Alan Simpson Calls GOP Refusal To Raise Revenue ‘Absolute Bullshit’

[edthecynic]

Nope. Counting the bond, not the spent money.

Let's try again.
You take a $1000 cash advance on your Amex and spend it.

Your brother takes a $2000 cash advance, spends $1000 and puts the other $1000 in the bank.

Who's better off? Why?

Even though your example is a desperate attempt to distract from the fact that the debt increased by $500 billion in 2007, I'll play along.

I am of course. I'll tell you why after you say who you think is better off.

Ignoring the interest, you're equally well off.

Except you can't ignore the interest, and you did not specify to ignore the interest. A bank pays barely 1% whereas Amex charges 10 to 25%.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Even though your example is a desperate attempt to distract from the fact that the debt increased by $500 billion in 2007, I'll play along.

I am of course. I'll tell you why after you say who you think is better off.

Ignoring the interest, you're equally well off.

Except you can't ignore the interest, and you did not specify to ignore the interest. A bank pays barely 1% whereas Amex charges 10 to 25%.

But of course you can ignore the interest, silly.
How much does a bond in the Social Security "Trust Fund" earn?
How much does the government pay on that bond to the Social Security "Trust Fund"?

Do you understand how to read a balance sheet?
How to add together 2 numbers, assets and liabilities to come up with networth?
Go back to my examples. Who has the higher networth, you or your brother?

 

[edthecynic]

Ignoring the interest, you're equally well off.

Except you can't ignore the interest, and you did not specify to ignore the interest. A bank pays barely 1% whereas Amex charges 10 to 25%.

But of course you can ignore the interest, silly.
How much does a bond in the Social Security "Trust Fund" earn?
How much does the government pay on that bond to the Social Security "Trust Fund"?

Do you understand how to read a balance sheet?
How to add together 2 numbers, assets and liabilities to come up with networth?
Go back to my examples. Who has the higher networth, you or your brother?

Unlike my brother, the government does not have any money in its SS trust account only an IOU, and must borrow the money at a higher interest rate than it receives on the IOU sitting in there when it comes time to pay off the IOU.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Except you can't ignore the interest, and you did not specify to ignore the interest. A bank pays barely 1% whereas Amex charges 10 to 25%.

But of course you can ignore the interest, silly.
How much does a bond in the Social Security "Trust Fund" earn?
How much does the government pay on that bond to the Social Security "Trust Fund"?

Do you understand how to read a balance sheet?
How to add together 2 numbers, assets and liabilities to come up with networth?
Go back to my examples. Who has the higher networth, you or your brother?

Unlike my brother, the government does not have any money in its SS trust account only an IOU, and must borrow the money at a higher interest rate than it receives on the IOU sitting in there when it comes time to pay off the IOU.

Let me know when you figure out what an asset is and what a liability is and how to add them together.

 

[edthecynic]

But of course you can ignore the interest, silly.
How much does a bond in the Social Security "Trust Fund" earn?
How much does the government pay on that bond to the Social Security "Trust Fund"?

Do you understand how to read a balance sheet?
How to add together 2 numbers, assets and liabilities to come up with networth?
Go back to my examples. Who has the higher networth, you or your brother?

Unlike my brother, the government does not have any money in its SS trust account only an IOU, and must borrow the money at a higher interest rate than it receives on the IOU sitting in there when it comes time to pay off the IOU.

Let me know when you figure out what an asset is and what a liability is and how to add them together.

If the SS trust IOUs were a real asset, then CON$ couldn't say that SS is bankrupt as they do. We've reached the point where there is no more yearly SS Surplus to raid for tax cuts for the rich and now as more boomers retire it's time to tap those nonexistant SS trust "assets," but when Uncle Sam got there the cupboard was bare.

So the government must either raise taxes, cut benefits, borrow money, print money or default. The GOP limits the choices to cut benefits or default.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ignoring the interest, you're equally well off.

Except you can't ignore the interest, and you did not specify to ignore the interest. A bank pays barely 1% whereas Amex charges 10 to 25%.

But of course you can ignore the interest, silly.
How much does a bond in the Social Security "Trust Fund" earn?
How much does the government pay on that bond to the Social Security "Trust Fund"?

Do you understand how to read a balance sheet?
How to add together 2 numbers, assets and liabilities to come up with networth?
Go back to my examples. Who has the higher networth, you or your brother?

You can't read a balance sheet, can you, Toddsterloyalist? I am sending this to my economics professor friend to use in his historical econ class at the U. He loves this type of Far Righty Extremist Fascist nonsense, for sure. He and his peers are absolutely convinced you apologesticsporn defenders of the far right are the surest destruction of it in the near future.

