Majick Thise: Comparing debt to deficit? Are you a troll?

Just very concerned. Besides, deficits in 2007 didn't matter.

cman: GAT_00: Majick Thise: Comparing debt to deficit? Are you a troll?

Just very concerned. Besides, deficits in 2007 didn't matter.

How dare you? HOW DARE YOU USE WHAT SOMEONE SAID AGAINST THEM?!?

Verbatim in the original Latin means lie.

Lionel Mandrake: And, let me guess, the economic mess is Obama's fault, right "conservatives?"

Well, if he didn't go and put two wars on the budget, none of this would have happened. If he'd just kept it quiet like Bush, all would be well and wonderful.

Vodka Zombie: Lionel Mandrake: And, let me guess, the economic mess is Obama's fault, right "conservatives?"

Well, if he didn't go and put two wars on the budget, none of this would have happened. If he'd just kept it quiet like Bush, all would be well and wonderful.

I wish Obama never started these wars in the first place.

Lionel Mandrake: And, let me guess, the economic mess is Obama's fault, right "conservatives?"

From a policy perspective, it's the fault of everyone for the past 20-30 years.

Damn, you, Obama! Damn you and your infernal time machine, which you used to go back to allow deregulation during the Bush administration and causing the housing crash that took everything else with it in 2008. I curse your name!

I don't know about you guys, but I'm sure war with Iran and Syria will cure all our budget woes.... along with tax cuts of course.

But Ronald Reagan proved deficits don't matter, Dick Cheney said so and he never lies!

cut spending(war, ss, medicare..lol yeah right boomers gonna boom) and raise taxes....lol yeah right boomers gonna boom

bhcompy: Lionel Mandrake: And, let me guess, the economic mess is Obama's fault, right "conservatives?"

From a policy perspective, it's the fault of everyone for the past 20-30 years.

And what big fiscal shift was there 20 to 30 years ago?

No huge welfare programs - SS, Medicaid/care, food stamps and unemployment insurance were all around for a while even then.

Th only huge change fiscally was... Massive tax cuts. And bigger deficits each time they were cut...

Boxcutta: Damn, you, Obama! Damn you and your infernal time machine, which you used to go back to allow deregulation during the Bush administration and causing the housing crash that took everything else with it in 2008. I curse your name!

Wait until you see just how much money Obama spent on developing that time machine. Man, you're going to freak your Boobies out.

SJKebab: Man, you're going to freak your Boobies out.

And then it's a party!

Ooh look, another thread where farktards jizz on 0bama and claim nothing is his fault.

Majick Thise: Comparing debt to deficit? Are you a troll?

Done in one.

SUM OF THE TOTAL

Jake Havechek

But Ronald Reagan proved deficits don't matter, Dick Cheney said so and he never lies!

Theory states that deficit spending doesnt matter as long as the growth rate of GDP is greater than the growth rate of the debt. Politicians shouldnt try to explain economic theory, they seem to only pick the talking point portion that suits their current needs.

Vodka Zombie: cman: GAT_00: Majick Thise: Comparing debt to deficit? Are you a troll?

Just very concerned. Besides, deficits in 2007 didn't matter.

How dare you? HOW DARE YOU USE WHAT SOMEONE SAID AGAINST THEM?!?

Verbatim in the original Latin means lie.

Goddamnitsomuch...why are people's panties in such a twist over the federal government borrowing money? 5-year and 7-year TIPS have had negative real yields since at least August, and even 10-year TIPS have a negative real yield for all of February. That means the Treasury can borrow a dollar today and pay back less than a dollar after inflation when the security comes due. The market obviously thinks the dollar is an exceedingly safe investment since it's willing to give the federal government free money. Why would we not take free money when it's available?

/socialism probably

Deneb81: bhcompy: Lionel Mandrake: And, let me guess, the economic mess is Obama's fault, right "conservatives?"

From a policy perspective, it's the fault of everyone for the past 20-30 years.

And what big fiscal shift was there 20 to 30 years ago?

No huge welfare programs - SS, Medicaid/care, food stamps and unemployment insurance were all around for a while even then.

Th only huge change fiscally was... Massive tax cuts. And bigger deficits each time they were cut...

A million tiny cuts. Tax cuts, massive expansions in government, lack of will to raise taxes after cuts served their purpose, bipartisan support for banking and finance industry regulation, lack of will to properly protect important sectors of US industry as the global economy kicked in to gear, intentionally poor oversight of regulators, etc

I still refuse to believe the average voter cares at all about debt or deficit. They'll spout off about it like good little parrots, but nobody actually cares, and nobody bases their vote on it.

And they say spending is not the problem...

We could pay the debt off faster if we raised taxes, especially on people who have a lot of money but pay relatively little, and who wouldn't, for practical purposes, miss a few percent more from their income.

They were giving out free or low-cost wars back in 2006-7. I think we picked up two, just so we wouldn't run out.

HotWingConspiracy: I still refuse to believe the average voter cares at all about debt or deficit. They'll spout off about it like good little parrots, but nobody actually cares, and nobody bases their vote on it.

I think you are correct but the average voter also lacks the ability to understand such complex economics so when the candidates get up and tell them that this will be the end of the USA as we know it they hear that and say "it must be bad"

//Fear is the best motivator in our elections.

Is this the thread about my wife's credit card?

Mearen: Ooh look, another thread where farktards jizz on 0bama and claim nothing is his fault.

Oh look another thread where the neocons don't take responsibilities for two wars, tax cuts during those wars, etc.......

HotWingConspiracy: I still refuse to believe the average voter cares at all about debt or deficit. They'll spout off about it like good little parrots, but nobody actually cares, and nobody bases their vote on it.

Do people care about them in and of themselves? Of course not.

But as a plank to complain about the enemy bankrupting our great nation? Oh, boy!

Tyrone Slothrop: We could pay the debt off faster if we raised taxes, especially on people who have a lot of money but pay relatively little, and who wouldn't, for practical purposes, miss a few percent more from their income.

sdd2000: Mearen: Ooh look, another thread where farktards jizz on 0bama and claim nothing is his fault.

Oh look another thread where the neocons don't take responsibilities for two wars, tax cuts during those wars, etc.......

And using the super-duper creative and funny 0 instead of O.

Here's a hint:

STOP FARKING SPENDING MONEY!!

Jake Havechek: But Ronald Reagan proved deficits don't matter, Dick Cheney said so and he never lies!

They don't matter to a certain point. Many economists state that point us around 90% debt to gdp. We are fast approaching that point.

If someone torches your house before you get home, and you see the Fire Department putting out the fire as you arrive, it's usually considered a bad move to blame the Fire Department for the fire because they're the ones there now.

Especially when you're the one that told the arsonists to do it because it would be the best thing for the house.

Majick Thise: Comparing debt to deficit? Are you a troll?

So much this.

If you didn't look at that headline and know immediately that it was idiotic, YOU are the idiot.

I blame Warren Buffet's secretary. Whiney biatch needs to pony up.

AngryDragon: Here's a hint:

STOP FARKING SPENDING MONEY!!

Should we go back to a barter system?

Tyrone Slothrop: We could pay the debt off faster if we raised taxes, especially on people who have a lot of money but pay relatively little, and who wouldn't, for practical purposes, miss a few percent more from their income.

Yes that 40 billion a year from taxes on the rich will surely offset 900 billion deficits through 2016.

AngryDragon: Here's a hint:

STOP FARKING SPENDING MONEY STOP INSISTING ON A VOLUNTARY PAY CUT WHEN THERE ARE EXISTING BILLS TO BE PAID THAT YOU RAN UP!!

FTFY

HotWingConspiracy: I still refuse to believe the average voter cares at all about debt or deficit. They'll spout off about it like good little parrots, but nobody actually cares, and nobody bases their vote on it.

The average voter probably doesn't care about the deficit in the "wake up and immediately hope that spending has decreased" way, no. But it's a useful tool to beat Democrats with and resonates as part of the "libs can't run things efficiently" attack.

This is why the Republican candidates can attack Obama for spending in one breath and pledge to increase military spending/bomb Iran/put more money into Medicare with the next breath.

AngryDragon: Here's a hint:

STOP FARKING SPENDING MONEY!!

Why? Why stop spending money now when the economy is still lacking demand? Why stop spending money now when we can get some of that money completely for free?

This is in answer to that idiotic picture with the put money in the economy by taking money out of the economy.

Ok so the government takes 2.2 trillion in tax revenue from the economy. they spent 3.4 trillion.
1.2 trillion of the money spent by the federal government was from borrowing.

thats money that wasnt in the economy. thats money brought about by federal treasuries being bought and sold.

so....

1.2 trillion is money not from tax revenue.

this is why cheney says deficits dont matter.

for those that dont get it.

Tyrone Slothrop: We could pay the debt off faster if we raised taxes, especially on people who have a lot of money but pay relatively little, and who wouldn't, for practical purposes, miss a few percent more from their income.

Oh, and to show what a moron you are, the cbo does pro t out effective tax rates by income brackets. Top 1% pay 28% bottom 20% pay 4%. So about that pay relatively little... Do I need to link the chart yet again?

That headline doesn't actually mean anything....

... but I guess I'll go be concerned anyway for some nonspecific reason. After all, it sounds like math, so it must have some merit, right?

/ submitter and NRO: like two peas in a pod
// a retarded, gibbering, drool-flecked pod....

wingnut396: I don't know about you guys, but I'm sure war with Iran and Syria will cure all our budget woes.... along with tax cuts of course.

Don't be ridiculous... you forgot Pakistan.

DozeNutz: Tyrone Slothrop: We could pay the debt off faster if we raised taxes, especially on people who have a lot of money but pay relatively little, and who wouldn't, for practical purposes, miss a few percent more from their income.

[bijenkorf.files.wordpress.com image 350x433]

Look, another person who doesn't understand marginal utility.

"We're paying more in interest in the debt in the first four months of the year than the sum of the total deficit in 2007"

Yes, Bush was a horrible, horrible president, in the running for the top 5 worst of all time. And the current Republicans think he wasn't "conservative" enough. Thanks for the reminder.

AngryDragon: Here's a hint:

STOP FARKING SPENDING MONEY!!

Also, we need to project more force throughout the globe. And ensure that anyone over 55 sees no loss of SS or Medicare benefits.

MyRandomName: Tyrone Slothrop: We could pay the debt off faster if we raised taxes, especially on people who have a lot of money but pay relatively little, and who wouldn't, for practical purposes, miss a few percent more from their income.

Yes that 40 billion a year from taxes on the rich will surely offset 900 billion deficits through 2016.

But that $1.5 billion a year from abolishing Title X spending is exactly what we need to offset those $900 billion deficits, right?

The award for article title that sounds the most like a ninth grade algebra problem goes to...

Cut all taxes to 0% so the job creators can make more jobs and pay people more salary and those workers will use that increased salary to pay for teachesr with charity money.

Dr Dreidel: Tyrone Slothrop: We could pay the debt off faster if we raised taxes, especially on people who have a lot of money but pay relatively little, and who wouldn't, for practical purposes, miss a few percent more from their income.

You dum lib. Even if we taxed every dollar of everyone who made over $10million last year, we'd have about $250billion.

