Christine O'Donnell criticized by former aides

[Liability]

Liability has a GED not a degree in economics.

No no flopsweat, Unlike you, not only did I graduate high school and college, I went even further.

Did you ever graduate from the McUniversity?

Say, flopsweat, send over an order of McFries and a chocolate McShake, ok? And some kid has tossed his lunch over in the Clown's playroom. Bring the mop and bucket and make it McShine!

 

[topspin]

Liability has a GED not a degree in economics.

No no flopsweat, Unlike you, not only did I graduate high school and college, I went even further.

Did you ever graduate from the McUniversity?

Say, flopsweat, send over an order of McFries and a chocolate McShake, ok? And some kid has tossed his lunch over in the Clown's playroom. Bring the mop and bucket and make it McShine!

graduate and undergrade, ulike you I moved out of my parents house.

 

[Liability]

Liability has a GED not a degree in economics.

No no flopsweat, Unlike you, not only did I graduate high school and college, I went even further.

Did you ever graduate from the McUniversity?

Say, flopsweat, send over an order of McFries and a chocolate McShake, ok? And some kid has tossed his lunch over in the Clown's playroom. Bring the mop and bucket and make it McShine!

graduate and undergrade, ulike you I moved out of my parents house.

Moving into their garage doesn't count, flopsweat.

The fact is, you are one of life's failures. Deal with it.

 

[8537]

We are closer to being in a depression now than before, thanks to President Obama and the idiot liberoidal Democratics and their studious abuse of the principles of Constitutionally limited government.
"

hmmm...That's an "interesting" claim. We've gone from losing 780,000 jobs per month to creating private sector jobs.

We've gone from national income declining by 6% to national income increasing.

We've gone from a completely frozen credit market where even commercial paper seized to a tentative but functioning credit market.

We've gone from plummeting sales data to moderately improving sales data...

....I could go on.

How, exactly, are we closer to a depression?

We have "gone" to no such places. The figures lie;

Lol, yes! All those BEA and BLS holdovers from the previous administration are liars! That's the ticket! and it's true because, well...because Liability said it's true!!!!

the liars in this Administration figure; and our national debt is so fucking completely outrageous and out of control that we are in much worse economic shape than most Americans dare to realize.

Perhaps you can explain to the class how an expanding deficit during the deepest recession since WW2 is negatively impacting the economy.

I have never pretended to be an "economist." Economists don't even agree. They work on the basis of lots of "theories," but are about as accurate in their predictions as the local weatherman.

Cute.

But even so, even to whatever limited extent economists might be "experts" in predicting the state of the economy tomorrow or stating what it is today, it doesn't take an "expert" to see that the DEBT is a massive problem that is not being addressed and that will serve to crush us all if left unattended.

Lol...republicans find fiscal jesus. 1st it was supply-side jesus, now it's fiscal jesus.

How much of every tax dollar will be used to service just the debt and the interest on the debt by 2020?

Probably about 15 cents.

 

[Liability]

* * * * {snipping the silly tripe portion of 8000+'s post} * * * *


How much of every tax dollar will be used to service just the debt and the interest on the debt by 2020?

Probably about 15 cents.

Wrong. So much for being an "economist."

It will be around 80 cents.

First off, one must consider the ACTUAL debt, not the fantasy figures touted by "government economists." (Isn't that another way of saying "liar liar?") The Other National Debt - Article - National Review Online

If you go by the 70 TRILLION dollar figure, we are sunk.

But if you go by the 130 TRILLION dollar figure -- we are almost doubly sunk.

And paying for all of that will require taxation (eventually) of over 100 cents on the dollar. I'm not sure even a government economist can manage to pull that one off.

You economists are just fucking great at your jobs.

 

[Synthaholic]

We are closer to being in a depression now than before, thanks to President Obama and the idiot liberoidal Democratics and their studious abuse of the principles of Constitutionally limited government.
"

hmmm...That's an "interesting" claim. We've gone from losing 780,000 jobs per month to creating private sector jobs.