 

[frazzledgear]

Fmr. GOP Sen. Alan Simpson Calls Republican Refusal To Raise Revenue ‘Absolute Bullshit’

Former GOP Sen. Alan Simpson blasted his intransigent GOP colleagues on the Hill today for failing to reach a deal on the deficit. The blunt-talking co-chairman of President Obama’s bipartisan fiscal reform commission slammed Republicans for kowtowing to Americans for Tax Reform head Grover Norquist (“Republicans can’t be in thrall to him”) and pushed Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to stand fast on the August 2 deadline.

Surveying the lay of the current fiscal land, Simpson said, “We’re at 15 percent revenue, and historically it’s been closer to 20 percent.”

He added, “We’ve never had a war without a tax, and now we’ve got two. … Absolute bullshit.”

More

The problem is HISTORY for the Democrats. Every single time revenue increased, Democrat controlled Congresses only increased its spending -NEVER did it raise revenue and simultaneously voluntarily CUT spending. Doesn't happen. And the last little stunt Obama pulled by PRETENDING to have made real cuts in spending turned out to be NONEXISTENT and were simply creative accounting TRICKS -that did not sit well with people once they found out. But THAT is the kind of bullshit Democrats intend to deceive people with while lying to people they have made substantial cuts in spending when they did no such thing! Force Democrats to face a very real problem and they will always insist the answer is more and bigger government and higher taxes -like a broken record.

But more and more economists are agreeing that the "crisis" by not raising the debt ceiling is actually overblown and insisting it MUST be raised or we face catastrophe is not unlike stupidly believing that when you max out your credit card and can't pay your bills, the proper response is to ask the bank to increase the amount you can charge so you can increase your debt even more. The fact government can print up its own money doesn't make it any less stupid response to finding oneself overdrawn. In fact the very serious DOWNSIDE to raising the debt ceiling is that makes it nearly INEVITABLE that government will deliberately use inflation as the means of reducing its debt. Do you REALIZE the US went from being THE largest creditor nation to THE largest DEBTOR nation in just a few decades, something it has NEVER been in its existence - and now facing a real impending financial crisis because of the out of control SPENDING? Without massive cuts the US will soon owe more money than all the world's existing currency combined. Not something for our elected officials to brag about having inflicted on this nation -especially while wringing their hands and insisting taxpayers need to cough up even MORE for them to spend! It did NOT happen because citizens just aren't being taxed enough but because our elected idiots started pretending they had a bottomless well and had no need to be the least bit concerned where that money was going to come from! Under Democrat controlled Congress which only massively increased once they took control of the White House the budget for the US government is nothing but a PONZI SCHEME now and the people who will get stuck with the tab haven't even been born yet! They had no brakes and they sure did nothing to apply any to their wet dream spending spree. There is nothing magical about the fact it is a government that created this Ponzi scheme instead of an individual except government will victimize even more people. If you did this in the private sector you'd be in prison. But you would NOT be allowed to go back and soak your victims even more yet Democrats are demanding they be allowed to do just that.

Raising the debt ceiling is in reality GUARANTEEING government will deal with its out of control debt by inflating the US dollar. Meaning government will make sure YOUR money won't buy jackshit and your standard of living will take a massive hit. One of the direct results of creating inflation is it automatically results in raising interest rates as well. Hope you don't have kids because it will also guarantee they will be the first generation whose standard of living will decrease from that of their parents. In addition it will increase the odds it will result in a global depression. But hey, it will also guarantee the drama queen Democrats will lie and pretend they did all they could to avoid that, right? Instead if admitting they bear the lion's share of the blame.

Again, the problem is NOT that taxpayers aren't being taxed enough -but hey, if YOU feel like you aren't being taxed high enough yet the IRS will take your voluntary contribution so you go right ahead with that. But the problem is the MASSIVE, OUT OF CONTROL spending spree. There is no such thing as a magic formula on how much government should confiscate from the private sector -but the bigger percentage, the more DAMAGE it does to the economy. The bigger percentage when the economy is not doing well, that damage is multiplied. Government does NOT create wealth and it is NOT a job creator! It can only confiscate the wealth from those who create it and it can either pursue policies that encourage job creation by the REAL job creators -or policies that interfere and hinder it. Our government under Obama has bent over backward to discourage job creation even while giving a lying ass lip service to being "pro job creating" while trying to hide the fact Obama is actually THE most viciously anti-business President we've had since Carter! It is impossible to be PRO job creation at the same time you are openly, blatantly and viciously anti-business when businesses ARE the job creators in the first place! Carter was the very same way and unemployment sky rocketed under him too! And for both Carter and Obama the very people hurt the worst by it are those who can least afford it. But again liberals put greater value on the most superficial of things -so for them "good intentions" count for far more than the actual result. So the fact anti-business policies hurt people at the low end of the economic spectrum matters much less -so much so they do not abandon those policies no matter how much evidence there is that they harm the very people they claim to be trying to help the most.