Or so says a conservative guy on fark (yesterday, don't wanna call the name).

But, what he fails to realize is that what we're going to do is try to bring revenues back up to the 19% of GDP that we used to see before the 2001-3 tax cuts dropped it to 14% and change.

No, taxing ten-millionaires at 100% is not going to solve our problems overnight. The only thing that could do that is $15trillion dollars being left on Treasury's doorstep. What we could do is bump up the rate on the top bracket to a Clintonian 39.6% (or even 40% if we wanted to use round numbers), and either institute a millionaire's bracket (and possibly a $2-millionaire's bracket) at 42-45% or remove all deductions once AGI tops $1m (except, I guess, primary house and marriage/kids).

Unless I missed the part where it took 200 years to get to $1T in debt, another 30 to get to $15T, and yet somehow, magically, we have to pay all of that TOMORROW.

// Pizza the Hut's vig is outrageous

You casually left out spending is up to 24% of gdp in your rant. Obama has had the highest 4 spending years as % of gdp since 46.

MyRandomName: Tyrone Slothrop: We could pay the debt off faster if we raised taxes, especially on people who have a lot of money but pay relatively little, and who wouldn't, for practical purposes, miss a few percent more from their income.

Yes that 40 billion a year from taxes on the rich will surely offset 900 billion deficits through 2016.

$40 billion doesn't matter. No single action worth less than or equal to $40 billion matter. Remember this when talking about spending cuts.

MyRandomName: Dr Dreidel: Tyrone Slothrop: We could pay the debt off faster if we raised taxes, especially on people who have a lot of money but pay relatively little, and who wouldn't, for practical purposes, miss a few percent more from their income.

You dum lib. Even if we taxed every dollar of everyone who made over $10million last year, we'd have about $250billion.

Or so says a conservative guy on fark (yesterday, don't wanna call the name).

But, what he fails to realize is that what we're going to do is try to bring revenues back up to the 19% of GDP that we used to see before the 2001-3 tax cuts dropped it to 14% and change.

No, taxing ten-millionaires at 100% is not going to solve our problems overnight. The only thing that could do that is $15trillion dollars being left on Treasury's doorstep. What we could do is bump up the rate on the top bracket to a Clintonian 39.6% (or even 40% if we wanted to use round numbers), and either institute a millionaire's bracket (and possibly a $2-millionaire's bracket) at 42-45% or remove all deductions once AGI tops $1m (except, I guess, primary house and marriage/kids).

Unless I missed the part where it took 200 years to get to $1T in debt, another 30 to get to $15T, and yet somehow, magically, we have to pay all of that TOMORROW.

// Pizza the Hut's vig is outrageous

You casually left out spending is up to 24% of gdp in your rant. Obama has had the highest 4 spending years as % of gdp since 46.

You really don't believe in context, do you?

MyRandomName: Tyrone Slothrop: We could pay the debt off faster if we raised taxes, especially on people who have a lot of money but pay relatively little, and who wouldn't, for practical purposes, miss a few percent more from their income.

Yes that 40 billion a year from taxes on the rich will surely offset 900 billion deficits through 2016.

Bringing the tax on earnings from qualified dividends in line with the rest of the tax code instead of a 15% maximum (new window) and that's slightly more than just 40 billion dollars a year.

Hell, it's 4 billion a year from just 25 people that aren't exactly struggling (new window).

Mearen: Ooh look, another thread where farktards jizz on 0bama and claim nothing is his fault.

Heh; "farktards". I guess the Freepers have gotten their asses handed to them by the farklib brigade enough times that they've just decided to pretend the whole damn site's filled with Commie-Pinko-HomoMuslim-Anticolonial-Atheist-Babykillers. Have fun running back to your incestuous hive of bigotry and delusion to tell the rest of the mouth-breathers how you put us in our place with your razor-wit and keen political analysis.

Heron: wingnut396: I don't know about you guys, but I'm sure war with Iran and Syria will cure all our budget woes.... along with tax cuts of course.

Don't be ridiculous... you forgot Pakistan Poland.

FTFB

DozeNutz: And they say spending is not the problem...

Well, it isn't, not in and of itself.

Germany spends a higher % of it's GDP in federal spending then we do, and they are considered Mr. Fiscal Discipline.

Sweden's government spends more then half of it's GDP, and their debt ration is only 35%.

Japan spends less of a percentage then the Us, Germany, or Sweden, yet has the worst debt problem in the developed world.


So the level of spending does not create an issue. Not paying for the spending creates an issue.

NeverDrunk23: I wish Obama never started these wars in the first place.

I wish Obama had kept his promise to end them quickly. And close Gitmo. And make the Islamic world love us again. And not piss off every ally we have. And actually get around to using "smart diplomacy". And...

Lupine Chemist: Serious Black: Goddamnitsomuch...why are people's panties in such a twist over the federal government borrowing money? 5-year and 7-year TIPS have had negative real yields since at least August, and even 10-year TIPS have a negative real yield for all of February. That means the Treasury can borrow a dollar today and pay back less than a dollar after inflation when the security comes due. The market obviously thinks the dollar is an exceedingly safe investment since it's willing to give the federal government free money. Why would we not take free money when it's available?

/socialism probably

It is absolutely baffling to me why the USA isn't out doing absolutely massive capital investment projects in infrastructure and research and whatever for this reason. Use it as an excuse to then the the structural deficit under control and it's would be a huge growth engine.

Because we hire the Chinese to do them for us already

1macgeek: NeverDrunk23: I wish Obama never started these wars in the first place.

I wish Obama had kept his promise to end them quickly. And close Gitmo. And make the Islamic world love us again. And not piss off every ally we have. And actually get around to using "smart diplomacy". And...

Now that I've actually RTFA, I can't help but notice that the author makes no mention of the figures for 2008. Anyone want to rise to the challenge (and compare/constrast to the interest vs deficit debate here?)

Heron: Have fun running back to your incestuous hive of bigotry and delusion to tell the rest of the mouth-breathers

Site Information for fark.com Get Details
Alexa Traffic Rank: 2,580 Traffic Rank in US: 905

Site Information for freerepublic.com Get Details
Alexa Traffic Rank: 4,478 Traffic Rank in US: 1,040

Hm. Not that large a difference, considering Fark isn't primarily a political site.

Does that mean there are lots of mouth breathing bigots, or just not that many farklibs?

ask boomers and seniors to cut their own medicare benefits. Then realize why no one really cares about deficits or debt

AngryDragon: Here's a hint:

STOP FARKING SPENDING MONEY!!

That was Herbert Hoover's idea, too. And things were getting much better if you didn't live in one of the various Hoovervilles or didn't care about getting a job or having a place to live or something to eat.

Then they went and elected at gotdamned elitist libral Roosevelt

sdd2000: Mearen: Ooh look, another thread where farktards jizz on 0bama and claim nothing is his fault.

Oh look another thread where the neocons don't take responsibilities for two wars, tax cuts during those wars, etc.......


Those were many years ago. Obama had 3 years to fix the problems and couldn't display the proper leadership to make an obstructionist House do their jobs.

Cubicle Jockey: DozeNutz: And they say spending is not the problem...

Well, it isn't, not in and of itself.

Germany spends a higher % of it's GDP in federal spending then we do, and they are considered Mr. Fiscal Discipline.

Sweden's government spends more then half of it's GDP, and their debt ration is only 35%.

Japan spends less of a percentage then the Us, Germany, or Sweden, yet has the worst debt problem in the developed world.


So the level of spending does not create an issue. Not paying for the spending creates an issue.

You can only get deficits IF you spend more than you take in. We are talking the same thing, but you want to get technical that spending isnt the problem, its the actual deficit the spending creates right? But you can't get a deficit without spending. (over-spending to be technical) Spending is the root of our fiscal problems

Serious Black: Goddamnitsomuch...why are people's panties in such a twist over the federal government borrowing money? 5-year and 7-year TIPS have had negative real yields since at least August, and even 10-year TIPS have a negative real yield for all of February. That means the Treasury can borrow a dollar today and pay back less than a dollar after inflation when the security comes due. The market obviously thinks the dollar is an exceedingly safe investment since it's willing to give the federal government free money. Why would we not take free money when it's available?

/socialism probably

^^^^ I've been saying this for months now. If ever there was a time for the gov to borrow to the gills it's now, when every dollar we borrow rewards us with a dollar and 35 cents in profit. It's fiscally irresponsibly for us NOT to be borrowing right now. The Treasury ought to open up a loading bay out back and hire unemployed Econ post grads to shovel US bonds out the door as fast as the 18-Wheelers can back into the quay. The international bond-market is Fry, yelling at us to shutup whilst beating us about the face with greasy handfuls of fear-drenched currency-electrons, and we're sitting here debating the angle at which we should elevate our noses above it to properly express out hipster disdain for Free Wealth.

Okay, so raise taxes. Oh, that isn't the conclusion you expected me to draw?

Lupine Chemist: Serious Black: Goddamnitsomuch...why are people's panties in such a twist over the federal government borrowing money? 5-year and 7-year TIPS have had negative real yields since at least August, and even 10-year TIPS have a negative real yield for all of February. That means the Treasury can borrow a dollar today and pay back less than a dollar after inflation when the security comes due. The market obviously thinks the dollar is an exceedingly safe investment since it's willing to give the federal government free money. Why would we not take free money when it's available?

/socialism probably

It is absolutely baffling to me why the USA isn't out doing absolutely massive capital investment projects in infrastructure and research and whatever for this reason. Use it as an excuse to then the the structural deficit under control and it's would be a huge growth engine.

I think Americans have completely forgotten that the Interstate Highway System was a public works program that involved spending about $500 billion (in today's dollars) or that it fueled economic growth to the tune of almost six dollars for every dollar spent.

Lupine Chemist: It is absolutely baffling to me why the USA isn't out doing absolutely massive capital investment projects in infrastructure and research and whatever for this reason.

An absurd combination of "American exceptionalism" and fear of "socialism".

2007: LOL Wars don't cost money! We don't even have it in our budget.
2012: OMG WTF is this war thing?! Why is Obama ruining America with his war spending!

that's the Plan.
destroy the dollar.
fundamentally transform america

qorkfiend: DozeNutz: Tyrone Slothrop: We could pay the debt off faster if we raised taxes, especially on people who have a lot of money but pay relatively little, and who wouldn't, for practical purposes, miss a few percent more from their income.

[bijenkorf.files.wordpress.com image 350x433]

Look, another person who doesn't understand marginal utility.

Lord_Baull: Those were many years ago. Obama had 3 years to fix the problems and couldn't display the proper leadership to make an obstructionist House do their jobs.

Spazmojack: Heron: wingnut396: I don't know about you guys, but I'm sure war with Iran and Syria will cure all our budget woes.... along with tax cuts of course.

Don't be ridiculous... you forgot Pakistan Poland.

FTFB

HAHAHA!

Well, in my defense, everyone forgets Poland.

DozeNutz: Tyrone Slothrop: We could pay the debt off faster if we raised taxes, especially on people who have a lot of money but pay relatively little, and who wouldn't, for practical purposes, miss a few percent more from their income.

