Are You Scared Yet? Read this!

[editec]

To whom do we owe this money?
What happens if we default?

I repeat my question, PC.
I admit to being lousy at Econ. 101

You (I suspect) realize that THAT is the KEY question that we ought to be asking ourselves.

But we do not because we have been trained to think that money and economics operates in the same iron clad ways that the the laws of physics, operate.

We are basically being bambuzzled.

I'll say it again.

We go from having a gangbuster economy to a depression in A DAY.

Nothing really happened in the REAL WORLD WHERE WEALTH IS CREATED to make that happen.

Where things suddenly and inexplicably go arye is in the BANKING AND FINANCE SECTOR.

Suddenly we then are told that somehow WE THE WORKING PEOPLE are doing something wrong and its all our fault.

And many of you idiots buy into that nonsensical blather, too.

And that is what basically mystifies me.

How can you folks continue to miss something SO OBVIOUS?

 

[editec]

Does it EVER strike any of us as strange that we can go from happy ecionomic days to unhappy economic days when

1. Everything still works!

2. The soil still produces, the factory machines still operate and there is no shortage of people willing to man them?

And yet suddenly, and mysteriously, the economy is in the crapper?

And STILL we have people right on this very board who want to blame the people, rather than our leaders.

I don't get it.

"And yet suddenly, and mysteriously, the economy is in the crapper..."

This statement fits one of the two scenarios...

If one voted for the current administration, it is self-serving.

Oh, nonsense!

My statement about how these things happen wasn't remotely a partisan slam.

Much of what it took to lead us up to this depression happened on Democrats watch, too. And that is something I have been saying every since I got here, too.

Try try TRY to imagine that one can discuss this sort of issue without having a partisan agenda.

I know it's hard for some of you brainwahsed idiots to imagine this, but some of us care a hell of a lot more about this society of ours than we do some ******* political party.

 

[william the wie]

Does it EVER strike any of us as strange that we can go from happy ecionomic days to unhappy economic days when

1. Everything still works!

2. The soil still produces, the factory machines still operate and there is no shortage of people willing to man them?

And yet suddenly, and mysteriously, the economy is in the crapper?

And STILL we have people right on this very board who want to blame the people, rather than our leaders.

I don't get it.

I enlisted in the Navy at the tail end of Nam with a draft number of 348 to get educational and housing benefits. I have no debts and adequate savings my contemporaries generally do not. Those who are not yet foreclosed on generally live in better houses than I do, those who are not yet repoed generally drive better cars than I do. Do I sympathize with their debt-fueled get rich quick schemes biting them in the butt? Not really. Do I sympathize with the disabled? yes. Do I have sympathy for those who tried to swim against the tide of irresponsibility and failed? Generally yes and the exceptions have to work at being exceptions but there are some. Do I have any sympathy for the unemployed masters of the universe? No, the majority of Americans bought houses they knew damn well they could not afford, cars and other toys that they could not afford to get into the mess they are in. The irresponsible will always take the easy way out until they run out of easy ways and that is called natural selection or justice depending on your way of looking at the world.

 

[william the wie]

To whom do we owe this money?
What happens if we default?

I repeat my question, PC.
I admit to being lousy at Econ. 101

You (I suspect) realize that THAT is the KEY question that we ought to be asking ourselves.

But we do not because we have been trained to think that money and economics operates in the same iron clad ways that the the laws of physics, operate.

We are basically being bambuzzled.

I'll say it again.

We go from having a gangbuster economy to a depression in A DAY.

Nothing really happened in the REAL WORLD WHERE WEALTH IS CREATED to make that happen.

Where things suddenly and inexplicably go arye is in the BANKING AND FINANCE SECTOR.

Suddenly we then are told that somehow WE THE WORKING PEOPLE are doing something wrong and its all our fault.

And many of you idiots buy into that nonsensical blather, too.

And that is what basically mystifies me.

How can you folks continue to miss something SO OBVIOUS?

Because your position is utter nonsense. 90-95% of those in distress let themselves get sucked into leveraged get-rich quick schemes:

Housing, sure houses would hold up in value as we built up a housing inventory sufficient to take in Japan as a house guest.

The educational bubble of racking up huge debts in order to get a usually worthless sheepskin in terms of aftertax and afterfinancing income, something that was no secret in the early 1980s. That was bright. All that was needed to find that out was to go to the job placement office at college before you enrolled and the relative value of different degrees was laid out in relatively simple language.

Interest rates on bonds could go into highly negative territory and still climb.

Anybody and everybody could get rich by outsmarting everyone else.

Of course the evil shorts who thought downturns were at fault because the stupidity and cupidity of the longs could never be wrong.

Blaming others for your own failures of judgment, that's the ticket.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Does it EVER strike any of us as strange that we can go from happy ecionomic days to unhappy economic days when

1. Everything still works!

2. The soil still produces, the factory machines still operate and there is no shortage of people willing to man them?

And yet suddenly, and mysteriously, the economy is in the crapper?