We've gone from national income declining by 6% to national income increasing.

We've gone from a completely frozen credit market where even commercial paper seized to a tentative but functioning credit market.

We've gone from plummeting sales data to moderately improving sales data...

....I could go on.

How, exactly, are we closer to a depression?

Rush told him so.

 

[Toro]

* * * * {snipping the silly tripe portion of 8000+'s post} * * * *


How much of every tax dollar will be used to service just the debt and the interest on the debt by 2020?

Probably about 15 cents.

Wrong. So much for being an "economist."

It will be around 80 cents.

First off, one must consider the ACTUAL debt, not the fantasy figures touted by "government economists." (Isn't that another way of saying "liar liar?") The Other National Debt - Article - National Review Online

If you go by the 70 TRILLION dollar figure, we are sunk.

But if you go by the 130 TRILLION dollar figure -- we are almost doubly sunk.

And paying for all of that will require taxation (eventually) of over 100 cents on the dollar. I'm not sure even a government economist can manage to pull that one off.

You economists are just fucking great at your jobs.

Not to downplay those numbers, because future liabilities are a problem, but that isn't interest on the debt. Most of those are discounted future liabilities.

 

[Liability]

Probably about 15 cents.

Wrong. So much for being an "economist."

It will be around 80 cents.

First off, one must consider the ACTUAL debt, not the fantasy figures touted by "government economists." (Isn't that another way of saying "liar liar?") The Other National Debt - Article - National Review Online

If you go by the 70 TRILLION dollar figure, we are sunk.

But if you go by the 130 TRILLION dollar figure -- we are almost doubly sunk.

And paying for all of that will require taxation (eventually) of over 100 cents on the dollar. I'm not sure even a government economist can manage to pull that one off.

You economists are just fucking great at your jobs.

Not to downplay those numbers, because future liabilities are a problem, but that isn't interest on the debt. Most of those are discounted future liabilities.

Yes. They are future liabilities. But they are not avoidable future liabilities. They are not contingent liabilities. They are obligations that will need to be paid and they are massive, terrifying, awesome, poisonous and freakin' deadly. And the numbers are predicated on some very highly questionable economic assumptions (like what the interest rates are for all the years they are sitting there and growing). And the realities of those assumptions are very likely to be highly damaging to us, too.

* * * *

Ground Zero for the state-pension meltdown is Springfield, Ill., and D-Day comes around 2018: That’s when the state that nurtured the political career of Barack Obama is expected to be the first state to run out of money to cover its retirees’ pension checks. Eight years — and that’s assuming an 8 percent average return on its investments. (You making 8 percent a year lately?) Under the same projections, Illinois will be joined in 2019 by Connecticut, New Jersey, and Indiana. If investment returns are 6 percent, then 31 U.S. states will run out of pension-fund money by 2025, according to Rauh’s projections.

States aren’t going to be able to make up those pension shortfalls out of general tax revenue, at least not at current levels of taxation. In Ohio, for instance, the benefit payments in 2031 would total 55 percent of projected 2031 tax revenues. For most states, pension payments will total more than a quarter of all tax revenues in the years after they run out of money. Most of those pensions cannot be modified: Illinois, for instance, has a constitutional provision that prevents reducing them. Unless there is a radical restructuring of these programs, and soon, states will either have to subsidize their pension systems with onerous new taxes or seek a bailout from Washington.

So how much would the states have to book to fully fund those liabilities? Drop in another $3 trillion. Properly accounting for these obligations, that takes us up to a total of $19.5 trillion in governmental liabilities. Bad, right? You know how the doctor looks at you in that recurring nightmare, when the test results come back and he has to tell you not to bother buying any green bananas? Imagine that look on Tim Geithner’s face right now, because we still have to account for the biggest crater in the national ledger: entitlement liabilities.