[bijenkorf.files.wordpress.com image 350x433]


It's cute that you think taxing the rich takes their money out of the economy.

Sounds like we need more tax cuts and a new War.

Increase taxes, decrease taxes, it doesn't matter. There seems to be no correlation between taxation and government spending at all. The right wing of the political establishment pretends to care about debt and deficits but will blow any amount of money on the military and corporate welfare, while the left wing of the political establishment pretends to care about debt and deficits but will blow any amount of money expanding social spending and corporate welfare. The political establishment is simply hoping the economy will pick up and change the equation. As long as the market keeps snapping up treasury securities - which it must since to stop would bring down the whole house of cards and make all the "reserves' of such instruments out there worthless - the political establishment doesn't really care.

Well, putting two wars on the books and having to bail out a country in recession will do that...

Jackpot777
MyRandomName: Tyrone Slothrop: We could pay the debt off faster if we raised taxes, especially on people who have a lot of money but pay relatively little, and who wouldn't, for practical purposes, miss a few percent more from their income.

Yes that 40 billion a year from taxes on the rich will surely offset 900 billion deficits through 2016.

Bringing the tax on earnings from qualified dividends in line with the rest of the tax code instead of a 15% maximum (new window) and that's slightly more than just 40 billion dollars a year.

Hell, it's 4 billion a year from just 25 people that aren't exactly struggling (new window).

Only issue I see with this is that older people start shifting their savings into income generating assets as they reach retirement age and this would hit them hard. I assume that trying to raise the tax burden on dividends would get the old folk voting blocks panties in a bunch.

Lord_Baull: couldn't display the proper leadership to make an obstructionist House do their jobs

Seriously? Is that really what people tell themselves?

Mike_LowELL: The economic crisis happened in 2007. So naturally, it's "Bush's fault". Got it. Are you morons forgetting who was president in 2007?

When will Clinton's destructive wrath on our country end...

Serious Black: MyRandomName: Tyrone Slothrop: We could pay the debt off faster if we raised taxes, especially on people who have a lot of money but pay relatively little, and who wouldn't, for practical purposes, miss a few percent more from their income.

Yes that 40 billion a year from taxes on the rich will surely offset 900 billion deficits through 2016.

But that $1.5 billion a year from abolishing Title X spending is exactly what we need to offset those $900 billion deficits, right?

And getting rid of collective bargaining. That helps. Also, getting rid of NPR. That 20 billion, I was told by the Right, helps immensely.

sendtodave: Heron: Have fun running back to your incestuous hive of bigotry and delusion to tell the rest of the mouth-breathers

Site Information for fark.com Get Details
Alexa Traffic Rank: 2,580 Traffic Rank in US: 905

Site Information for freerepublic.com Get Details
Alexa Traffic Rank: 4,478 Traffic Rank in US: 1,040

Hm. Not that large a difference, considering Fark isn't primarily a political site.

Does that mean there are lots of mouth breathing bigots, or just not that many farklibs?

I won't hazard to guess at the demographics of it all, my main point was that Fark is actually a pretty diverse site politically so a portmanteau like "Farktard" -sticking "fark" onto the front of "libtard" to imply the site has an overwhelming liberal bias- is just petty, idiotic butthurt deserving of ridicule. Given that this isn't the first attempt at this, that wingers have been popping up in Politics threads for the last three weeks calling Fark a liberal "echo-chamber", I figured it deserved a suitably mocking response.

Mike_LowELL: The economic crisis happened in 2007. So naturally, it's "Bush's fault". Got it. Are you morons forgetting who was president in 2007?

Obama?

Deneb81: bhcompy: Lionel Mandrake: And, let me guess, the economic mess is Obama's fault, right "conservatives?"

From a policy perspective, it's the fault of everyone for the past 20-30 years.

And what big fiscal shift was there 20 to 30 years ago?

No huge welfare programs - SS, Medicaid/care, food stamps and unemployment insurance were all around for a while even then.

Th only huge change fiscally was... Massive tax cuts. And bigger deficits each time they were cut...

True, but you also have to consider out success in the 40s-60s was in large part because Europe and Asia were both heavily relying on buying from America to rebuild their infrastructure after WWII. Once China came online as a supplier and Europe was self sufficient our exports shrank significantly. We tried combating this with tax cuts in the 70s which didn't work....

MyRandomName: Tyrone Slothrop: We could pay the debt off faster if we raised taxes, especially on people who have a lot of money but pay relatively little, and who wouldn't, for practical purposes, miss a few percent more from their income.

Oh, and to show what a moron you are, the cbo does pro t out effective tax rates by income brackets. Top 1% pay 28% bottom 20% pay 4%. So about that pay relatively little... Do I need to link the chart yet again?

Oh gee. It's this conversation again... This never gets boring, pedantic, or reduced to namecalling within 20 posts!

canyoneer: Increase taxes, decrease taxes, it doesn't matter. There seems to be no correlation between taxation and government spending at all.

Actually, if you look at the last thirty years, there is a correlation between taxation and government expenditures. It just happens to be a negative correlation. Increased taxes results in decreased expenditures, and decreased taxes results in increased expenditures.

Lupine Chemist: It is absolutely baffling to me why the USA isn't out doing absolutely massive capital investment projects in infrastructure and research and whatever for this reason. Use it as an excuse to then the the structural deficit under control and it's would be a huge growth engine.

Probably because so much of the spending would be consumed by fuel costs - not very much bang for the buck. IOW, when 10 years ago X amount of money would buy 10 miles of freeway, today X amount of money will only buy 5 miles of freeway or something like that, with a much bigger share being eaten up in energy costs.

Vlad_the_Inaner: /and wasn't Medicare part D off the books too?

I don't think so, I just don't think it was paid for. Although I might be wrong...

DozeNutz: Tyrone Slothrop: We could pay the debt off faster if we raised taxes, especially on people who have a lot of money but pay relatively little, and who wouldn't, for practical purposes, miss a few percent more from their income.

[bijenkorf.files.wordpress.com image 350x433]

Eisenhower taxed the rich at something like 90% and they didn't flee the country or stop being productive. Unless you have some compelling sociological study showing that the wealthy of today are markedly different psychologically from the wealthy of the 50s, you need to find a new argument.

Boxcutta: Damn, you, Obama! Damn you and your infernal time machine

My favorite is when they blamed some bad drug-running laws on Obama. This actually showed up in an anti-Obama commercial and I capped it for prosperity. Note the date when the bad law finally changed.

1) Comparing debt to deficit is dumb.
2) Something happened in 2008, a popping of a bubble perhaps, that caused some extraordinary spending. It is not the election of a Democrat that caused spending to jump.

SJKebab: Now that I've actually RTFA, I can't help but notice that the author makes no mention of the figures for 2008. Anyone want to rise to the challenge (and compare/constrast to the interest vs deficit debate here?)

Yeah, I was thinking you could substitute any number of years in that formula and have it work out.

That's what happens when you compare apples and oranges.

Also, what Heron, Serious Black and Lupine Chemist have said......
bears
bears
bears

Heron: I won't hazard to guess at the demographics of it all, my main point was that Fark is actually a pretty diverse site politically so a portmanteau like "Farktard" -sticking "fark" onto the front of "libtard" to imply the site has an overwhelming liberal bias- is just petty, idiotic butthurt deserving of ridicule. Given that this isn't the first attempt at this, that wingers have been popping up in Politics threads for the last three weeks calling Fark a liberal "echo-chamber", I figured it deserved a suitably mocking response.

I dunno about that. Fark is ridiculously liberal. It's just liberals that don't get along. Most right wing Farkers are solidity liberal , and most left wing Farkers are liberal.

What Fark really lacks are social conservatives and other salt of the earth populists -- which I'd venture to guess is due to being overwhelmingly white collar. Very few ditch diggers here, lots of desk jockeys.

That does it! Now I'm voting for McCain!

The "deficit" is a meaningless number unless it includes all spending.

DozeNutz: Spending is the root of our fiscal problems


Well, that's analgous to saying food is bad for you because it makes you fat, so you shouldn't eat.

To extend the metaphor, I'd rather make sure my government is healthy by maintaining a proper balance of caloric intake (spending) vs exercise (revenue).

Sweden shows you can eat a 3000 calorie lunch, as long as you are a workout fanatic.

Why are NRO articles still linked as serious headlines? We should recognize them as the trolling pieces they are, like Brietbart articles.

The US Government should issue its own currency.

And the solution to this is of course more TAX CUTS!

Giltric: How they gonna save enough when taxes on their retirement fund doubles?

Invest in gold which will always double every 5 years in perpetuity.

Shvetz: Why are NRO articles still linked as serious headlines? We should recognize them as the trolling pieces they are, like Brietbart articles.

You come to fark for serious headlines?

Zombalupagus: Boxcutta: Damn, you, Obama! Damn you and your infernal time machine

My favorite is when they blamed some bad drug-running laws on Obama. This actually showed up in an anti-Obama commercial and I capped it for prosperity. Note the date when the bad law finally changed.

[i.imgur.com image 640x492]

The worst thing about Fartbongo is that he won't share his time machine with us.

Giltric: The 99% can't save enough for retirement. How they gonna save enough when taxes on their retirement fund doubles?

Look at how stupid you are.

Heron: I won't hazard to guess at the demographics of it all, my main point was that Fark is actually a pretty diverse site politically so a portmanteau like "Farktard" -sticking "fark" onto the front of "libtard" to imply the site has an overwhelming liberal bias- is just petty, idiotic butthurt deserving of ridicule.

Serious answer: Fark does seem to me (as a non-american who doesn't read up on US news outside of this site) a very liberal website. Yes there are diverse opinions; however, often I can't distinguish between a real conservative/republican and a troll. In contrast though, when I read the comments on CNN or whatever, I can't help but to feel that the comments there are far more indicative of what I see as the "true america" - ie complete numbnuts who couldn't distinguish between a can opener and a cantaloupe without a tv.

I've been on this site for around 5 years, and initially, I thought that the overall intelligence on this site was a sign that America was growing out of its stupid phase and moving towards a 21st century philosophy. Now that I'm older, wiser, and more experienced here, I'm certain that this site is an anomaly, and so yes, it really is liberal. And reality has a liberal bias. liberalism has a realism bias.

MyRandomName:

Yes that 40 billion a year from taxes on the rich will surely offset 900 billion deficits through 2016.

No but cutting NPR and Planned Parenthood certainly would make up the difference!

sprawl15: Giltric: How they gonna save enough when taxes on their retirement fund doubles?

Invest in gold which will always double every 5 years in perpetuity.

Also, there will be some qualifiers. Everyone won't have to pay 30%, just people making hundreds of thousands/millions a year.

The 30% rate won't kick in until you earn $______ a year. So don't worry about grandma.

DarnoKonrad: Very few ditch diggers here, lots of desk jockeys.

In light of my last post, this is very true, and is probably the cause of that anomaly.

Giltric:
The 99% can't save enough for retirement. How they gonna save enough when taxes on their retirement fund doubles?

I know! And the 99% don't own oil fields either, how they gonna afford an oil field if we remove that tax credit!?!?!?!?

