WHY is the DJIA crashing?

[Oldstyle]

What is not amazing to me - in fact, expected - is that righties like yourself would rather concern yourself with people's emotional states and feeling than facts. Maybe instead of going around trying to guess how everyone feels like some wanna-be fortune teller hippie, you might think about actual government policy instead? But that might require you read and think rather than just guess and feel!

Gee, OohPoo...I'd be more than happy to talk facts with you.

The "fact" is that our debt now equals our GDP.

The "fact" is that unfunded entitlements are about to bury us in more debt.

The "fact" is the debt ceiling "compromise" did nothing to address the problem.

So why are there "unfunded entitlements?" Oh that's right, Boner walked away from Obama's deal. The compromise created a economic panel that will deal with it, so that addressing the problems in in your future, not your present.

Obama's "deal" didn't do anything to address unfunded entitlements. That you think it did says volumes about your grasp of the situation. Oh, and if you think another economic "panel" of the same folks that couldn't solve the problem now...is going to fix the problem in the future...you are as delusional as you are ill-informed.

 

[Meister]

Gee, OohPoo...I'd be more than happy to talk facts with you.

The "fact" is that our debt now equals our GDP.

The "fact" is that unfunded entitlements are about to bury us in more debt.

The "fact" is the debt ceiling "compromise" did nothing to address the problem.

So why are there "unfunded entitlements?" Oh that's right, Boner walked away from Obama's deal. The compromise created a economic panel that will deal with it, so that addressing the problems in in your future, not your present.

Obama's "deal" didn't do anything to address unfunded entitlements. That you think it did says volumes about your grasp of the situation. Oh, and if you think another economic "panel" of the same folks that couldn't solve the problem now...is going to fix the problem in the future...you are as delusional as you are ill-informed.

The economic panel is a prescription for corruption from lobbyists.

 

[Oldstyle]

The "fact" is that unfunded entitlements are about to bury us in more debt.

And unfunded military expenditures aren't?

Everything the government does in the future is unfunded.

Myself and my wife, have, I'm guessing, around $5,000,000 in unfunded future liabilities based on our current ages (in today's dollars). And our net worth is maybe 20k. Gee, I guess we're screwed.

I hate to break this to you, OohPoo but combined...you and your wife own approx. $90,000 of our national debt...which means you are currently $70,000 in the hole.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So let's have a "fact based conversation", OohPoo! Kindly explain to me how we make the numbers work over the next ten years with the massive levels of unfunded entitlements we have obligated ourselves to. I'd love to hear the plan.

Decrease spending, increase taxes.

OK...so what spending cuts would you make?

Increasing retirement age is a start on SS reform. Not engaging in expensive foreign wars is another.

Democrats won't allow ANY entitlements to be touched.

Simply untrue. Dems are willing to reform entitlements in exchange for tax increases. Compromise is a TWO way street shit for brains.

As for raising taxes? You do realize that Obama didn't let the Bush tax cuts expire because he FINALLY came to the realization that to do so would only harm an already fragile economy?

That's not even true. Is your memory that short? Obama wanted to keep the tax cuts for the middle class, and only get rid of the Bush tax cuts for the rich. The Republicans, on the other hand, were only interested in keeping the tax cuts for the rich, and were willing to let taxes increase for everyone - middle class AND rich - if they couldn't get their way.
Perhaps you missed that one.

So what taxes would YOU increase?

End Bush tax cuts for EVERYONE is what I'd support. The rich need to pay more but to be honest and fair we need an across the board increase.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Gee, OohPoo...I'd be more than happy to talk facts with you.

The "fact" is that our debt now equals our GDP.

The "fact" is that unfunded entitlements are about to bury us in more debt.

The "fact" is the debt ceiling "compromise" did nothing to address the problem.

So why are there "unfunded entitlements?" Oh that's right, Boner walked away from Obama's deal. The compromise created a economic panel that will deal with it, so that addressing the problems in in your future, not your present.