The debt numbers start to get really hairy when you add in liabilities under Social Security and Medicare — in other words, when you account for the present value of those future payments in the same way that businesses have to account for the obligations they incur. Start with the entitlements and those numbers get run-for-the-hills ugly in a hurry: a combined $106 trillion in liabilities for Social Security and Medicare, or more than five times the total federal, state, and local debt we’ve totaled up so far. In real terms, what that means is that we’d need $106 trillion in real, investable capital, earning 6 percent a year, on hand, today, to meet the obligations we have under those entitlement programs. For perspective, that’s about twice the total private net worth of the United States. (A little more, in fact.)

Suffice it to say, we’re a bit short of that $106 trillion. In fact, we’re exactly $106 trillion short, since the total value of the Social Security “trust fund” is less than the value of the change you’ve got rattling around behind your couch cushions, its precise worth being: $0.00. Because the “trust fund” (which is not a trust fund) is by law “invested” (meaning, not invested) in Treasury bonds, there is no national nest egg to fund these entitlements. As Bruce Bartlett explained in Forbes, “The trust fund does not have any actual resources with which to pay Social Security benefits. It’s as if you wrote an IOU to yourself; no matter how large the IOU is it doesn’t increase your net worth. . . . Consequently, whether there is $2.4 trillion in the Social Security trust fund or $240 trillion has no bearing on the federal government’s ability to pay benefits that have been promised.” Seeing no political incentives to reduce benefits, Bartlett calculates that an 81 percent tax increase will be necessary to pay those obligations. “Those who think otherwise are either grossly ignorant of the fiscal facts, in denial, or living in a fantasy world.”

* * * *

-- Excerpted from previously referenced piece, The Other National Debt - Article - National Review Online

 

[Liability]

Here is a fascinating (and somewhat alarming) look at the national and the security consequences of our addiction to debt and "future liabilities."

Guernica / The Frugal Superpower

 

[Synthaholic]

We are closer to being in a depression now than before, thanks to President Obama and the idiot liberoidal Democratics and their studious abuse of the principles of Constitutionally limited government.
"

hmmm...That's an "interesting" claim. We've gone from losing 780,000 jobs per month to creating private sector jobs.

We've gone from national income declining by 6% to national income increasing.

We've gone from a completely frozen credit market where even commercial paper seized to a tentative but functioning credit market.

We've gone from plummeting sales data to moderately improving sales data...

....I could go on.

How, exactly, are we closer to a depression?

We have "gone" to no such places. The figures lie; the liars in this Administration figure; and our national debt is so fucking completely outrageous and out of control that we are in much worse economic shape than most Americans dare to realize. For example, US debt will keep growing even with recovery - Yahoo! Finance

I have never pretended to be an "economist." Economists don't even agree. They work on the basis of lots of "theories," but are about as accurate in their predictions as the local weatherman. But even so, even to whatever limited extent economists might be "experts" in predicting the state of the economy tomorrow or stating what it is today, it doesn't take an "expert" to see that the DEBT is a massive problem that is not being addressed and that will serve to crush us all if left unattended.

How much of every tax dollar will be used to service just the debt and the interest on the debt by 2020?

Answer that one, honestly, even if it's just an approximation and a projection. Answer it and you will see just how fucked we are. And President Obama and the liberoidal Democratics in this nation's Legislative branch have been seeking to fix the problem of that huge hole by digging it deeper and faster.

I agree with the bolded. But place the blame where it belongs: 2 wars, prosecuted off the books (Obama put them back on the books, which is honest accounting); Medicare Part D, unpaid for; a HUGE new Federal Dept. of Homeland Security, and No Child Left Behind, ANOTHER unfunded mandate.

Regressives OWN this recession. Period.

 

[8537]

* * * * {snipping the silly tripe portion of 8000+'s post} * * * *


How much of every tax dollar will be used to service just the debt and the interest on the debt by 2020?

Probably about 15 cents.

Wrong. So much for being an "economist."

It will be around 80 cents.

Nice try. Which fishing expedition landed that number?

First off, one must consider the ACTUAL debt, not the fantasy figures touted by "government economists." (Isn't that another way of saying "liar liar?") The Other National Debt - Article - National Review Online

If you go by the 70 TRILLION dollar figure, we are sunk.