//Pssssst. there's these things called IRAs, the government doesn't know about them. They don't get their grubby hands in there.

jasimo: sprawl15: Giltric: How they gonna save enough when taxes on their retirement fund doubles?

Invest in gold which will always double every 5 years in perpetuity.

Also, there will be some qualifiers. Everyone won't have to pay 30%, just people making hundreds of thousands/millions a year.

The 30% rate won't kick in until you earn $______ a year. So don't worry about grandma.

Qualifiers on gold? No qualifiers.

All gold all the time.

Serious Black: Goddamnitsomuch...why are people's panties in such a twist over the federal government borrowing money? 5-year and 7-year TIPS have had negative real yields since at least August, and even 10-year TIPS have a negative real yield for all of February. That means the Treasury can borrow a dollar today and pay back less than a dollar after inflation when the security comes due. The market obviously thinks the dollar is an exceedingly safe investment since it's willing to give the federal government free money. Why would we not take free money when it's available?

/socialism probably

You make a good point - money is very cheap to the government right now. But remember, it has to be paid back or refinanced at some point. If we borrow now at 1% for 5 or 7 years and spend the money, we'll have to either raise the money in 5 to 7 years to pay it back or refinance it at whatever rate the market decides at that point. Maybe rates will stay low for the next 40 years, maybe they'll rise modestly to historical norms. Or maybe they'll spike up to 10% or higher if our spending prompts inflation. The reason not to borrow and spend now at great rates is that it will likely be more difficult to refinance in the future, or exceedingly difficult to raise taxes or reduce spending to pay off the debt.

GAT_00: Majick Thise: Comparing debt to deficit? Are you a troll?

Just very concerned. Besides, deficits in 2007 didn't matter.

Of course they mattered and liberals were throwing a fit about them back then.

Now that they're much worse for some strange reason they don't matter now.

And if you were paying more in interest in 2011 than the amount of debt you accumulated in 2007... You'd recognize it as a HUGE problem.

qorkfiend: DozeNutz: Tyrone Slothrop: We could pay the debt off faster if we raised taxes, especially on people who have a lot of money but pay relatively little, and who wouldn't, for practical purposes, miss a few percent more from their income.

[bijenkorf.files.wordpress.com image 350x433]

Look, another person who doesn't understand marginal utility.

Or marginal propensity to spend, for that matter.

SJKebab: Heron: I won't hazard to guess at the demographics of it all, my main point was that Fark is actually a pretty diverse site politically so a portmanteau like "Farktard" -sticking "fark" onto the front of "libtard" to imply the site has an overwhelming liberal bias- is just petty, idiotic butthurt deserving of ridicule.

Serious answer: Fark does seem to me (as a non-american who doesn't read up on US news outside of this site) a very liberal website. Yes there are diverse opinions; however, often I can't distinguish between a real conservative/republican and a troll. In contrast though, when I read the comments on CNN or whatever, I can't help but to feel that the comments there are far more indicative of what I see as the "true america" - ie complete numbnuts who couldn't distinguish between a can opener and a cantaloupe without a tv.

I've been on this site for around 5 years, and initially, I thought that the overall intelligence on this site was a sign that America was growing out of its stupid phase and moving towards a 21st century philosophy. Now that I'm older, wiser, and more experienced here, I'm certain that this site is an anomaly, and so yes, it really is liberal. And reality has a liberal bias. liberalism has a realism bias.

Therein lies the rub.
(Most of what little faith I had left in my countrymen dissipated when Bush won in 2004.)

AngryDragon: STOP FARKING SPENDING MONEY!!

Yeah, that's working awesome for Portugal and Greece.

Also, if you're in a plane that's running out of fuel, you should shut off the engine. If you're bleeding to death, stop breathing. If you're really farking stupid, shoot yourself in the head to let the dumb out.

tricycleracer: The worst thing about Fartbongo is that he won't share his time machine with us.

Sure, he wants to spread other people's wealth around but when it comes to his Gray's Sports Almanac, he's all "me, me, me." Typical Liberal.

I love how quickly these threads devolved into a back and forth about how it is all the other sides fault.

DozeNutz: Tyrone Slothrop: We could pay the debt off faster if we raised taxes, especially on people who have a lot of money but pay relatively little, and who wouldn't, for practical purposes, miss a few percent more from their income.

Believe it or not that is pretty close to how it works. The economy functions when cash moves around, not when it accumulates and stays at the top.

jasimo: (Most of what little faith I had left in my countrymen dissipated when Bush won in 2004.)

Well, look at the choices.. it's really no different this year, either. Choice between meh and a black pit of suck means you choose meh.

roddack: I love how quickly these threads devolved into a back and forth about how it is all the other sides fault.

It's posters like you that cause these threads to go to hell.

randomjsa: GAT_00: Majick Thise: Comparing debt to deficit? Are you a troll?

Just very concerned. Besides, deficits in 2007 didn't matter.

Of course they mattered and liberals were throwing a fit about them back then.

Now that they're much worse for some strange reason they don't matter now.

And if you were paying more in interest in 2011 than the amount of debt you accumulated in 2007... You'd recognize it as a HUGE problem.

Let's say you're a 200-year-old man and you've been racking up debt that long, but really piled it on the last 30 years. Would it surprise you that four months worth of interest on 200 years of debt was high as your credit card bill from a few years ago? It shouldn't.

randomjsa: GAT_00: Majick Thise: Comparing debt to deficit? Are you a troll?

Just very concerned. Besides, deficits in 2007 didn't matter.

Of course they mattered and liberals were throwing a fit about them back then.

Now that they're much worse for some strange reason they don't matter now.

And if you were paying more in interest in 2011 than the amount of debt you accumulated in 2007... You'd recognize it as a HUGE problem.

Exactly. Especially when interest rates are at historic lows. If they moved to normal levels it would drastically increase the already HUGE problem.

Farklibs seem to think they have a 'get out of deficit free' card from Cheney's stupid quote. "Yeah, so? The deficit is much worse now but we don't have to think about cutting spending at any point because Cheney said deficits dont matter. Nyah nyah"

Cheney was a jackass and his boss was a horrible, horrible president. Obama is a HUGE improvement over Bush, IMO. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about the deficit.

roddack: I love how quickly these threads devolved into a back and forth about how it is all the other sides fault.

Well who's fault do YOU think it is?!

randomjsa: And if you were paying more in interest in 2011 than the amount of debt you accumulated in 2007... You'd recognize it as a HUGE problem.

Well, in 2007 when we were spending beyond our means and on top of that paying for things on credit off the books, I recognized it as a HUGE problem then. Of course, I also recognized going to war in 3 countries (Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan) was going to be a HUGE financial problem as well.

But I'm glad you finally got upset about it once the (R) was out of office.

jasimo: Therein lies the rub.
(Most of what little faith I had left in my countrymen dissipated when Bush won in 2004.)

Poe's law is a biatch.

roddack: I love how quickly these threads devolved into a back and forth about how it is all the other sides fault.

If they would just SHUT UP and GO AWAY (since they're clearly too stupid to run a country), everything would be OK. This country could actually move forward.

But, no, they have to keep opening their big fat stupid mouths.

Debeo Summa Credo: But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about the deficit.

It means that one-half of the country's electorate isn't terribly concerned about it, actually. What's the other half of the quote? Oh yes: "We won; this is our due." Why should we expect the GOP to be serious about deficit reduction, if they think that deficit spending is their prize for winning elections? How can we expect them to hold to any agreement made, or negotiate in good faith? Why is it only the responsibility of Democrats to reduce the deficit, while the GOP thinks that increasing it is what follows naturally from any electoral victory?

Maybe the U.S. should get one of those Cayman Islands bank accounts.

Debeo Summa Credo: Serious Black: Goddamnitsomuch...why are people's panties in such a twist over the federal government borrowing money? 5-year and 7-year TIPS have had negative real yields since at least August, and even 10-year TIPS have a negative real yield for all of February. That means the Treasury can borrow a dollar today and pay back less than a dollar after inflation when the security comes due. The market obviously thinks the dollar is an exceedingly safe investment since it's willing to give the federal government free money. Why would we not take free money when it's available?

/socialism probably

You make a good point - money is very cheap to the government right now. But remember, it has to be paid back or refinanced at some point. If we borrow now at 1% for 5 or 7 years and spend the money, we'll have to either raise the money in 5 to 7 years to pay it back or refinance it at whatever rate the market decides at that point. Maybe rates will stay low for the next 40 years, maybe they'll rise modestly to historical norms. Or maybe they'll spike up to 10% or higher if our spending prompts inflation. The reason not to borrow and spend now at great rates is that it will likely be more difficult to refinance in the future, or exceedingly difficult to raise taxes or reduce spending to pay off the debt.

You're right that we can't borrow money forever. If I didn't make it clear enough by stating we should borrow money when it's available, let me reiterate: we cannot continue to borrow the amount of money that we are borrowing currently forever. Interest rates are going to rise as some point in the future, and that is going to raise the cost of us borrowing money.

I think the problem indicated by the statement I bolded in your reply shows exactly why we have deficit problems today: politics. It is politically untenable today for people to support solutions to our short-term, medium-term, and long-term deficit problems. We have very few brave individuals in Congress today who are willing to be blunt and honest about what our problems are and what will solve those problems. They're afraid that if they tell us the truth and do what is necessary, they will get voted out and lose their jobs. They're all vying for self-preservation and cowardly refusing to take needed actions.

qorkfiend: Why is it only the responsibility of Democrats to reduce the deficit, while the GOP thinks that increasing it is what follows naturally from any electoral victory?

Because the GOP isn't full of immoral tax and spend liberals.

Our political ideologies have become caricature.

Debeo Summa Credo: randomjsa: GAT_00: Majick Thise: Comparing debt to deficit? Are you a troll?

Just very concerned. Besides, deficits in 2007 didn't matter.

Of course they mattered and liberals were throwing a fit about them back then.

Now that they're much worse for some strange reason they don't matter now.

And if you were paying more in interest in 2011 than the amount of debt you accumulated in 2007... You'd recognize it as a HUGE problem.

Exactly. Especially when interest rates are at historic lows. If they moved to normal levels it would drastically increase the already HUGE problem.

Farklibs seem to think they have a 'get out of deficit free' card from Cheney's stupid quote. "Yeah, so? The deficit is much worse now but we don't have to think about cutting spending at any point because Cheney said deficits dont matter. Nyah nyah"

Cheney was a jackass and his boss was a horrible, horrible president. Obama is a HUGE improvement over Bush, IMO. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about the deficit.

The only problem is, things like TFA aren't so much constructive criticism of specific policies as they are a vaguely reasoned "Big numbers frighten me" brand of chicken-little hysterics.

randomjsa: And if you were paying more in interest in 2011 than the amount of debt you accumulated in 2007... You'd recognize it as a HUGE problem.

How is that a problem exactly? Obama could have run a zero deficit every year and this would still be true. Your logic is stupid.

Also, if you're going to talk about debt accumulated, then maybe you should use the actual debt accumulated (which was more like half a trillion dollars) instead of the faux "deficit" of 160 billion. In which case you're still wrong.