And STILL we have people right on this very board who want to blame the people, rather than our leaders.

I don't get it.

"And yet suddenly, and mysteriously, the economy is in the crapper..."

This statement fits one of the two scenarios...

If one voted for the current administration, it is self-serving.

Oh, nonsense!

My statement about how these things happen wasn't remotely a partisan slam.

Much of what it took to lead us up to this depression happened on Democrats watch, too. And that is something I have been saying every since I got here, too.

Try try TRY to imagine that one can discuss this sort of issue without having a partisan agenda.

I know it's hard for some of you brainwahsed idiots to imagine this, but some of us care a hell of a lot more about this society of ours than we do some ******* political party.

Tecy, your post only makes sense if you include the second part of what I wrote...

"... suddenly, and mysteriously..."

If you wish to pretend that there were many on this board who argued against both Tarp and the Stimulus Bill, then you are being less than honest.

Neither suddenly nor mysteriously apply.


As for partisan, I would be happy to join you in condemning the spending of the Bush Administration, and hope you would multiply that condemnation of an administration that multiplied Bush's spending spree.....

 

[uscitizen]

Who makes up the political parties that select candidates for us to vote for?
Who votes for those candidates?
Who keeps reelecting those "leaders" time after time?

People.

 

[william the wie]

Who makes up the political parties that select candidates for us to vote for?
Who votes for those candidates?
Who keeps reelecting those "leaders" time after time?

People.

Somewhat but only slightly more complicated. Campaign finance and ballot access issues along with machine politics make the duopoly argument somewhat credible. However given the rate at which the majors are losing mass support and credibility a 90 degree shift in the US political spectrum is coming. The past election may be the first case of the party with equal or greater unfavorables winning in a reasonably honest election against incumbents. Whether the external form is kept unchanged while the internals shift markedly or whether new parties will emerge is an open question in my opinion.

 

[loosecannon]

Whether the external form is kept unchanged while the internals shift markedly or whether new parties will emerge is an open question in my opinion.

Think about it Willie. It won't be long before parties don't even matter anymore because anybody who gets elected will be coopted either before they run, directly afterwards or via blackmail as soon as opportunity is manufactured.

Elections are now corporate auctions. The corporations now have almost as much power to select candidates as the parties have shared.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Who makes up the political parties that select candidates for us to vote for?
Who votes for those candidates?
Who keeps reelecting those "leaders" time after time?

People.

More than interesting, this post begs elucidation...because there is reason to believe that we labor under the illusion that we, the people, select our leaders...

1. The latest variation of totalitarianism is neither religious, nor even political: it is cultural. “Totalitarian democracy” is a term made famous by J. L. Talmon to refer to a system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government.

In this thought, we are given bogus choices...and they are largely identical.
Except that the President that you dislike is out of the mold.


This, from Angelo Codevilla:
2. Today's ruling class was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints.

3. When pollsters ask the American people whether they are likely to vote Republican or Democrat in the next presidential election, Republicans win growing pluralities. But whenever pollsters add the preferences "undecided," "none of the above," or "tea party," these win handily, the Democrats come in second, and the Republicans trail far behind.

a. Democratic politicians are the ruling class's prime legitimate representatives and that because Republican politicians are supported by only a fourth of their voters while the rest vote for them reluctantly, most are aspirants for a junior role in the ruling class. In short, the ruling class has a party, the Democrats. But some two-thirds of Americans -- a few Democratic voters, most Republican voters, and all independents -- lack a vehicle in electoral politics.
The American Spectator : America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution

 

[NYcarbineer]

The International Monetary Fund, the IMF, recent report on “Gross Financial Needs,” figures out how much money each nation needs to raise each year based on deficit, and maturity length of existing bonds; i.e. dependent on issuing new debt. The US is second worst of all advanced economies, needing 32.2% of GDP just to keep everything going

That is primarily true because we have annual deficits now in the 1.4 trillion range. If we cut the deficit to pre 2009 levels we would be in far better shape than Japan, Greece, Ireland.

Ireland, the latest bailout mess...

...wasn't it only a few years ago that conservatives were trumping up Ireland as the shining example of prosperity...

...brought on by their extremely low taxes on business?

 

[william the wie]

Whether the external form is kept unchanged while the internals shift markedly or whether new parties will emerge is an open question in my opinion.

Think about it Willie. It won't be long before parties don't even matter anymore because anybody who gets elected will be coopted either before they run, directly afterwards or via blackmail as soon as opportunity is manufactured.

Elections are now corporate auctions. The corporations now have almost as much power to select candidates as the parties have shared.

I agree but you are leaving out the widespread disgust with the current system with libertarian and green revolts going on in the majors. Corporate and other special interests want something that works which the current system does not so change is coming.

