independent economists overwhelmingly side with democrats on economic policy

[BluesLegend]

Over 50% of economists are GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES naturally they conclude government needs more money, shocker.

 

[The Derp]

How is refinancing your home IN ANY WAY like thinking money you've borrowed is a "surplus"? You keep talking about Clinton being able to pay down the Public Debt because he had a budget surplus which is total nonsense! Clinton was able to pay down the Public Debt because he borrowed money from the Social Security Fund to do so. That doesn't mean he had a surplus which is OBVIOUS when you note that the National Debt went up during each year from 1998 through 2001!

So what is the primary goal of refinancing your home? To lower your interest rate. So by "refinancing" the debt by moving it from the Public Debt to Intragovernmental Debt, you are refinancing the interest on that Public Debt at a lower rate. Which is exactly what happens when you refinance your home.

I guess your lack of experience is showing through here. Doubt you've ever owned a home before.

Of course Clinton had a budget surplus...that's what enabled him to reduce Public Debt.

 

[easyt65]

'independent economists overwhelmingly side with democrats on economic policy'

Too bad the ECONOMY didn't side with Democrats' economic policies!

 

[Oldstyle]

Are you brain damaged? There never was a "surplus"! Borrowing from a flush Social Security Fund (pumped up from the Dot Com Boom) to run the government instead of running a deficit doesn't mean you had a surplus! It simply means you transferred the debt to a different place. Social Security isn't revenue...it's money that's owed.

Let me put it this way. If you were given a thousand dollars to hold for your friend until next year and you spent half of that money to pay your rent instead of taking it out of your checking account...that doesn't mean you have a "surplus"! You still owe your friend the thousand dollars.

You have a surplus when you bring in more money than you send out. Social Security taxes are taxes. The government brings them in. We ran a surplus because we took more money in than we sent out. Or do you believe like Al Gore, that Social Security taxes go in some lockbox.

Social Security isn't revenue, Winston! It's money that the government owes...not money that it's taken in as revenue. The fact that you two can't seem to grasp this concept BAFFLES me!

You conservatives are a hypocritical bunch aren't you. You count Social Security taxes as revenue when it serves your purpose. And you count it as a liability when it serves your purpose. You might want to remember that it was Ronald Reagan that started the practice of raiding Social Security receipts. And it was also Ronald Reagan that significantly expanded both the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax and the rates collected. In fact, the income subject to Social Security taxes will go up again next year thanks to Ronald Reagan.

The difference is simple. The government can borrow money on the public market, that is called Treasury bonds. Or the government can borrow money from itself. As I have explained already, it is like the difference in borrowing money from a bank or borrowing money from your life insurance policy.

For your information it was LBJ that was the first US President to raid the Social Security fund. That took place back in 1968 to help pay for the Vietnam war.

But what Reagan did was nothing less than a total con job. He promised to cut taxes, and he did on the wealthy. But what he did to the poor and middle class was beyond the pale. In fact, until Obama came along Reagan was the only president to cut taxes on the wealthy while simultaneously increasing them on the poor. Trump is slated to do the very same thing.

Reagan's administration completely revamped Social Security, increasing both the rate of the tax and the income subject to that tax. I remember it well. Everyone got a little bit of a raise on their check and then, a couple of weeks later, it magically disappeared. It went to Social Security. And Reagan's reasoning to do so was to shore up the "reserves" for the coming retirement of the boomers. Then he promptly raided every damn penny of the additional revenue for the General Fund.

The whole right wing agenda of cutting taxes can be boiled down to one simple statement. The rich figured out it was better to loan the government money at interest than pay the government taxes.

The Reagan tax cuts in 1981 were a 25% across the board cut, Winston. You're claiming Reagan increased taxes on the poor? Please show where that took place.

 

[danielpalos]

Over 50% of economists are GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES naturally they conclude government needs more money, shocker.

Record Six Million Unfilled Jobs in US-What's the Problem? - Halbert Wealth Management - Commentaries - Advisor Perspectives

There is no unemployment, only underpayment.

 

[Thinker101]

What is wrong with you two? Seriously...the only thing dumber than thinking the Social Security fund is the same as money is thinking that California is in the best shape of any other State in the nation fiscally!

it just seems like you're jumping all over the place because you don't have a clear, articulate thought about anything. CA is in much better fiscal shape than most red states, despite Conservatives predicting CA's demise after it hiked taxes in 2013. Since that time, CA has led the nation in job and business creation and reduced its deficit. None of the Conservative predictions about CA came to pass. NONE OF THEM.

How about posting a link about CA leading the nation in job and business creation and reducing it's deficit.

 

[The Derp]

Republicans refused to do anything about the financial collapse?