Thank You Black Jesus!: DozeNutz: Tyrone Slothrop: We could pay the debt off faster if we raised taxes, especially on people who have a lot of money but pay relatively little, and who wouldn't, for practical purposes, miss a few percent more from their income.

Believe it or not that is pretty close to how it works. The economy functions when cash moves around, not when it accumulates and stays at the top.

Im referring to the pic btw

Zombalupagus: Boxcutta: Damn, you, Obama! Damn you and your infernal time machine

My favorite is when they blamed some bad drug-running laws on Obama. This actually showed up in an anti-Obama commercial and I capped it for prosperity. Note the date when the bad law finally changed.

[i.imgur.com image 640x492]


Obama's Time Machine
Doing it right.

DozeNutz: Tyrone Slothrop: We could pay the debt off faster if we raised taxes, especially on people who have a lot of money but pay relatively little, and who wouldn't, for practical purposes, miss a few percent more from their income.

[bijenkorf.files.wordpress.com image 350x433]

Except of course most of the money of the 1% isn't in the economy. It's in Switzerland or the Cayman Islands or investments, or in giant corporate stockpiles that they're keeping out of the economy until it recovers. Which is can't because they're withholding the money from the economy and killing demand. If they won't pay it in wages to increase demand then we have to tax it into the hands of people who will actually spend it and get the economy moving.

qorkfiend: Debeo Summa Credo: But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about the deficit.

It means that one-half of the country's electorate isn't terribly concerned about it, actually. What's the other half of the quote? Oh yes: "We won; this is our due." Why should we expect the GOP to be serious about deficit reduction, if they think that deficit spending is their prize for winning elections? How can we expect them to hold to any agreement made, or negotiate in good faith? Why is it only the responsibility of Democrats to reduce the deficit, while the GOP thinks that increasing it is what follows naturally from any electoral victory?

I'm not going to give the GOP a pass. They were in power during the boom times (correlation does not equal causation) and didn't do shiat to reduce the deficit/create a surplus that we could draw on in times of recession. Wars began (I'm not opining here on whether they were correct) and we didn't pay for them like we had previous wars - instead we cut taxes.

Serious BlackI think the problem indicated by the statement I bolded in your reply shows exactly why we have deficit problems today: politics. It is politically untenable today for people to support solutions to our short-term, medium-term, and long-term deficit problems. We have very few brave individuals in Congress today who are willing to be blunt and honest about what our problems are and what will solve those problems. They're afraid that if they tell us the truth and do what is necessary, they will get voted out and lose their jobs. They're all vying for self-preservation and cowardly refusing to take needed actions.

Absolutely. The current GOP is completely off the reservation, but the Dems aren't much better, sadly. I had hoped Obama would have been pragmatic enough to deal with it honestly, but now I fear that another presidency will go by before the elephants in the deficit room (SS and medicare) are dealt with. Maybe its not his fault because he's dealing with a stubborn idealouge GOP who would willingly tank the economy for its own political benefit, but still I'm disappointed.

HotWingConspiracy: I still refuse to believe the average voter cares at all about debt or deficit. They'll spout off about it like good little parrots, but nobody actually cares, and nobody bases their vote on it.

Why would anyone care? Our taxes keep going down and services continue to increase. Voters will start to care when oxen start getting gored.

namatad: faux GOP outrage is so cute.

I have a question for the GOP candidates, IF you won in 2012, what would your budget totals be for each of the 4 years that you were president. and no farking cheating by taking wars off book. TOTAL US government expenditure.

(*crickets*)

wait, you wouldnt actually change a thing????
bwhahahahahahahahahahahaha

hehe that sounds familiar

Mike_LowELL: The economic crisis happened in 2007. So naturally, it's "Bush's fault". Got it. Are you morons forgetting who was president in 2007?

You ride the short bus don't you?

Serious Black: I think the problem indicated by the statement I bolded in your reply shows exactly why we have deficit problems today: politics. It is politically untenable today for people to support solutions to our short-term, medium-term, and long-term deficit problems. We have very few brave individuals in Congress today who are willing to be blunt and honest about what our problems are and what will solve those problems. They're afraid that if they tell us the truth and do what is necessary, they will get voted out and lose their jobs. They're all vying for self-preservation and cowardly refusing to take needed actions.

Winning an election doesn't mean you're good at governing, it just means you're good at winning elections.

You're correct. We can't have any honest communication between them and us so long as they think we're going to punish them if we hear something we don't like. And the fact of the matter is, we probably will. We might not, if we hear it properly and somehow collectively realize the message isn't the problem, but rather actually the problem is the problem. But inspirationally speaking, we haven't really had a 'only thing to fear' speech in a while.

There's a corollary in there, that people who make bad decisions can continue to get paid for making bad decisions so long as they can keep the rest of us from finding out they've made bad decisions. We need a better auditing system. And we need to make sure we don't punish the messenger, we need to punish the bad decision-maker.

Unfortunately, I have no faith in America's analytical reasoning at this juncture. Maybe when things really hit rock bottom, people will look around and say, "Hey, listening to YOU is what brought us here, shut up, you don't get to talk anymore, now we're going to listen to THEM". But I don't think they will. Because people, left or right, liberal or conservative, don't like finding out they were wrong.

birchman: randomjsa: And if you were paying more in interest in 2011 than the amount of debt you accumulated in 2007... You'd recognize it as a HUGE problem.

How is that a problem exactly? Obama could have run a zero deficit every year and this would still be true. Your logic is stupid.

I think his logic is sound. You just misunderstand his premise. Try:

"How can we blame Obama no matter what?"

Bam! Works!

Debeo Summa Credo: I'm not going to give the GOP a pass. They were in power during the boom times (correlation does not equal causation) and didn't do shiat to reduce the deficit/create a surplus that we could draw on in times of recession. Wars began (I'm not opining here on whether they were correct) and we didn't pay for them like we had previous wars - instead we cut taxes.

Why should we expect them to behave any differently the next time around?

Vlad_the_Inaner: Gee. Wasn't 2007 back in the days when the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not officially in the budget. "off the books" Emergency Spending and Supplemental Spending.

Thank you. I was wondering the same thing.

ssa5: Mike_LowELL: The economic crisis happened in 2007. So naturally, it's "Bush's fault". Got it. Are you morons forgetting who was president in 2007?

You ride the short bus don't you?

Hehe I was wondering that too. I was too afraid to respond to his post, assuming I must have misread it. There's no way he's that stupid, right?

The clear message of the NRO here is that we should raise taxes.

Debeo Summa Credo: Absolutely. The current GOP is completely off the reservation, but the Dems aren't much better, sadly. I had hoped Obama would have been pragmatic enough to deal with it honestly, but now I fear that another presidency will go by before the elephants in the deficit room (SS and medicare) are dealt with. Maybe its not his fault because he's dealing with a stubborn idealouge GOP who would willingly tank the economy for its own political benefit, but still I'm disappointed.

I think the trick will be to wait until after the election cycle then pass a law preventing anyone on currently on Medicare or SS from voting. Voting ages will be between 18 and 62, just like driving.

lennavan: ssa5: Mike_LowELL: The economic crisis happened in 2007. So naturally, it's "Bush's fault". Got it. Are you morons forgetting who was president in 2007?

You ride the short bus don't you?

Hehe I was wondering that too. I was too afraid to respond to his post, assuming I must have misread it. There's no way he's that stupid, right?

he's one of the better trolls around these parts. Just roll with it and enjoy

palelizard: Serious Black: I think the problem indicated by the statement I bolded in your reply shows exactly why we have deficit problems today: politics. It is politically untenable today for people to support solutions to our short-term, medium-term, and long-term deficit problems. We have very few brave individuals in Congress today who are willing to be blunt and honest about what our problems are and what will solve those problems. They're afraid that if they tell us the truth and do what is necessary, they will get voted out and lose their jobs. They're all vying for self-preservation and cowardly refusing to take needed actions.

Winning an election doesn't mean you're good at governing, it just means you're good at winning elections.

You're correct. We can't have any honest communication between them and us so long as they think we're going to punish them if we hear something we don't like. And the fact of the matter is, we probably will. We might not, if we hear it properly and somehow collectively realize the message isn't the problem, but rather actually the problem is the problem. But inspirationally speaking, we haven't really had a 'only thing to fear' speech in a while.

There's a corollary in there, that people who make bad decisions can continue to get paid for making bad decisions so long as they can keep the rest of us from finding out they've made bad decisions. We need a better auditing system. And we need to make sure we don't punish the messenger, we need to punish the bad decision-maker.

Unfortunately, I have no faith in America's analytical reasoning at this juncture. Maybe when things really hit rock bottom, people will look around and say, "Hey, listening to YOU is what brought us here, shut up, you don't get to talk anymore, now we're going to listen to THEM". But I don't think they will. Because people, left or right, liberal or conservative, don't like finding out they were wrong.

A fellow Farker has commented more than once that he thinks the best way to dig ourselves out of this hole is for everyone to vote Republican and give them carte blanche to throw the country into an even bigger calamity than the 2008 financial collapse. I didn't even jokingly consider it at first, but I may be starting to come around slightly...not enough to vote straight-ticket Republican yet, but it's crossed my mind at least once now.

Lionel Mandrake: And, let me guess, the economic mess is Obama's fault, right "conservatives?"

No. But if you make the promise to "cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office" and then you keep it the same or raise it a bit expect to be called out on it.

If he'd said something to the effect of we're going to have to have high deficits for a while and things are going to look pretty bleak before they get better that would have been less cheery but more honest.

Boxcutta: Damn, you, Obama! Damn you and your infernal time machine, which you used to go back to allow deregulation during the Bush administration and causing the housing crash that took everything else with it in 2008. I curse your name!

Isn't the line that the economy is recovering just fine? If so shouldn't that plus ending the war in Iraq lead to a reduction in the deficit?

You can blame a lot on Bush but the 2012 budget? Nope.

Vodka Zombie: cman: GAT_00: Majick Thise: Comparing debt to deficit? Are you a troll?

Just very concerned. Besides, deficits in 2007 didn't matter.

How dare you? HOW DARE YOU USE WHAT SOMEONE SAID AGAINST THEM?!?

Verbatim in the original Latin means lie.

You don't know verbatim until you've heard it in the original Klingon!

Mike_LowELL: The economic crisis happened in 2007. So naturally, it's "Bush's fault". Got it. Are you morons forgetting who was president in 2007?

I know, right? One day the libtards are going to wake up and smell the good American joe instead of that crazy half-soy-non-fat-quarter-chocolate-mocchanino latte crap they've been drinking. Good old American joe, like that stuff picked by that Juan Valdez and his donkey. I may not like Mexican's mucho, but by GOD it's American to pay them to do the shiat jobs.

WAKE UP, LIEBERLS! You have no idea how to run a country! Hugs and hope aren't going to pay for food and medicine! The Right (morally, politically and correctly) has been trying to save this place, the BEST IN THE WORLD, but you sociocommo-fascists have been corrupted the process while ACRON ballot stuffs to keep your foreign usurpers in power. But we'll find you. We'll run you down like the dogs you are. Then we'll give you a trial, and then we'll hang you. And we'll do it in Texas, where they don't let your wishy-washy limp-wristed policies on mental retardation get in the way of justice.