 

[Toro]

And that, in a nutshell, is the difference between liberals and conservatives: the size of government.

Uncompromising ideologues on both the right and the left would rather choose their own ideology over the fiscal health of this nation. The ideologues would rather let the nation default rather than raise taxes or cut spending. Those who proclaim "Not one more dollar in tax increases!" or "Not one dollar in spending cuts" risk economic chaos that would make the recent Financial Crisis look like a fun picnic. They are part of the problem.

Toro, if only you had the gift of irony...

By making your statement in the absence of any attempt to institute said economy- you know, to ascertain whether or not it would be the answer, would pretty much be the definition of an ideologue.

Nope. I only made a suggestion. It is the formula that Canada used to balance its budget. Sweden, on the other hand, used 3/4 tax increases and 1/4 spending cuts to balance their budget after their banking crisis.

Ideologues say "You can't balance the budget by raising taxes" because they have zero knowledge of what has happened elsewhere.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Uncompromising ideologues on both the right and the left would rather choose their own ideology over the fiscal health of this nation. The ideologues would rather let the nation default rather than raise taxes or cut spending. Those who proclaim "Not one more dollar in tax increases!" or "Not one dollar in spending cuts" risk economic chaos that would make the recent Financial Crisis look like a fun picnic. They are part of the problem.

Toro, if only you had the gift of irony...

By making your statement in the absence of any attempt to institute said economy- you know, to ascertain whether or not it would be the answer, would pretty much be the definition of an ideologue.

Nope. I only made a suggestion. It is the formula that Canada used to balance its budget. Sweden, on the other hand, used 3/4 tax increases and 1/4 spending cuts to balance their budget after their banking crisis.

Ideologues say "You can't balance the budget by raising taxes" because they have zero knowledge of what has happened elsewhere.

Does this light a fire, move the discussion beyond merely interesting?

a. National debt $13 trillion
b. State and Local debt $2.5 trillion
c. State and Local pensions (underfunded) $3 trillion
d. Social Security $7.7 trillion*
e. Medicare $ 38 trillion*
f. Total US debt $64.2 trillion
g. Total GDP of entire world $61.0 trillion
*covers commitments for 75 years

b., c. The Other National Debt - Kevin Williamson - National Review Online

d., e. The 81% Tax Increase - Forbes.com

f. 65 Trillion - U.S. Financial Obligations Exceed The Entire World's GDP

g. Silver: Declining supply, increasing demand - Precious Metals - Resource Investor

 

[Toro]

Toro, if only you had the gift of irony...

By making your statement in the absence of any attempt to institute said economy- you know, to ascertain whether or not it would be the answer, would pretty much be the definition of an ideologue.

Nope. I only made a suggestion. It is the formula that Canada used to balance its budget. Sweden, on the other hand, used 3/4 tax increases and 1/4 spending cuts to balance their budget after their banking crisis.

Ideologues say "You can't balance the budget by raising taxes" because they have zero knowledge of what has happened elsewhere.

Does this light a fire, move the discussion beyond merely interesting?

a. National debt $13 trillion
b. State and Local debt $2.5 trillion
c. State and Local pensions (underfunded) $3 trillion
d. Social Security $7.7 trillion*
e. Medicare $ 38 trillion*
f. Total US debt $64.2 trillion
g. Total GDP of entire world $61.0 trillion
*covers commitments for 75 years

b., c. The Other National Debt - Kevin Williamson - National Review Online

d., e. The 81% Tax Increase - Forbes.com

f. 65 Trillion - U.S. Financial Obligations Exceed The Entire World's GDP

g. Silver: Declining supply, increasing demand - Precious Metals - Resource Investor

I have real money on the line that it isn't going to get better anytime soon.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nope. I only made a suggestion. It is the formula that Canada used to balance its budget. Sweden, on the other hand, used 3/4 tax increases and 1/4 spending cuts to balance their budget after their banking crisis.

Ideologues say "You can't balance the budget by raising taxes" because they have zero knowledge of what has happened elsewhere.

Does this light a fire, move the discussion beyond merely interesting?

a. National debt $13 trillion
b. State and Local debt $2.5 trillion
c. State and Local pensions (underfunded) $3 trillion
d. Social Security $7.7 trillion*
e. Medicare $ 38 trillion*
f. Total US debt $64.2 trillion
g. Total GDP of entire world $61.0 trillion
*covers commitments for 75 years

b., c. The Other National Debt - Kevin Williamson - National Review Online

d., e. The 81% Tax Increase - Forbes.com

f. 65 Trillion - U.S. Financial Obligations Exceed The Entire World's GDP

g. Silver: Declining supply, increasing demand - Precious Metals - Resource Investor

I have real money on the line that it isn't going to get better anytime soon.

Looks like a good bet.