That's right. Conservatives opposed TARP, they opposed the ARRA, they opposed the Infrastructure Bank, and they opposed Obama's Jobs Bill from 2012. Conservatives put forth no effort to recover the economy...only to exacerbate the recession by pushing bullshit lies from Rogoff and Reinhart about the benefits of austerity and the liability of debt-as-a-%-of-GDP. Conservatives had to deliberately omit data in order to produce the conclusion from that R/R paper "Growth in the Time of Debt". Everything you believe about this subject is a lie. A lie you bought into because you're gullible as fuck.

Did you really just make that claim? Does the term TARP mean anything to you?

You all opposed TARP, remember!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Paulson had to literally go begging on his knees to Pelosi to get Democrats to vote for it because his own party refused to do anything other than letting the economy fail.

And to add insult to injury, those same Conservatives who opposed US recovery were also betting against it in the markets. Proving Conservatives don't give a shit about this country.

 

[danielpalos]

What is wrong with you two? Seriously...the only thing dumber than thinking the Social Security fund is the same as money is thinking that California is in the best shape of any other State in the nation fiscally!

it just seems like you're jumping all over the place because you don't have a clear, articulate thought about anything. CA is in much better fiscal shape than most red states, despite Conservatives predicting CA's demise after it hiked taxes in 2013. Since that time, CA has led the nation in job and business creation and reduced its deficit. None of the Conservative predictions about CA came to pass. NONE OF THEM.

How about posting a link about CA leading the nation in job and business creation and reducing it's deficit.

California Leads U.S. Economy, Away From Trump

California

 

[Oldstyle]

How is refinancing your home IN ANY WAY like thinking money you've borrowed is a "surplus"? You keep talking about Clinton being able to pay down the Public Debt because he had a budget surplus which is total nonsense! Clinton was able to pay down the Public Debt because he borrowed money from the Social Security Fund to do so. That doesn't mean he had a surplus which is OBVIOUS when you note that the National Debt went up during each year from 1998 through 2001!

So what is the primary goal of refinancing your home? To lower your interest rate. So by "refinancing" the debt by moving it from the Public Debt to Intragovernmental Debt, you are refinancing the interest on that Public Debt at a lower rate. Which is exactly what happens when you refinance your home.

I guess your lack of experience is showing through here. Doubt you've ever owned a home before.

Of course Clinton had a budget surplus...that's what enabled him to reduce Public Debt.

What different interest rate? You keep babbling on about that I don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about. You think the interest we pay on Intragovernmental Debt is somehow lower than on Public Debt? I'd love to see your proof of that.

 

[The Derp]

Too bad the ECONOMY didn't side with Democrats' economic policies!

The economy did much better during Obama than Bush, and Obama didn't even have the benefit of a housing bubble. Bush needed a housing bubble because his tax cuts didn't deliver on any of the promises made of them.

Bush's economy was fueled almost exclusively by debt...which is why HH debt as a % of GDP skyrocketed when he was President. Without people using their homes as ATMs, Bush's economy was a lot worse than it looked:

 

[Oldstyle]

Republicans refused to do anything about the financial collapse?

That's right. Conservatives opposed TARP, they opposed the ARRA, they opposed the Infrastructure Bank, and they opposed Obama's Jobs Bill from 2012. Conservatives put forth no effort to recover the economy...only to exacerbate the recession by pushing bullshit lies from Rogoff and Reinhart about the benefits of austerity and the liability of debt-as-a-%-of-GDP. Conservatives had to deliberately omit data in order to produce the conclusion from that R/R paper "Growth in the Time of Debt". Everything you believe about this subject is a lie. A lie you bought into because you're gullible as fuck.

Did you really just make that claim? Does the term TARP mean anything to you?

You all opposed TARP, remember!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Paulson had to literally go begging on his knees to Pelosi to get Democrats to vote for it because his own party refused to do anything other than letting the economy fail.

And to add insult to injury, those same Conservatives who opposed US recovery were also betting against it in the markets. Proving Conservatives don't give a shit about this country.

TARP was signed into law by George W. Bush. The new bill passed the Senate on Oct. 1, 2008. On that day, 39 Democrats, 34 Republicans and one Independent voted in favor of the legislation. The House then voted on the TARP language two days after the Senate, on Oct. 3, 2008. Ninety-one Republicans joined 172 Democrats in voting for the bill.

Were there GOP members who opposed bailing out financial institutions? Oh yeah! There were Democrats who felt the exact same way. That bill was signed into law however because Bush pushed hard for it and got enough GOP members to sign on for it's passage. He deserves credit for that...credit which you refuse to give.

 

[BluesLegend]

Over 50% of economists are GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES naturally they conclude government needs more money, shocker.

Record Six Million Unfilled Jobs in US-What's the Problem? - Halbert Wealth Management - Commentaries - Advisor Perspectives

There is no unemployment, only underpayment.

Are you deflecting? I have seem liberals deflect and that's what this looks like.

 

[The Derp]

What different interest rate? You keep babbling on about that I don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about. You think the interest we pay on Intragovernmental Debt is somehow lower than on Public Debt? I'd love to see your proof of that.