Obama's "deal" didn't do anything to address unfunded entitlements. That you think it did says volumes about your grasp of the situation. Oh, and if you think another economic "panel" of the same folks that couldn't solve the problem now...is going to fix the problem in the future...you are as delusional as you are ill-informed.

Uhhh what? How is that even true you lying twat?

In debt talks, Obama offers Social Security cuts - The Washington Post

President Obama is pressing congressional leaders to consider a far-reaching debt-reduction plan that would force Democrats to accept major changes to Social Security and Medicare in exchange for Republican support for fresh tax revenue.

 

[JRK]

Can anyone answer me this
in 2007 with Iraq at its highest level this country was within 162 billion dollars of breaking even

in 2009 we missed it by 1.3 trillion

Now I know there was lost revenue due to the job stimulus failing

but really
do we need really to debate this?
2007 spending with 5% UE was fine
Iraq war over
budget neutral

2012 OMG

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The "fact" is that unfunded entitlements are about to bury us in more debt.

And unfunded military expenditures aren't?

Everything the government does in the future is unfunded.

Myself and my wife, have, I'm guessing, around $5,000,000 in unfunded future liabilities based on our current ages (in today's dollars). And our net worth is maybe 20k. Gee, I guess we're screwed.

I hate to break this to you, OohPoo but combined...you and your wife own approx. $90,000 of our national debt...which means you are currently $70,000 in the hole.

It my understanding the number is closer to $130,000. But that's only the debt we own. We also own a share of the United States of America - the right, as citizens, to vote in our state, parish, and city's elections - the right, as citizens, to use all sorts of publicly funded benefits from the best extensive interstate highway system in the world to the protection of the world's best military to our national forests and parks and not to mention things like free speech, freedom of religion, etc. - and all of this for some of the lowest tax rates of any 1st world industrialized nation. Plus our social security contributions entitle us to a cut of the stream of future tax revenues, so you have to add that in there as well.

On balance I consider the economic benefit to us living here vs say, Mexico, combined, to be far greater than 130k. So we're in the black!

If you consider yourself in the red - you know you can absolve yourself of the responsibility for paying off the U.S. debt by becoming a citizen in another country and denouncing your U.S. citizenship. I say go for it!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Can anyone answer me this
in 2007 with Iraq at its highest level this country was within 162 billion dollars of breaking even

in 2009 we missed it by 1.3 trillion

Decreased government revenue due to the shitty economy.

Now I know there was lost revenue due to the job stimulus failing

That's like blaming a cancer death on the inability of a cancer treatment to stop it rather than the cancer itself.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So why are there "unfunded entitlements?" Oh that's right, Boner walked away from Obama's deal. The compromise created a economic panel that will deal with it, so that addressing the problems in in your future, not your present.

Obama's "deal" didn't do anything to address unfunded entitlements. That you think it did says volumes about your grasp of the situation. Oh, and if you think another economic "panel" of the same folks that couldn't solve the problem now...is going to fix the problem in the future...you are as delusional as you are ill-informed.

The economic panel is a prescription for corruption from lobbyists.

The individual participants ought not be allowed to vote on any particular measure that would benefit their constituents disproportionately more than those of the rest of the nation.

 

[Oldstyle]

Decrease spending, increase taxes.

OK...so what spending cuts would you make?

Increasing retirement age is a start on SS reform. Not engaging in expensive foreign wars is another.


Simply untrue. Dems are willing to reform entitlements in exchange for tax increases. Compromise is a TWO way street shit for brains.

As for raising taxes? You do realize that Obama didn't let the Bush tax cuts expire because he FINALLY came to the realization that to do so would only harm an already fragile economy?

That's not even true. Is your memory that short? Obama wanted to keep the tax cuts for the middle class, and only get rid of the Bush tax cuts for the rich. The Republicans, on the other hand, were only interested in keeping the tax cuts for the rich, and were willing to let taxes increase for everyone - middle class AND rich - if they couldn't get their way.
Perhaps you missed that one.

So what taxes would YOU increase?

End Bush tax cuts for EVERYONE is what I'd support. The rich need to pay more but to be honest and fair we need an across the board increase.

So Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were willing to change Social Security and Medicare? Really? I must have missed that when they were both standing in front of their respective bodies stating emphatically that neither would be touched.

As for the Bush tax cuts? You're the one with the short memory, my friend. Obama couldn't get enough Democrats to vote for letting them expire on ANYONE because they knew that do so would be the same as raising taxes and in a weak economy like that the results would have been drastic. The Dems wouldn't vote for it because they knew it would be a killer for them when they ran for reelection in 2012 and had to explain their vote for something that hurt the economy.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

In 10 years we will have higher debt than we have now, we will have more spending than we have now, not only will we have higher taxes, but the costs of doing business will be higher than now.

Inflation is a bitch, isn't it?

Moderate inflation is fine with me. Wife and I have a $160,000 mortgage with a fixed rate - inflation goes up - our debt payments remain the same.

 

[Oldstyle]

So why are there "unfunded entitlements?" Oh that's right, Boner walked away from Obama's deal. The compromise created a economic panel that will deal with it, so that addressing the problems in in your future, not your present.

Obama's "deal" didn't do anything to address unfunded entitlements. That you think it did says volumes about your grasp of the situation. Oh, and if you think another economic "panel" of the same folks that couldn't solve the problem now...is going to fix the problem in the future...you are as delusional as you are ill-informed.

Uhhh what? How is that even true you lying twat?

In debt talks, Obama offers Social Security cuts - The Washington Post

President Obama is pressing congressional leaders to consider a far-reaching debt-reduction plan that would force Democrats to accept major changes to Social Security and Medicare in exchange for Republican support for fresh tax revenue.

OK, I'll play along...name the "major changes" that President Obama wanted to enact.

You can't...because as he always does...President Obama was floating vague trial balloons with zero specific plans. I'll give him credit...he's the master when it comes to that.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were willing to change Social Security and Medicare? Really? I must have missed that when they were both standing in front of their respective bodies stating emphatically that neither would be touched.

Last time I checked they weren't the only two Democratic votes in Congress.

Obama couldn't get enough Democrats to vote for letting them expire on ANYONE because they knew that do so would be the same as raising taxes and in a weak economy like that the results would have been drastic. The Dems wouldn't vote for it because they knew it would be a killer for them when they ran for reelection in 2012 and had to explain their vote for something that hurt the economy.

Not true.
Senate Republicans Reject Obama's Plan to Extend Tax Cuts for Middle Class Only - FoxNews.com

Majority of Dems favored Obama's plan.

 

[Oldstyle]

And unfunded military expenditures aren't?

Everything the government does in the future is unfunded.

Myself and my wife, have, I'm guessing, around $5,000,000 in unfunded future liabilities based on our current ages (in today's dollars). And our net worth is maybe 20k. Gee, I guess we're screwed.

I hate to break this to you, OohPoo but combined...you and your wife own approx. $90,000 of our national debt...which means you are currently $70,000 in the hole.

It my understanding the number is closer to $130,000. But that's only the debt we own. We also own a share of the United States of America - the right, as citizens, to vote in our state, parish, and city's elections - the right, as citizens, to use all sorts of publicly funded benefits from the best extensive interstate highway system in the world to the protection of the world's best military to our national forests and parks and not to mention things like free speech, freedom of religion, etc. - and all of this for some of the lowest tax rates of any 1st world industrialized nation. Plus our social security contributions entitle us to a cut of the stream of future tax revenues, so you have to add that in there as well.

On balance I consider the economic benefit to us living here vs say, Mexico, combined, to be far greater than 130k. So we're in the black!

If you consider yourself in the red - you know you can absolve yourself of the responsibility for paying off the U.S. debt by becoming a citizen in another country and denouncing your U.S. citizenship. I say go for it!

Wow...not quite sure how you're going to leverage that equity in the interstate highway system and our national forest but I do wish you luck with that.

As for my becoming a citizen of another country? I'm one of the poor saps paying taxes, my confused liberal friend...you need more people like me...not less.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You can't...because as he always does...President Obama was floating vague trial balloons with zero specific plans.