And the President froze pay for some federal workers today...handwriting on the wall?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Does this light a fire, move the discussion beyond merely interesting?

a. National debt $13 trillion
b. State and Local debt $2.5 trillion
c. State and Local pensions (underfunded) $3 trillion
d. Social Security $7.7 trillion*
e. Medicare $ 38 trillion*
f. Total US debt $64.2 trillion
g. Total GDP of entire world $61.0 trillion
*covers commitments for 75 years

b., c. The Other National Debt - Kevin Williamson - National Review Online

d., e. The 81% Tax Increase - Forbes.com

f. 65 Trillion - U.S. Financial Obligations Exceed The Entire World's GDP

g. Silver: Declining supply, increasing demand - Precious Metals - Resource Investor

I have real money on the line that it isn't going to get better anytime soon.

Looks like a good bet.

And the President froze pay for some federal workers today...handwriting on the wall?

He may have froze pay but he did not freeze people rising in the ranks.
A G2 can advance to G3 pay.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have real money on the line that it isn't going to get better anytime soon.

Looks like a good bet.

And the President froze pay for some federal workers today...handwriting on the wall?

He may have froze pay but he did not freeze people rising in the ranks.
A G2 can advance to G3 pay.

I should have explained better...for this President to antagonize his base, he must see the seriousness.

"Statement by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka On Pay Freeze for Federal Workers
November 29, 2010

Today’s announcement of a two-year pay freeze for federal workers is bad for the middle class, bad for the economy and bad for business.

No one is served by our government participating in a "race to the bottom" in wages. We need to invest in creating jobs, not undermining the ones we have. The President talked about the need for shared sacrifice, but there’s nothing shared about Wall Street and CEOs making record profits and bonuses while working people bear the brunt. It is time to get our nation back on track, but we should not do so by placing an even greater burden on the middle class."

Daily Kos: Trumka: Pay Freeze Is Bad for Middle Class, Economy, And Business.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Looks like a good bet.

And the President froze pay for some federal workers today...handwriting on the wall?

He may have froze pay but he did not freeze people rising in the ranks.
A G2 can advance to G3 pay.

I should have explained better...for this President to antagonize his base, he must see the seriousness.

"Statement by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka On Pay Freeze for Federal Workers
November 29, 2010

Today’s announcement of a two-year pay freeze for federal workers is bad for the middle class, bad for the economy and bad for business.

No one is served by our government participating in a "race to the bottom" in wages. We need to invest in creating jobs, not undermining the ones we have. The President talked about the need for shared sacrifice, but there’s nothing shared about Wall Street and CEOs making record profits and bonuses while working people bear the brunt. It is time to get our nation back on track, but we should not do so by placing an even greater burden on the middle class."

Daily Kos: Trumka: Pay Freeze Is Bad for Middle Class, Economy, And Business.

I understand what you said but I had to add he really did not freeze any pay grade raises.
Does this also affect the military?
Will an E-1 remain an E-1 for two years without a raise in pay grade?

 

[loosecannon]

Does this light a fire, move the discussion beyond merely interesting?

a. National debt $13 trillion
b. State and Local debt $2.5 trillion
c. State and Local pensions (underfunded) $3 trillion
d. Social Security $7.7 trillion*
e. Medicare $ 38 trillion*
f. Total US debt $64.2 trillion
g. Total GDP of entire world $61.0 trillion
*covers commitments for 75 years

b., c. The Other National Debt - Kevin Williamson - National Review Online

d., e. The 81% Tax Increase - Forbes.com

f. 65 Trillion - U.S. Financial Obligations Exceed The Entire World's GDP

g. Silver: Declining supply, increasing demand - Precious Metals - Resource Investor

I think the unfunded liabilities are understated. SS and Medicare. I think those two alone are nearly $100 trillion underfunded over a time span of less than 80 years. The figures you stated probably assume that the trust funds are actual, not virtual.

 

[loosecannon]

No one is served by our government participating in a "race to the bottom" in wages. We need to invest in creating jobs, not undermining the ones we have. The President talked about the need for shared sacrifice, but there’s nothing shared about Wall Street and CEOs making record profits and bonuses while working people bear the brunt. It is time to get our nation back on track, but we should not do so by placing an even greater burden on the middle class."

Nothing personal since you didn't write this tripe, but cry me a river. Federal employees can share in the same COLA increase that SS has realized for two years.

They are lucky to have jobs with full benefits and not be among the 20%+ who are un or underemployed.

If we have to cut the deficit and raise taxes cutting Federal employees pay 25% won't bother me a bit. Unless of course you can demonstrate that they earn below the median income.

This is the same bullshit teachers and prison guards pull in CA. They just can't fathom living with a pay cut even tho the state is $20 billion in the red every year now.

You get raises and more bennies when times are good, we claw back when times demand austerity. Quit crying.