2 year term campaigning/sucking dick.

thinking of senators as fvcking snow white......

 

[jimmydean]

Also think we need a max term in the legislature. Something like 6 yrs (3 terms) house and 12 years (2 terms) Senate. It really cuts down the ability to be a lifer in the govt as a rep.

I thought that was the whole point of teh gubment yob?

 

[stoney]

congressmen spend 18 months of their 2 year term campaigning/sucking dick.

thinking of senators as fvcking snow white......

Hence term limits. Imagine a world where you can only have 1 term in house.

Sure would limit the idea of companies 'investing' in a candidate...

 

[stoney]

I thought that was the whole point of teh gubment yob?

Life in a govt job is not beneficial to anyone, but a lifer in a rep position is just an open incentive for bribery and corruption.

 

[stevew]

Someone just got put onto a list written by those who own black helicopters.

it's cute thinking you can change the world.

whatever gets you through the night.

 

[stevew]

Hence term limits. Imagine a world where you can only have 1 term in house.

Sure would limit the idea of companies 'investing' in a candidate...

why would i want to help 500 more people get free health care for life who don't deserve it?

term limits will

never.

fvcking.

happen.

 

[Inclag]

Everything is about location. If you live in NYC, SF, LA, Chicago, etc than $250 is middle-class at best.

 

[Beef Supreme]

The Clinton surpluses were somewhat of a farse. There was a surplus but it wasn't being put where it should have been, which is pending liabilities. IIRC, it was an accounting slight of hand.

But yes, Bush is roughly 50% at fault for what we are dealing with now with regards to actual current fiscal debt. However, whoever it was that allowed for borrowing from SS is truly the source of most our current budget/debt problem.

I hope you mean that the other 50% is from the republican controlled congress from 2000 through 2006. If so, we are in complete agreement. The charts don't lie.

The thing that kills me is that a lot of the tea party types don't think Bush/DeLay were fiscal conservatives. Why they would want to preserve every tax break that these clowns passed is beyond me. We don't need to reform the whole tax code to get rid of this crap.

 

[dante]

Avg National Income (2010): $46,326

Avg National Home Price (2010): $271,600

$271,600 / $46,326 = 5.8x

Statistics fail. Mean does not equal median. Median household income is ~$50k. Median home price is ~$180k. You're confusing mean and median, and using new home sale price instead of ALL homes sold. Can get the links for you when I'm not on a smartphone...

 

[stoney]

I hope you mean that the other 50% is from the republican controlled congress from 2000 through 2006. If so, we are in complete agreement. The charts don't lie.

Where are the problems originating from?
1. Who approved of borrowing from SS?
2. Removal of Glass-Steagel - This opened us up for the isht show of the last few years.
3. The borrowing of money to pay for everything we couldn't afford and wasn't an infrastructure.

Whoever is responsible for all of that are the guilty parties. And guess what, unless you are under the age of 18 you are also at fault. Your vote (or non-vote) matter.

 

[stoney]

Statistics fail. Mean does not equal median. Median household income is ~$50k. Median home price is ~$180k. You're confusing mean and median, and using new home sale price instead of ALL homes sold. Can get the links for you when I'm not on a smartphone...

You're right, I got mean and median confused. No need to link.