Yes, it is lower. The interest on Intergovernmental Debt isn't counted in the interest on the National Debt because it's the government borrowing from itself.

 

[easyt65]

Too bad the ECONOMY didn't side with Democrats' economic policies!

The economy did much better during Obama than Bush, and Obama didn't even have the benefit of a housing bubble. Bush needed a housing bubble because his tax cuts didn't deliver on any of the promises made of them.

Bush's economy was fueled almost exclusively by debt...which is why HH debt as a % of GDP skyrocketed when he was President. Without people using their homes as ATMs, Bush's economy was a lot worse than it looked:

Thank you for all of that...really...but...it was a joke.

 

[Oldstyle]

What different interest rate? You keep babbling on about that I don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about. You think the interest we pay on Intragovernmental Debt is somehow lower than on Public Debt? I'd love to see your proof of that.

Yes, it is lower. The interest on Intergovernmental Debt isn't counted in the interest on the National Debt because it's the government borrowing from itself.

Show me the different rates, Derp!

 

[The Derp]

TARP was signed into law by George W. Bush. The new bill passed the Senate on Oct. 1, 2008. On that day, 39 Democrats, 34 Republicans and one Independent voted in favor of the legislation. The House then voted on the TARP language two days after the Senate, on Oct. 3, 2008. Ninety-one Republicans joined 172 Democrats in voting for the bill.

SO JUST LIKE A FUCKING SAID, Democrats voted for TARP, not Conservatives. Only 91 Republicans voted for TARP in the House. What about the majority of the GOP caucus in the House, how did they vote? Oh right, they were against it. You claimed Conservatives tried to recover the economy, yet here you are, posting proof that it was Democrats who voted and passed TARP, not Republicans.

I mean, seriously, dude. Seriously.

Were there GOP members who opposed bailing out financial institutions? Oh yeah! There were Democrats who felt the exact same way. That bill was signed into law however because Bush pushed hard for it and got enough GOP members to sign on for it's passage. He deserves credit for that...credit which you refuse to give.

LOL! More Democrats voted for TARP than Republicans and all those Republicans who identify as "Conservative" opposed it, going so far as to create the astroturf Teabag Party to oppose it. In fact, your shitty Teabag Party only came into being because of opposition to TARP.

So don't fucking lie to me and tell me Conservatives supported TARP. They didn't. That's why Paulson had to beg Pelosi on his hands and knees to get her caucus to vote for it.

 

[The Derp]

How about posting a link about CA leading the nation in job and business creation and reducing it's deficit.

CA leads nation in job creation.

CA leads nation in business creation.

CA reduced its deficit.

 

[danielpalos]

Over 50% of economists are GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES naturally they conclude government needs more money, shocker.

Record Six Million Unfilled Jobs in US-What's the Problem? - Halbert Wealth Management - Commentaries - Advisor Perspectives

There is no unemployment, only underpayment.

Are you deflecting? I have seem liberals deflect and that's what this looks like.

Only to right wingers to whom, capitalism is just a fantasy.

 

[Oldstyle]

TARP was signed into law by George W. Bush. The new bill passed the Senate on Oct. 1, 2008. On that day, 39 Democrats, 34 Republicans and one Independent voted in favor of the legislation. The House then voted on the TARP language two days after the Senate, on Oct. 3, 2008. Ninety-one Republicans joined 172 Democrats in voting for the bill.

SO JUST LIKE A FUCKING SAID, Democrats voted for TARP, not Conservatives. Only 91 Republicans voted for TARP in the House. What about the majority of the GOP caucus in the House, how did they vote? Oh right, they were against it. You claimed Conservatives tried to recover the economy, yet here you are, posting proof that it was Democrats who voted and passed TARP, not Republicans.

I mean, seriously, dude. Seriously.

Were there GOP members who opposed bailing out financial institutions? Oh yeah! There were Democrats who felt the exact same way. That bill was signed into law however because Bush pushed hard for it and got enough GOP members to sign on for it's passage. He deserves credit for that...credit which you refuse to give.

LOL! More Democrats voted for TARP than Republicans and all those Republicans who identify as "Conservative" opposed it, going so far as to create the astroturf Teabag Party to oppose it. In fact, your shitty Teabag Party only came into being because of opposition to TARP.

So don't fucking lie to me and tell me Conservatives supported TARP. They didn't. That's why Paulson had to beg Pelosi on his hands and knees to get her caucus to vote for it.

You just claimed that Republicans did nothing to combat the financial collapse and I showed you that it was George W. Bush that pushed through TARP despite strong opposition from many in his party that felt it was wrong to bail out financial institutions that had let greed overcome prudent business practice. For you to come on here and claim that the GOP did nothing to combat the financial collapse is the "lie", Derp!

 

[Oldstyle]

How about posting a link about CA leading the nation in job and business creation and reducing it's deficit.

CA leads nation in job creation.

CA leads nation in business creation.

CA reduced its deficit.

Do you even read the nonsense you cite?