On top of which raising taxes during high unemployment will only increase revenue in the very short term and then it leads to MORE unemployment, leaving fewer people paying income taxes and LESS revenue. Raising taxes only increases revenue in the long term during times of low unemployment. When times are tough, higher taxes make things WORSE, increasing unemployment and even causing recessions. Likewise if government grows during a poor economy -government is NOT a job creator because those hired by government are paid by taxpayers. But when government expands, every person it hires means one less taxpayer while the share of the burden to the remaining taxpayers increases - also making a poor economy worse. Ask Jimmy Carter how it worked out for our economy when he claimed his tax increases targeting the rich and big business would help the economy? In the end what we got from Carter is what Obama is promising as well -double digit unemployment, double digit unemployment and double digit interest rates on YOUR debt. Get this man out of office before he manages to exceed the damage Carter caused because it took nearly 15 years to recover from the damage Carter managed to inflict in just four years.

You can't raise taxes with unemployment this high or it will result in even higher unemployment and FEWER taxpayers and LESS revenue. NOT more. So if they actually want MORE revenue why are they actually pushing for a method that is known to result in even less revenue when unemployment is high? Do any of these "raise taxes" MORONS ever bother to look at HISTORY with regard to taxes and unemployment and the impact it has on revenue? Apparently Democrats in particular have a hard time comprehending how raising taxes during high unemployment will result in even LESS revenue when they want more -but it will and it will no matter how much they insist it will raise revenue. History has REPEATEDLY proven IT WON'T.

There is a reason Simpson is no longer a Republican -he never was one but in name only anyway. He's just another politician which is one step below used car salesman - and not even very good at that any more.

 

[bripat9643]

Let's try again.
You take a $1000 cash advance on your Amex and spend it.

Your brother takes a $2000 cash advance, spends $1000 and puts the other $1000 in the bank.

Who's better off? Why?

The trust fund is not a bank. The government hasn't put any money in it.

 

[Toro]

Ignoring the interest, you're equally well off.

Except you can't ignore the interest, and you did not specify to ignore the interest. A bank pays barely 1% whereas Amex charges 10 to 25%.

But of course you can ignore the interest, silly.
How much does a bond in the Social Security "Trust Fund" earn?
How much does the government pay on that bond to the Social Security "Trust Fund"?

Do you understand how to read a balance sheet?
How to add together 2 numbers, assets and liabilities to come up with networth?
Go back to my examples. Who has the higher networth, you or your brother?

The interest debited to the trusts is a blend of 1 to 15 year government bonds (I believe) and is currently compounding somewhere in the 3% range.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Unlike my brother, the government does not have any money in its SS trust account only an IOU, and must borrow the money at a higher interest rate than it receives on the IOU sitting in there when it comes time to pay off the IOU.

Let me know when you figure out what an asset is and what a liability is and how to add them together.

If the SS trust IOUs were a real asset, then CON$ couldn't say that SS is bankrupt as they do. We've reached the point where there is no more yearly SS Surplus to raid for tax cuts for the rich and now as more boomers retire it's time to tap those nonexistant SS trust "assets," but when Uncle Sam got there the cupboard was bare.

So the government must either raise taxes, cut benefits, borrow money, print money or default. The GOP limits the choices to cut benefits or default.

Are you saying the government "must either raise taxes, cut benefits, borrow money, print money or default" to pay SS benefits, despite having trillions in the "Trust Funds"?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIfNtUttcYk]YouTube - ‪Welcome To The Party Pal!‬‏[/ame]


Let me know when you figure out what an asset is and what a liability is and how to add them together.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Except you can't ignore the interest, and you did not specify to ignore the interest. A bank pays barely 1% whereas Amex charges 10 to 25%.

But of course you can ignore the interest, silly.
How much does a bond in the Social Security "Trust Fund" earn?
How much does the government pay on that bond to the Social Security "Trust Fund"?

Do you understand how to read a balance sheet?
How to add together 2 numbers, assets and liabilities to come up with networth?
Go back to my examples. Who has the higher networth, you or your brother?

You can't read a balance sheet, can you, Toddsterloyalist? I am sending this to my economics professor friend to use in his historical econ class at the U. He loves this type of Far Righty Extremist Fascist nonsense, for sure. He and his peers are absolutely convinced you apologesticsporn defenders of the far right are the surest destruction of it in the near future.

When your professor friend gets done laughing at you, let me know what else he has to say.
Thanks for the laugh.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let's try again.
You take a $1000 cash advance on your Amex and spend it.