WOOOO! Texas! BEST STATE, in or out of the Union! WOOO! DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS!

DozeNutz: Tyrone Slothrop: We could pay the debt off faster if we raised taxes, especially on people who have a lot of money but pay relatively little, and who wouldn't, for practical purposes, miss a few percent more from their income.

[bijenkorf.files.wordpress.com image 350x433]

DozeNutz you and your little poster fail at economics 101. The government can raise taxes and have a net positive effect on GDP because of the money multiplier. Simple put the government spending money on goods and services generates more economic activity then you or I spending money on goods and services.

So, yes raising taxes and spending more does help the economy, the only problem is the crowding out effect. That is where the increased amount of spending becomes normal and to continue to achieve the desired results larger and larger amounts of spending are needed.

Personally I believe we need a hard landing of the economy with massive unemployment, buisness and bank failures to reset the trend lines. All anybody can seem to do right now is paper over the problem and hope that growth takes care of the deficit.

Serious Black: A fellow Farker has commented more than once that he thinks the best way to dig ourselves out of this hole is for everyone to vote Republican and give them carte blanche to throw the country into an even bigger calamity than the 2008 financial collapse. I didn't even jokingly consider it at first, but I may be starting to come around slightly...not enough to vote straight-ticket Republican yet, but it's crossed my mind at least once now.

That was probably me. I've also had a dream where I'm the one to run on the GOP ticket for POTUS and actually start enacting these myself, only to admit on my death bed that I did it to troll the GOP base into realizing what their party was actually supporting.

I'm not actually going to do it. It's easy for me to suggest because I got mine. But it would suck for older people who would lose Medicare/Social Security and it would suck for the poor. But it's one of those situations, like when one of your friends or kids keeps nagging you to do something that you know is just totally retarded. Deep down you just really want to let them do it and learn the hard way.

Serious Black: A fellow Farker has commented more than once that he thinks the best way to dig ourselves out of this hole is for everyone to vote Republican and give them carte blanche to throw the country into an even bigger calamity than the 2008 financial collapse. I didn't even jokingly consider it at first, but I may be starting to come around slightly...not enough to vote straight-ticket Republican yet, but it's crossed my mind at least once now.

Ugh, I think we've already screwed over the next generation plenty, even if those little shiats won't get off my lawn. I can understand the desire to say "Fine, fark it, have it your way", and let things go to hell. I've done it professionally on more than one occasion. In the end, the bosses openly admitted I was right (pissing them off even more), and then I still had to fix the problem, which was now compounded and on a shorter deadline. More work, and the boss was hostile. And weirdly, that track record didn't have any impact on the next incident where we disagreed, so the same thing happened, over and over again. I see similarities here.

But if that's the tack we're going to collectively take, okay, just give me enough warning to buy some guns, ammo and canned goods, then a bit to move off the flood plain.

skullkrusher: lennavan: ssa5: Mike_LowELL: The economic crisis happened in 2007. So naturally, it's "Bush's fault". Got it. Are you morons forgetting who was president in 2007?

You ride the short bus don't you?

Hehe I was wondering that too. I was too afraid to respond to his post, assuming I must have misread it. There's no way he's that stupid, right?

he's one of the better trolls around these parts. Just roll with it and enjoy

I think he's an artist. He's chosen Poe's Law as his medium, and he's mastered it. I have him favorited with a quote that I especially liked: "I am the Conservative Saltmaster. I salt the Earth. That is what I do. Salt."

BMulligan: skullkrusher: lennavan: ssa5: Mike_LowELL: The economic crisis happened in 2007. So naturally, it's "Bush's fault". Got it. Are you morons forgetting who was president in 2007?

You ride the short bus don't you?

Hehe I was wondering that too. I was too afraid to respond to his post, assuming I must have misread it. There's no way he's that stupid, right?

he's one of the better trolls around these parts. Just roll with it and enjoy

I think he's an artist. He's chosen Poe's Law as his medium, and he's mastered it. I have him favorited with a quote that I especially liked: "I am the Conservative Saltmaster. I salt the Earth. That is what I do. Salt."

hehe he has certainly stepped up his game. He used to be pretty bad but he has honed his craft and is pretty funny to read a lot of the time now. Just goes to show the kids. With enough effort and hard work, you too can realize your dream of being an internet board troll

The solution to both the debt and the deficit is Jobs. Before you post how many jobs the Obama administration has created. It has not been enough, unemployment is still above 8% with real unemployment above 10%. The Obama administration has had 3 years and has been ineffective at best.

There are ways he could have been more effective, he simply did not do those things.

/Yes, I am an economist

Yeah but look at all the great stuf Obama has given us..... like.....um.....green energ....eh.....um.....

pxsteel: The solution to both the debt and the deficit is Jobs. Before you post how many jobs the Obama administration has created. It has not been enough, unemployment is still above 8% with real unemployment above 10%. The Obama administration has had 3 years and has been ineffective at best.

There are ways he could have been more effective, he simply did not do those things.

/Yes, I am an economist

"Ineffective" would mean the numbers haven't changed since he took office, which is false.

lennavan: Serious Black: A fellow Farker has commented more than once that he thinks the best way to dig ourselves out of this hole is for everyone to vote Republican and give them carte blanche to throw the country into an even bigger calamity than the 2008 financial collapse. I didn't even jokingly consider it at first, but I may be starting to come around slightly...not enough to vote straight-ticket Republican yet, but it's crossed my mind at least once now.

That was probably me. I've also had a dream where I'm the one to run on the GOP ticket for POTUS and actually start enacting these myself, only to admit on my death bed that I did it to troll the GOP base into realizing what their party was actually supporting.

I'm not actually going to do it. It's easy for me to suggest because I got mine. But it would suck for older people who would lose Medicare/Social Security and it would suck for the poor. But it's one of those situations, like when one of your friends or kids keeps nagging you to do something that you know is just totally retarded. Deep down you just really want to let them do it and learn the hard way.

I remember that post vividly now, but I was actually thinking of that bosnian sniper.

palelizard: Ugh, I think we've already screwed over the next generation plenty, even if those little shiats won't get off my lawn. I can understand the desire to say "Fine, fark it, have it your way", and let things go to hell. I've done it professionally on more than one occasion. In the end, the bosses openly admitted I was right (pissing them off even more), and then I still had to fix the problem, which was now compounded and on a shorter deadline. More work, and the boss was hostile. And weirdly, that track record didn't have any impact on the next incident where we disagreed, so the same thing happened, over and over again. I see similarities here.

But if that's the tack we're going to collectively take, okay, just give me enough warning to buy some guns, ammo and canned goods, then a bit to move off the flood plain.

Like I said, I'm absolutely not sold on that plan yet. I need to become far more cynical before I can throw myself to the trolls like that. Besides that, I'd have to figure out which Republican to support. Probably Mr. Frothy Substance. I think he would be the most catastrophic.

pxsteel: The solution to both the debt and the deficit is Jobs. Before you post how many jobs the Obama administration has created. It has not been enough, unemployment is still above 8% with real unemployment above 10%. The Obama administration has had 3 years and has been ineffective at best.

There are ways he could have been more effective, he simply did not do those things.

/Yes, I am an economist

As a figurehead who can simply propose but doesn't make the laws, what exactly could he have done?

Boxcutta: Damn, you, Obama! Damn you and your infernal time machine, which you used to go back to allow deregulation during the Bush administration and causing the housing crash that took everything else with it in 2008. I curse your name!

Is this what liberals actually believe? That some how there was 'deregulation' of banks by Bush, that led directly to the housing crisis?

First, any one who tells you there was a single cause of the financial crisis is lying to you. Second, there was no massive deregulation under Bush. At worst, there was a failure of the regulatory system to keep up with new financial instruments, but many of those financial instruments had been around for years before Bush took office. And you don't have to take my word for it, I'm just paraphrasing Krugman here.

The two causes that most people seem to be in agreement on is that Alan Greenspan didn't do enough early enough. If you're a conservative you tend to blame his loose monetary policy for creating a bubble. If you're liberal you tend to blame his anti-regulatory attitude. (though it's worth noting that he had direct control over monetary policy, and only indirect influence on regulatory policy, so I tend to lean more toward monetary policy than the other).

The other major failure was in the bond ratings agencies. Liberals seem to avoid talking about the failures of S&P and Moody to correctly rate the various instruments that were being sold by the big banks. If I had to hazzard a guess as to why, I would say that it has something to do with the fact that bond ratings agencies are among the most heavily regulated industries we have, so failures there are hard to blame on a 'lack of regulation'. Also, if S&P and Moody's weren't able to accurately assess the risk of these instruments, what makes anyone think that a government regulator would have had any more success? Again, that tends to cut against the argument that what was really needed was more regulation.

But don't let the facts get in the way of a good hate filled rant. This is FARK, after all.

pxsteel: The solution to both the debt and the deficit is Jobs. Before you post how many jobs the Obama administration has created. It has not been enough, unemployment is still above 8% with real unemployment above 10%. The Obama administration has had 3 years and has been ineffective at best. There are ways he could have been more effective, he simply did not do those things. Yes, I am an economist.

How are energy prices affecting the recovery?

Thank You Black Jesus!: Thank You Black Jesus!: DozeNutz: Tyrone Slothrop: We could pay the debt off faster if we raised taxes, especially on people who have a lot of money but pay relatively little, and who wouldn't, for practical purposes, miss a few percent more from their income.

Believe it or not that is pretty close to how it works. The economy functions when cash moves around, not when it accumulates and stays at the top.

Im referring to the pic btw

So how is the issuer of debt (Federal Reserve) not the top .001%? Federal Reserve is the bank of banks. It issues money that it PRINTS, and loans it out at interest. So therefore the creators of money make money off the money they create, by putting interest on free money, that we all have to pay back.

I agree that the economy 'moves' when cash flows around, but what about the people that create money? Is the Fed the engine that drives the economy? I do not get how people can rigidly cling to Keynesian economics, when its literally printing money. The money isn't worth anything, because it is not commodity backed. All keynesians know is spending. It is literally the answer to all of their economic problems. They also believe capital comes from a printing press.

Serious Black: Like I said, I'm absolutely not sold on that plan yet. I need to become far more cynical before I can throw myself to the trolls like that. Besides that, I'd have to figure out which Republican to support. Probably Mr. Frothy Substance. I think he would be the most catastrophic.

I'm torn between him and Bachmann. Though the perfect storm would be a Palin/(Bachmann or Santorum) ticket, because when Palin quits after discovering being President is difficult, we'd get the other one to clean up the mess she made.

But yeah, out of the remaining candidates, sure, Santorum's the biggest disaster waiting to happen. Gingrich is an egomaniac, and as corrupt as they come, but he's not dangerously out of touch with reality, he's just willing to spin it anyway he can to maintain power and relevancy. Romney... Romney wouldn't be anything. Null. Void. Just emptiness...

pxsteel: Yes, I am an economist

Do you have to be at Davos in 26 minutes?