Why would future liabilities be counted in current debt? Especially when those future liabilities can be cancelled with legislative action?

You economists are just fucking great at your jobs.

you live in some fantasy world. I have never laid any claim to my professional life, unlike our paralegal friend.

 

[Liability]

Probably about 15 cents.

Wrong. So much for being an "economist."

It will be around 80 cents.

Nice try. Which fishing expedition landed that number?

The nation’s fiscal path is “unsustainable,” and the problem “cannot be solved through minor tinkering,” the head of the Congressional Budget Office said Thursday morning.

Doug Elmendorf, best known for arbitrating the costs of various health care proposals, added his voice to a growing chorus of economic experts who predict dire consequences if political leaders don’t scale back spending, increase taxes or both — and soon.

Elmendorf noted a recent CBO report that pegged an increase in the public debt from $7.5 trillion at the end of 2009 to $20.3 trillion at the end of 2020 if President Barack Obama’s fiscal 2011 budget were to be implemented as written. As a percentage of gross domestic product, the debt would rise from 53 percent to 90 percent, CBO forecasted. The last time the percentage was that high was right after World War II.

excerpted from: CBO chief says debt 'unsustainable' - Jonathan Allen - POLITICO.com

First off, one must consider the ACTUAL debt, not the fantasy figures touted by "government economists." (Isn't that another way of saying "liar liar?") The Other National Debt - Article - National Review Online

If you go by the 70 TRILLION dollar figure, we are sunk.

Why would future liabilities be counted in current debt? Especially when those future liabilities can be cancelled with legislative action?

Genius suggestion. Yes. Just "cancel" the obligations and commitments.

You economists are just fucking great at your jobs.

you live in some fantasy world. I have never laid any claim to my professional life, unlike our paralegal friend.

Sure you have. Back in the day when you used a different username -- er -- usernumber.

And I don't know who your paralegal friend is, either.

 

[8537]

Still not justifying that silly 80% claim I see. Can't blame ya.

Genius suggestion. Yes. Just "cancel" the obligations and commitments.

They are not bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the US government and in fact, Republicans have recommmended repudiating a portion of them several times (via limiting or abolishing trust fund payments for SS and medicare)

Sure you have. Back in the day when you used a different username -- er -- usernumber.

Really? Tell us about that, Liability. What did I say about my profession?

I've never laid claim to a profession...only an avocation making you look stupid - and that's easy money.

 

[Liability]

hmmm...That's an "interesting" claim. We've gone from losing 780,000 jobs per month to creating private sector jobs.

We've gone from national income declining by 6% to national income increasing.

We've gone from a completely frozen credit market where even commercial paper seized to a tentative but functioning credit market.

We've gone from plummeting sales data to moderately improving sales data...

....I could go on.

How, exactly, are we closer to a depression?

We have "gone" to no such places. The figures lie; the liars in this Administration figure; and our national debt is so fucking completely outrageous and out of control that we are in much worse economic shape than most Americans dare to realize. For example, US debt will keep growing even with recovery - Yahoo! Finance

I have never pretended to be an "economist." Economists don't even agree. They work on the basis of lots of "theories," but are about as accurate in their predictions as the local weatherman. But even so, even to whatever limited extent economists might be "experts" in predicting the state of the economy tomorrow or stating what it is today, it doesn't take an "expert" to see that the DEBT is a massive problem that is not being addressed and that will serve to crush us all if left unattended.

How much of every tax dollar will be used to service just the debt and the interest on the debt by 2020?

Answer that one, honestly, even if it's just an approximation and a projection. Answer it and you will see just how fucked we are. And President Obama and the liberoidal Democratics in this nation's Legislative branch have been seeking to fix the problem of that huge hole by digging it deeper and faster.

I agree with the bolded. But place the blame where it belongs: 2 wars, prosecuted off the books (Obama put them back on the books, which is honest accounting); Medicare Part D, unpaid for; a HUGE new Federal Dept. of Homeland Security, and No Child Left Behind, ANOTHER unfunded mandate.