From the same article:

Privately, some congressional Democrats were alarmed by the president’s proposal, which could include adjusting the measure of inflation used to determine Social Security payouts.

I presume it also included a raising of the retirement age over time, as any sensible proposal to cut SS spending would have to included that.

Probably also included the tapering off of benefits paid to high income earners.

 

[Oldstyle]

So Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were willing to change Social Security and Medicare? Really? I must have missed that when they were both standing in front of their respective bodies stating emphatically that neither would be touched.

Last time I checked they weren't the only two Democratic votes in Congress.

Obama couldn't get enough Democrats to vote for letting them expire on ANYONE because they knew that do so would be the same as raising taxes and in a weak economy like that the results would have been drastic. The Dems wouldn't vote for it because they knew it would be a killer for them when they ran for reelection in 2012 and had to explain their vote for something that hurt the economy.

Not true.
Senate Republicans Reject Obama's Plan to Extend Tax Cuts for Middle Class Only - FoxNews.com

Majority of Dems favored Obama's plan.

Perhaps you missed the whole "Super Majority" thing the Democrats had in the House and Senate, OohPah. Combine that with control of the Oval Office and they could have voted out the Bush tax cuts YEARS ago. So why didn't they? Quite simply? They realized that doing so would hurt the economy. So tell me what's changed? Oh, that's right...ever since the Republicans took control of the House...people like you can blame them for things not getting done. The absurdity of that claim is readily apparent but then again...reality isn't really your thing...is it?

 

[shintao]

Gee, OohPoo...I'd be more than happy to talk facts with you.

The "fact" is that our debt now equals our GDP.

The "fact" is that unfunded entitlements are about to bury us in more debt.

The "fact" is the debt ceiling "compromise" did nothing to address the problem.

So why are there "unfunded entitlements?" Oh that's right, Boner walked away from Obama's deal. The compromise created a economic panel that will deal with it, so that addressing the problems in in your future, not your present.

Obama's "deal" didn't do anything to address unfunded entitlements. That you think it did says volumes about your grasp of the situation. Oh, and if you think another economic "panel" of the same folks that couldn't solve the problem now...is going to fix the problem in the future...you are as delusional as you are ill-informed.

Is social security & medicare fully funded?

 

[The Rabbi]

Can anyone answer me this
in 2007 with Iraq at its highest level this country was within 162 billion dollars of breaking even

in 2009 we missed it by 1.3 trillion

Decreased government revenue due to the shitty economy.

Now I know there was lost revenue due to the job stimulus failing

That's like blaming a cancer death on the inability of a cancer treatment to stop it rather than the cancer itself.

The Democrats are the cancer on the American economy. Nothing less than full excision via the ballot box will cure this country.

 

[Oldstyle]

You can't...because as he always does...President Obama was floating vague trial balloons with zero specific plans.

From the same article:

Privately, some congressional Democrats were alarmed by the president’s proposal, which could include adjusting the measure of inflation used to determine Social Security payouts.

I presume it also included a raising of the retirement age over time, as any sensible proposal to cut SS spending would have to included that.

Probably also included the tapering off of benefits paid to high income earners.

It was Obama doing what he does best, OohPoo...posing.

If he'd really wanted to reform entitlements then why didn't he do it when the Democrats controlled the House, Senate and the White House?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Wow...not quite sure how you're going to leverage that equity in the interstate highway system and our national forest but I do wish you luck with that.

Oh, I get it. Only the share of our nations DEBT can be discussed as if I have a specific share of it assigned to me - not our nation's assets. That's a fair comparison. Never mind the untold amounts of money I save every day by getting to travel on a relatively decent and safe highway without having to pay a fee to a private owner each time I use it - or the money I save every time I use a product that was harvested from the national forests that you and I own - or the money I save by not having to hire a private security team to protect me from foreign invaders o- that just doesn't count as an economic benefit that I enjoy in your one-sided analysis - I GET IT.

As for my becoming a citizen of another country? I'm one of the poor saps paying taxes, my confused liberal friend...you need more people like me...not less.

That's fine, if you leave, we don't need your taxes anymore.