Talondel: The other major failure was in the bond ratings agencies. Liberals seem to avoid talking about the failures of S&P and Moody to correctly rate the various instruments that were being sold by the big banks. If I had to hazzard a guess as to why, I would say that it has something to do with the fact that bond ratings agencies are among the most heavily regulated industries we have, so failures there are hard to blame on a 'lack of regulation'. Also, if S&P and Moody's weren't able to accurately assess the risk of these instruments, what makes anyone think that a government regulator would have had any more success? Again, that tends to cut against the argument that what was really needed was more regulation.

As a liberal, I agree that the solution isn't always more regulation. Sometimes, it's just better regulation. Synthetic CDOs are a great example of this. Wall Street bankers deliberately created CDOs in a way to hide their contents so that it would be difficult to evaluate the risk inherent in buying them. Synthetic CDOs are the worst because they aren't packages of several mortgages or other loans; they're packages of several CDOs. It is completely impossible to evaluate the risk in holding a synthetic CDO without omnscience. A simple and good regulation would be to outright ban synthetic CDOs.

Yeah but look at all the great stuf Obama has given us..... like.....um.....green energ....eh.....um.....

Weird, given that as long as you don't say "green", that's one of the areas of broad political agreement. Obama got nearly everyone to stand up and applaud when talking about it at the state of the union. We're all tired of sucking Arab Oil cock, aren't you?

Oh, I meant "Solyndra sucks therefore WARRGARBL!...."

"Well we're not there because this recession turned out to be a lot deeper than any of us realized," Obama said about his inability to cut the deficit in half.

for a super smart guy, this clown sure is suprised about a lot of things.

DozeNutz: Thank You Black Jesus!: Thank You Black Jesus!: DozeNutz: Tyrone Slothrop: We could pay the debt off faster if we raised taxes, especially on people who have a lot of money but pay relatively little, and who wouldn't, for practical purposes, miss a few percent more from their income.

Believe it or not that is pretty close to how it works. The economy functions when cash moves around, not when it accumulates and stays at the top.

Im referring to the pic btw

So how is the issuer of debt (Federal Reserve) not the top .001%? Federal Reserve is the bank of banks. It issues money that it PRINTS, and loans it out at interest. So therefore the creators of money make money off the money they create, by putting interest on free money, that we all have to pay back.

I agree that the economy 'moves' when cash flows around, but what about the people that create money? Is the Fed the engine that drives the economy? I do not get how people can rigidly cling to Keynesian economics, when its literally printing money. The money isn't worth anything, because it is not commodity backed. All keynesians know is spending. It is literally the answer to all of their economic problems. They also believe capital comes from a printing press.

[30.media.tumblr.com image 250x250]

AngryDragon: Here's a hint:

STOP FARKING SPENDING MONEY!!

As soon as Congress gets off its' collective duff and rescinds the legislation obligating the government to pay that money out, they will "STOP FARKING SPENDING MONEY!!" as you put it.

sdd2000: Mearen: Ooh look, another thread where farktards jizz on 0bama and claim nothing is his fault.

Oh look another thread where the neocons don't take responsibilities for two wars, tax cuts during those wars, etc.......

Oh look, another FARK politics thread.

FTFBOY

imontheinternet: Reagan, Bush, and Obama have all contributed greatly to the debt disaster. The problem now is twofold. First, Washington gridlock makes it impossible to accomplish anything. Second, both parties do not advocate actual spending cuts, only cuts on projected increases to spending. Neither party is dealing with the reality of this untenable situation.

The basic assumption.is that we will grow our way out of the problem, presumably with another bubble. Nobody in the mainstream of either parties is thinking seriously about a Plan B. The only strategy is to keep kicking the can until a deus ex machina comes to save the west from decades of irresponsibility.


Well, there's been talk of reducing the military budget, but then we get cries from the Right saying terrorists will win or something.

pxsteel: The solution to both the debt and the deficit is Jobs. Before you post how many jobs the Obama administration has created. It has not been enough, unemployment is still above 8% with real unemployment above 10%. The Obama administration has had 3 years and has been ineffective at best.

There are ways he could have been more effective, he simply did not do those things.

/Yes, I am an economist


You would think an economist would realize the House is responsible for job-creation legislation. I'm not sure how defunding PP and NPR creates jobs, though.

DozeNutz:
"Debt killing the economy. More debt with fix that."
[30.media.tumblr.com image 250x250]

Actually there is little evidence that our national debt is hurting the economy at all right now. So your premise if false. Also a national economy doesn't work like a household or even a corporate economy. But lets say we take it to the corporate level.

If a bad investment seriously harmed your business, dismantling your company isn't necessarily the only option, taking on a temporary amount of new debt to keep running while you attempt to realign and fix your business is the smart strategy to keep afloat.

DozeNutz: Thank You Black Jesus!: Thank You Black Jesus!: DozeNutz: Tyrone Slothrop: We could pay the debt off faster if we raised taxes, especially on people who have a lot of money but pay relatively little, and who wouldn't, for practical purposes, miss a few percent more from their income.

Believe it or not that is pretty close to how it works. The economy functions when cash moves around, not when it accumulates and stays at the top.

Im referring to the pic btw

So how is the issuer of debt (Federal Reserve) not the top .001%? Federal Reserve is the bank of banks. It issues money that it PRINTS, and loans it out at interest. So therefore the creators of money make money off the money they create, by putting interest on free money, that we all have to pay back.

I agree that the economy 'moves' when cash flows around, but what about the people that create money? Is the Fed the engine that drives the economy? I do not get how people can rigidly cling to Keynesian economics, when its literally printing money. The money isn't worth anything, because it is not commodity backed. All keynesians know is spending. It is literally the answer to all of their economic problems. They also believe capital comes from a printing press.

[30.media.tumblr.com image 250x250]


No how I can tell you don't know what Keynesian Economics is?

The economy is held up by faith. If you dont believe in it fine.

But thats what it comes down to. Faith that there will be a stable government, consumers and a proper infrastructure.

without those things you will have turmoil.

as china will have if it doesnt improve its infrastructure.

oh it has the first 2 in that the government is authoritarian and they have consumers. but infrastrcture? they dont even have water.

Serious Black: As a liberal, I agree that the solution isn't always more regulation. Sometimes, it's just better regulation. Synthetic CDOs are a great example of this. Wall Street bankers deliberately created CDOs in a way to hide their contents so that it would be difficult to evaluate the risk inherent in buying them. Synthetic CDOs are the worst because they aren't packages of several mortgages or other loans; they're packages of several CDOs. It is completely impossible to evaluate the risk in holding a synthetic CDO without omnscience. A simple and good regulation would be to outright ban synthetic CDOs.

Or you could simply hold the rating agencies responsible for accurately rating the instruments they rate.

The way the system works now, if you want to sell a security, you have to get it rated. That puts all the power in the hands of a cabal of 3 major ratings agencies. The industry is so heavily regulated, and the requirements to be licensed as a ratings agency are so onerous, that it's impossible for new competitors to enter the market. It's a monopoly that has been created not by market forces, but rather by regulations. If we're going to regulate that industry so heavily as to eliminate possible competition, then the remaining players need to be held accountable.

Or we could (bear with me now) DE-regulate. Not completely deregulate, but deregulate in the sense of make it slightly less hard to enter the field, and eliminate the requirement that you go through one of the big 3 to sell securities. The goal being to create a system that encourages the raters to rate accurately, rather than the current system that encourages them to make their judgments based on who their best clients are.

Right now, if S&P screws up a rating, the one company that *won't* suffer as a result is S&P. Heck, not even the company that paid them to rate the instrument will suffer. The company being rated only cares if S&P rates something too *low*. If S&P screws up and rates too *high* (like they did with CDOs) then S&P doesn't suffer, and S&P's client is actually *better* off, because they can get more for the securities because they're over rated. So S&P doesn't care that they rated too high, and the client is happy that it was rated too high. The only people who get screwed are the consumer, and the consumer doesn't have any direct way to punish S&P for issuing crappy ratings, because security consumers don't pay to get access to ratings. Rather, security sellers have to pay to get their securities rated.

We've regulated ourselves into a series of perverse incentives. Those perverse incentives caused the missed ratings of CDOs. Those same perverse incentives continue to exist today, but no one is talking about doing anything to fix it, because fixing it would involve *deregulating* the industry somewhat, and no one in DC right now wants to admit that *deregulating* anything in the financial industry might fix it.

Talondel: Or we could (bear with me now) DE-regulate. Not completely deregulate, but deregulate in the sense of make it slightly less hard to enter the field, and eliminate the requirement that you go through one of the big 3 to sell securities. The goal being to create a system that encourages the raters to rate accurately, rather than the current system that encourages them to make their judgments based on who their best clients are.

One of the charges against the agencies is that they competed in a race to the bottom. With 3 agencies to choose from, one could 'ratings shop' a deal until you got the rating you wanted. Losing too many mandates to a competitor would prompt an agency to rethink whether it was being too hard on structured securities.

How would having 10 agencies, being regulated less than the current 3, fix that problem? Unless you made the sponsors get ratings from all 10?

There really isn't an easy or good answer to the rating agency problem. If there were, it would have been brought up by now.

Debeo Summa Credo: One of the charges against the agencies is that they competed in a race to the bottom. With 3 agencies to choose from, one could 'ratings shop' a deal until you got the rating you wanted. Losing too many mandates to a competitor would prompt an agency to rethink whether it was being too hard on structured securities.

How would having 10 agencies, being regulated less than the current 3, fix that problem? Unless you made the sponsors get ratings from all 10?

There really isn't an easy or good answer to the rating agency problem. If there were, it would have been brought up by now.


There is a simple fix. Stop putting the burden to get things rated on the people selling securities, and start putting the burden on the people who want to *buy* securities. There's no risk of a race to the bottom if the people paying for the ratings are the people buying the security. The motivation of the party selling a security is to get it rated as high as possible. The motivation of the party buying a security is to get a rating that is as accurate as possible. Stop forcing sellers to get rated, and force the ratings agencies to sell their services to the people who actually use them, the security buyers.

But that can only happen if we re-write the regulations for selling securities and make it easier to sell them without getting them rated first, which will never happen in the current "OMG WE NEED MORE SECURITY REGULATION" environment.

Giltric: Jackpot777: MyRandomName: Tyrone Slothrop: We could pay the debt off faster if we raised taxes, especially on people who have a lot of money but pay relatively little, and who wouldn't, for practical purposes, miss a few percent more from their income.

Yes that 40 billion a year from taxes on the rich will surely offset 900 billion deficits through 2016.

Bringing the tax on earnings from qualified dividends in line with the rest of the tax code instead of a 15% maximum (new window) and that's slightly more than just 40 billion dollars a year.

Hell, it's 4 billion a year from just 25 people that aren't exactly struggling (new window).

The 99% can't save enough for retirement. How they gonna save enough when taxes on their retirement fund doubles?

See my post above regarding how it's not the 99%. Unless the 99% can afford over a million in shares to skim off the dividends.



We can do math, you know.

Talondel: Debeo Summa Credo: One of the charges against the agencies is that they competed in a race to the bottom. With 3 agencies to choose from, one could 'ratings shop' a deal until you got the rating you wanted. Losing too many mandates to a competitor would prompt an agency to rethink whether it was being too hard on structured securities.