Regressives OWN this recession. Period.

I do place the blame where it belongs. Unlike you, I don't pretend it belongs just on the other guy, however. I criticized President Bush for his willingness to engage in stupid shit like TARP. I do not agree with you that the cost(s) of the war is the significant problem, albeit clearly not inconsequential, either.

The MASSIVE increases we are witnessing, now, under President Obama and the entirely irresponsible Congress is killing us. And both Presidents and both PARTIES going back a long time are responsible for our future liabilities. And nobody is doing a fucking thing about these problems.

I can barely WAIT to see what the President's Economic blue ribbon panel will ultimately have to say. President orders debt panel, names chairmen - Feb. 18, 2010

(Where is that "jerk-off" smiley when you need it?)

 

[Liability]

Still not justifying that silly 80% claim I see. Can't blame ya.

Genius suggestion. Yes. Just "cancel" the obligations and commitments.

They are not bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the US government and in fact, Republicans have recommmended repudiating a portion of them several times (via limiting or abolishing trust fund payments for SS and medicare)

Sure you have. Back in the day when you used a different username -- er -- usernumber.

Really? Tell us about that, Liability. What did I say about my profession?

I've never laid claim to a profession...only an avocation making you look stupid - and that's easy money.

As always, the only one you make look stupid is you. And that's just truth in advertising. Unintentional, no doubt, but still . . . .

What do you claim you do these days, Mr. "Now, I'm not claiming to be an economist."

 

[rdean]

Christine O'Donnell criticized by former aides - David Catanese - POLITICO.com

Kristin Murray, who left her position in the state party to serve as one of several campaign managers for O’Donnell during that race, said warning bells went off in June 2008 when the two were discussing cell phone plans.

"She told me that she thought Joe Biden tapped her phone line," she said.

Moore, who first decided to volunteer for O'Donnell after hearing about her at a meeting of college Republicans, said that at one point, O'Donnell talked to him about winning a lucrative television contract with CNN or Fox News Channel.

"I informed her that most media organizations prohibit their employees from running for office. She didn't seem to understand and was more interested in getting a contract," he recalled. "She was more concerned about getting a TV deal than winning office."

When aides told O'Donnell it was a bad idea and that the cash-poor campaign should conserve its resources for more practical items like signs and bumper stickers, Moore recalled, "She didn't take too kindly to that."

"It was an irresponsible idea," said David Keegan, who served as O'Donnell's financial officer. “And half the people in the street thought she was throwing condoms out of the truck.”

Man, between her and Angle, the Tea Party sure know how to pick em. Plenty of more comments after the jump.

Republicans and Tea Baggers don't give a hoot what anyone says. If they like Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, Christine or "who ever", then they like them. Period.

The only way to stop the right from defending those people is if they ate live kittens on TV.

They don't care about their policies, what they've done in the past, who they ripped off. It doesn't matter. Once they are in, they're in.

 

[8537]

Still not justifying that silly 80% claim I see. Can't blame ya.

Genius suggestion. Yes. Just "cancel" the obligations and commitments.

They are not bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the US government and in fact, Republicans have recommmended repudiating a portion of them several times (via limiting or abolishing trust fund payments for SS and medicare)

Sure you have. Back in the day when you used a different username -- er -- usernumber.

Really? Tell us about that, Liability. What did I say about my profession?

I've never laid claim to a profession...only an avocation making you look stupid - and that's easy money.

As always, the only one you make look stupid is you. And that's just truth in advertising. Unintentional, no doubt, but still . . . .

What do you claim you do these days, Mr. "Now, I'm not claiming to be an economist."

I've never laid any claim to my vocation. You can continue to repeat that lie all day long, but it will still be a lie. Beyond my current avocation of exposing you as a stool, my profession is not your business.

Now, as for the content: Why do you feel that the unfunded liabilities of SS and Medicare can not be canceled?