Your brother takes a $2000 cash advance, spends $1000 and puts the other $1000 in the bank.

Who's better off? Why?

The trust fund is not a bank. The government hasn't put any money in it.

Yes, I know the trust fund is not a bank.
Of course there isn't any money in it, the government spent the money.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Except you can't ignore the interest, and you did not specify to ignore the interest. A bank pays barely 1% whereas Amex charges 10 to 25%.

But of course you can ignore the interest, silly.
How much does a bond in the Social Security "Trust Fund" earn?
How much does the government pay on that bond to the Social Security "Trust Fund"?

Do you understand how to read a balance sheet?
How to add together 2 numbers, assets and liabilities to come up with networth?
Go back to my examples. Who has the higher networth, you or your brother?

The interest debited to the trusts is a blend of 1 to 15 year government bonds (I believe) and is currently compounding somewhere in the 3% range.

The interest credited to the funds is near 3%.
I'll bet the interest debited to the Treasury is the same near 3% number.
Don't tell the guys who can't add, it'll ruin their day.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Righty Extremist Fascist Uncensored, who simply does not know history, continues to make an ass of a canine.

So I assume you actually are retarded, from a clinical perspective, right Jake? Your IQ falls into the 50 to 69 range, doesn't it?

 

[edthecynic]

Let me know when you figure out what an asset is and what a liability is and how to add them together.

If the SS trust IOUs were a real asset, then CON$ couldn't say that SS is bankrupt as they do. We've reached the point where there is no more yearly SS Surplus to raid for tax cuts for the rich and now as more boomers retire it's time to tap those nonexistant SS trust "assets," but when Uncle Sam got there the cupboard was bare.

So the government must either raise taxes, cut benefits, borrow money, print money or default. The GOP limits the choices to cut benefits or default.

Are you saying the government "must either raise taxes, cut benefits, borrow money, print money or default" to pay SS benefits, despite having trillions in the "Trust Funds"?

Let me know when you figure out what an asset is and what a liability is and how to add them together.

There is not one penny in the SS "trust" fund, just a bunch of government IOUs and no material assets, so when it comes time to pay back those IOUs with interest the money has to be raised somehow or defaulted on.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Another symptom of Fascism is the rhetoric of Nationalism and unbridled Patriotism... never questioning, always flag waving.
SYMPTOMS OF FASCISM

Fascism is an economic platform, the merging of state and corporate power structures.

You know - like Obamacare.

Say, sparky - was Hitler a "fascist?" Did he confine himself to his own borders, or did he seek to establish an international order?

LOL

You fascists are stupid creatures.

 

[Uncensored2008]

There's no viable candidate from the "marxist party" you blithering idiot! So far it's the Democrats and the Republicans...and the Republicans ain't looking so good, since a little more than 50% of Republicans polled are AGAINST the Ryan budget proposal.

Well, that's a lie - but you're a fascist - so lying is a big part of who you are.

The poll is of a general sample, not Republicans.

 

[Toro]

But of course you can ignore the interest, silly.
How much does a bond in the Social Security "Trust Fund" earn?
How much does the government pay on that bond to the Social Security "Trust Fund"?

Do you understand how to read a balance sheet?
How to add together 2 numbers, assets and liabilities to come up with networth?
Go back to my examples. Who has the higher networth, you or your brother?

The interest debited to the trusts is a blend of 1 to 15 year government bonds (I believe) and is currently compounding somewhere in the 3% range.

The interest credited to the funds is near 3%.
I'll bet the interest debited to the Treasury is the same near 3% number.
Don't tell the guys who can't add, it'll ruin their day.

I'm not sure exactly how it is calculated, but since the returns in the trusts are supposed to mimic the returns of government bonds, the amount debited to the trusts should offset the amounts credited to the Treasury. IOW, they should be the same.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What makes you think that a continuation of reaganomics is going to save the day?

A proven track record through the 80's and 90's. Just as the Keynesian policies of Dear Leader have a proven track record of failure.

Of course, spending stimulus money to buy Mexican drug lords their guns does skew the multiplier - but that the fucking moron Obama for you....

Holder: "Hey Barry, what can really get the economy moving"
Obama: "I know, let's buy guns and give them to Mexican cartels - then we can blame Arizona and repeal the second Amendment."
Holder: "Brilliant my lord, it is a plan worthy of an Emperor."

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm not sure exactly how it is calculated, but since the returns in the trusts are supposed to mimic the returns of government bonds, the amount debited to the trusts should offset the amounts credited to the Treasury. IOW, they should be the same.

Did you know that the Federal government isn't bound by GAAP? Just one more area where our rulers have different laws than the peasantry.

No wonder you want to had them more power...