How would having 10 agencies, being regulated less than the current 3, fix that problem? Unless you made the sponsors get ratings from all 10?

There really isn't an easy or good answer to the rating agency problem. If there were, it would have been brought up by now.


There is a simple fix. Stop putting the burden to get things rated on the people selling securities, and start putting the burden on the people who want to *buy* securities. There's no risk of a race to the bottom if the people paying for the ratings are the people buying the security. The motivation of the party selling a security is to get it rated as high as possible. The motivation of the party buying a security is to get a rating that is as accurate as possible. Stop forcing sellers to get rated, and force the ratings agencies to sell their services to the people who actually use them, the security buyers.

But that can only happen if we re-write the regulations for selling securities and make it easier to sell them without getting them rated first, which will never happen in the current "OMG WE NEED MORE SECURITY REGULATION" environment.

So if investor X wants to get a bond rated, does it keep that rating to itself? Would a rating agency get to sell a rating to 1,000 different investors if 1,000 different investors wanted a rating? How do regulators assess the quality of a regulated entity (bank or insurance company's) portfolio without public ratings? Are they going to do the analysis on each security themselves, or should the regulator pay for ratings as well?

Are investors allowed to share ratings or are they contractually required to keep it secret, so the agency can sell it to others. If not, what if I'm an investor and want to sell my bond? Can I get a rating and say "hey everybody, look this bond I own is rated AA, make me an offer!" If so, aren't we right back where we started with the conflict of interest thing?

Not simple at all.

Hydra: Majick Thise: Comparing debt to deficit? Are you a troll?

That's not what he was doing; he was comparing just the interest payments on the overall national debt to the total deficit to give perspective.

Interest payments on the total debt for the first four months of this year =$169.2 billion
Total deficit for 2007 (incluslive of total interest payments on overall national debt at the time) = $160 billion

/reading comprehension seems lost on you

This.

However, I think a more interesting statistic is that we spent $454 billion on interest payments in 2011. That's more than the GDP of Saudi Arabia.

/But remember kids, our huge amount of debt is not a pressing issue and doesn't really affect the economy in a detrimental way.

Talondel: Serious Black: As a liberal, I agree that the solution isn't always more regulation. Sometimes, it's just better regulation. Synthetic CDOs are a great example of this. Wall Street bankers deliberately created CDOs in a way to hide their contents so that it would be difficult to evaluate the risk inherent in buying them. Synthetic CDOs are the worst because they aren't packages of several mortgages or other loans; they're packages of several CDOs. It is completely impossible to evaluate the risk in holding a synthetic CDO without omnscience. A simple and good regulation would be to outright ban synthetic CDOs.

Or you could simply hold the rating agencies responsible for accurately rating the instruments they rate.

The way the system works now, if you want to sell a security, you have to get it rated. That puts all the power in the hands of a cabal of 3 major ratings agencies. The industry is so heavily regulated, and the requirements to be licensed as a ratings agency are so onerous, that it's impossible for new competitors to enter the market. It's a monopoly that has been created not by market forces, but rather by regulations. If we're going to regulate that industry so heavily as to eliminate possible competition, then the remaining players need to be held accountable.

Or we could (bear with me now) DE-regulate. Not completely deregulate, but deregulate in the sense of make it slightly less hard to enter the field, and eliminate the requirement that you go through one of the big 3 to sell securities. The goal being to create a system that encourages the raters to rate accurately, rather than the current system that encourages them to make their judgments based on who their best clients are.

Right now, if S&P screws up a rating, the one company that *won't* suffer as a result is S&P. Heck, not even the company that paid them to rate the instrument will suffer. The company being rated only cares if S&P rates something too *low*. If S&P screws up and r ...

There's a problem with your proposed solution. Credit rating agencies are corporations. American legal doctrine says that corporations are people who have, at the very least, free speech rights that cannot be infringed upon by the federal government or any state government. Legally speaking, credit rating agencies have a very strong argument that their credit ratings are a form of free speech. If this argument were to pass muster with whatever courts heard the case, then there is no way for any level of government to regulate their ratings without those regulations passing strict scrutiny. That means any such regulation needs to satisfy a compelling state interest, needs to be narrowly constructed to meet that interest, and needs to be the least intrusive regulation possible to meet that interest. I've learned two things since I started following American politics a few years ago:

1) Narrow regulations are very hard to construct without them being complicated (see the Volcker rule), and
2) Complicated regulations are inevitably full of loopholes that a team of high-priced lawyers can drive a Mack truck through.

Unless you're proposing a constitutional ban on corporate personhood (which I'm fully on board with incidentally), you cannot legally hold ratings agencies responsible for their ratings in a manner that will mean anything to you, me, and Mr. Magee.

AngryDragon: Here's a hint:

STOP FARKING SPENDING MONEY!!



Don't make the economy angry!

Giltric: Damn, whats today?

Is it a day where presidents aren't responsible for job creation? Is it a day when presidents don't create law? Is it a day when presidents don't spend money, Congress does?


Its getting hard to remember what excuse applies to which party when in power.


Anyone wanna give a refresher course?

It's a day when the wars were started over a decade ago, and the net effect of those wars was quite clearly going to take time to manifest. Not to mention a day when the recession happened.

/This has jack shiat to do with who's in office now and everything to do with a few stupid decisions during one administration.
//Hint: It's not Obama's or Clinton's.

Mearen: Ooh look, another thread where farktards jizz on project Shrub the Wise's failures on 0bama and claim nothing everything for all of time that's bad is his fault and everything good is because of the GOPs fighting for Real America©.


FTFY
/you dolt

Wow the NRO's the only thing holding up the building these days, isn't it?

Koalacaust: Hydra: Majick Thise: Comparing debt to deficit? Are you a troll?

That's not what he was doing; he was comparing just the interest payments on the overall national debt to the total deficit to give perspective.

Interest payments on the total debt for the first four months of this year =$169.2 billion
Total deficit for 2007 (incluslive of total interest payments on overall national debt at the time) = $160 billion

/reading comprehension seems lost on you

This.

However, I think a more interesting statistic is that we spent $454 billion on interest payments in 2011. That's more than the GDP of Saudi Arabia.

/But remember kids, our huge amount of debt is not a pressing issue and doesn't really affect the economy in a detrimental way.

but, but I was told by fark liberals that yields are bellow zero for the moment and have therefore always been and always will remain negative!
how is this possible?!?
I was led to believe by the liberals on fark that spending money we don't have is always beneficial to the public good!
you're saying we were required to spend $454 billion this year on debt service that we then could not spend on our needy population because of debt? this does not compute!

relcec: Koalacaust: Hydra: Majick Thise: Comparing debt to deficit? Are you a troll?

That's not what he was doing; he was comparing just the interest payments on the overall national debt to the total deficit to give perspective.

Interest payments on the total debt for the first four months of this year =$169.2 billion
Total deficit for 2007 (incluslive of total interest payments on overall national debt at the time) = $160 billion

/reading comprehension seems lost on you

This.

However, I think a more interesting statistic is that we spent $454 billion on interest payments in 2011. That's more than the GDP of Saudi Arabia.

/But remember kids, our huge amount of debt is not a pressing issue and doesn't really affect the economy in a detrimental way.

but, but I was told by fark liberals that yields are bellow zero for the moment and have therefore always been and always will remain negative!
how is this possible?!?
I was led to believe by the liberals on fark that spending money we don't have is always beneficial to the public good!
you're saying we were required to spend $454 billion this year on debt service that we then could not spend on our needy population because of debt? this does not compute!

If anybody seriously told you that and believed it, they need to be put on a rocket to Mars without an air supply.

I have a great idea, lets listen to Republicans in this thread on how to fix things!

After all the people they elect have done nothing but good things!

I bought silver, the rest of you can worry when hyper inflation takes hold.

Serious Black: If anybody seriously told you that and believed it, they need to be put on a rocket to Mars without an air supply.

Can he bring Stix?

Saiga410: Serious Black: If anybody seriously told you that and believed it, they need to be put on a rocket to Mars without an air supply.

Can he bring Stix?

I think refusing to let him bring them along would be unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment as a cruel and unusual punishment.

Serious Black: Goddamnitsomuch...why are people's panties in such a twist over the federal government borrowing money? 5-year and 7-year TIPS have had negative real yields since at least August, and even 10-year TIPS have a negative real yield for all of February. That means the Treasury can borrow a dollar today and pay back less than a dollar after inflation when the security comes due. The market obviously thinks the dollar is an exceedingly safe investment since it's willing to give the federal government free money. Why would we not take free money when it's available?

/socialism probably

A great question to ask would be why would investors even want to make negative returns in the first place. My bet is they see the US turning it's fiscal policy around and strengthening the dollar by the time maturity comes around so they will make a little cash when all is said an done. Basically they are betting on the dollar not inflating as much in the near future as the hyperinflation chickenlittles would have us believe.

Here's to hope we can get things improving and prove them right by making some good investments instead of throwing cash at billionaires.

Serious Black: Goddamnitsomuch...why are people's panties in such a twist over the federal government borrowing money? 5-year and 7-year TIPS have had negative real yields since at least August, and even 10-year TIPS have a negative real yield for all of February. That means the Treasury can borrow a dollar today and pay back less than a dollar after inflation when the security comes due. The market obviously thinks the dollar is an exceedingly safe investment since it's willing to give the federal government free money. Why would we not take free money when it's available?

/socialism probably

This is what I don't get, the right wing seems to believe two fundamental things about the economy. First, the 'free market' is all knowing and all good and should never be impeded. The second is that our deficit and debt level are so high that we face imminent economic collapse. But it's the very same 'free market' that will buy our debt at rock bottom interest rates. So if the supposedly all knowing free market isn't concerned, why are the Tea Baggers? If we were really smart we would take as much basically free money as we could and invest it in growth producing parts of the economy and then pay it back when it's growing at a healthy rate, but I guess that's just Socialism.

hugram: sdd2000: Mearen: Ooh look, another thread where farktards jizz on 0bama and claim nothing is his fault.

Oh look another thread where the neocons don't take responsibilities for two wars, tax cuts during those wars, etc.......

And using the super-duper creative and funny 0 instead of O.

It does make it easy to know which posts to ignore.

DarnoKonrad: Heron: I won't hazard to guess at the demographics of it all, my main point was that Fark is actually a pretty diverse site politically so a portmanteau like "Farktard" -sticking "fark" onto the front of "libtard" to imply the site has an overwhelming liberal bias- is just petty, idiotic butthurt deserving of ridicule. Given that this isn't the first attempt at this, that wingers have been popping up in Politics threads for the last three weeks calling Fark a liberal "echo-chamber", I figured it deserved a suitably mocking response.

I dunno about that. Fark is ridiculously liberal. It's just liberals that don't get along. Most right wing Farkers are solidity liberal , and most left wing Farkers are liberal.

What Fark really lacks are social conservatives and other salt of the earth populists -- which I'd venture to guess is due to being overwhelmingly white collar. Very few ditch diggers here, lots of desk jockeys.

Fair enough, you're right that there don't seem to be many of the "kill the homos", "boo minorities" types around here.