And where did you arrive at the 80% figure?

 

[Liability]

Still not justifying that silly 80% claim I see. Can't blame ya.

You need to learn to read. I do blame you.

They are not bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the US government and in fact, Republicans have recommmended repudiating a portion of them several times (via limiting or abolishing trust fund payments for SS and medicare)

So the distinction means it's ok to reneg on them? Interesting.

Really? Tell us about that, Liability. What did I say about my profession?

You claimed to be an economist.

I've never laid claim to a profession...only an avocation making you look stupid - and that's easy money.

It has never proved easy for you. You do easily show yourself to be stupid, however.

As always, the only one you make look stupid is you. And that's just truth in advertising. Unintentional, no doubt, but still . . . .

What do you claim you do these days, Mr. "Now, I'm not claiming to be an economist."

I've never laid any claim to my vocation. You can continue to repeat that lie all day long, but it will still be a lie. Beyond my current avocation of exposing you as a stool, my profession is not your business.

Yes, you did. You claimed to be an economist. As you know, it's the truth. You may not actually BE an economist, but that only means you lied before, too. And again, the only one you make look stupid is you. That comes quite naturally to you. Always.

Now, as for the content: Why do you feel that the unfunded liabilities of SS and Medicare can not be canceled?

And where did you arrive at the 80% figure?

I didn't say they cannot be canceled. Indeed, the time may come when they have to be "reorganized." I merely questioned YOUR suggestion that they can be. If done at all (and perhaps dangerously and unwisely) it is not something that would ever be so simple.

And the 90% figure I already quoted. The 80 cents (not percent) figure comes from yet another source. Here's one: http://www.aei.org/docLib/Deficit Endgame.pdf

Or, there's this:

fact, according to an official U.S. government report, rapidly growing interest costs on the national debt together with spending on major entitlement programs will absorb approximately 92 cents of every dollar of federal revenue by the year 2019. By 2020, that figure will be up around 100 cents of every dollar of federal revenue.

-- excerpted from: http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/...ill-gobble-up-every-single-tax-dollar-by-2020 which CITES: http://www.gao.gov/financial/fy2009/09frusg.pdf (Chart J of that document is quite revealing.)(highlighting in excerpt all mine. )

 

[Charles_Main]

fact, according to an official U.S. government report, rapidly growing interest costs on the national debt together with spending on major entitlement programs will absorb approximately 92 cents of every dollar of federal revenue by the year 2019. By 2020, that figure will be up around 100 cents of every dollar of federal revenue.

stop confusing them with Facts. It makes their heads hurt.

 

[8537]

Still not justifying that silly 80% claim I see. Can't blame ya.

You need to learn to read. I do blame you.

Let's review, shall we?

How much of every tax dollar will be used to service just the debt and the interest on the debt by 2020?

Probably about 15 cents.

Wrong. So much for being an "economist."

It will be around 80 cents.

now, for a basic math review: If 80 cents of every dollar in tax revenues goes to debt service, that means that 80% of tax revenues go to debt service.

I figured that was obvious, but apparently not.

So the distinction means it's ok to reneg on them? Interesting.

Of course...that's why they are special-issue notes. How do you think the Republicans plan to reign in SS and Medicare if not by reneging on those special notes?

You claimed to be an economist.

I've never made any claims about my vocation. You can continue to lie, and I'll continue to point out that you lie.

Yes, you did. You claimed to be an economist.

I've never made any claims about my vocation. In light of your continued claims to the contrary, you might want to offer something resembling proof.

Now, as for the content: Why do you feel that the unfunded liabilities of SS and Medicare can not be canceled?

And where did you arrive at the 80% figure?

I didn't say they cannot be canceled. Indeed, the time may come when they have to be "reorganized." I merely questioned YOUR suggestion that they can be. If done at all (and perhaps dangerously and unwisely) it is not something that would ever be so simple.

it is not dangerous. George W Bush and others recommended it several times. It won't impact our credit rating. And it is as simple as an act of congress.