Politics

[DSully1995]

I'm not an attorney, but I'm fairly sure that a bank laundering drug money is already a crime. So, kudos to Elizabeth Warren for saying that existing laws need to be enforced? Maybe we should hold a ticker tape parade for her if she says that murderers should be thrown in jail as well.

I think the issue is that they cant take action against the CEOs and stuff, since by law the corporation is its own entity

 

[chicago51]

The Social Security Trust Fund only exists on paper, there is no stash of SS cash laying around. That money has been spent like any other revenue collected by the federal government. Sure, SS is solvent in theory in the respect that more SS taxes are collected than SS benefits are paid out. But if that balance were to be flipped tomorrow, we'd be screwed because there is no actual SS surplus.

You can't spend the same dollar twice. If the excess SS money has already gone into the unified budget and been spent on other federal needs, then you can't turn around and say that Social Security has plenty of money in reserve to keep it solvent. This logic is used by the "Bill Clinton balanced the budget" crowd. FICA taxes went up and the excess was counted as general federal revenue. Great, so the budget was balanced but that SS money isn't around anymore for SS payments; it's already been spent.

The government is one big pot (see "unified budget"). Collecting SS taxes under a separate name just sustains the fiction that Social Security is some sort of federal 401K that people have contributed to their whole lives and get to cash out when they turn 65. But the reality is otherwise. You can only believe the Social Security doesn't contribute to the deficit if you choose to believe the dishonest bookkeeping methods that the federal government employs. But you aren't alone, plenty of Americans believe this fiction so that they don't feel guilty about cashing their SS checks while they look down on other people who receive government assistance.

Ronald Reagan disagrees with you. Reducing the outflow of Social Security doesn't bring down the deficit. It has been well known that I don't like Reagan but he was right about Social Security. He saw the problem with the baby boomers coming so he doubled the fica tax (all on working families I might add not to rich people) so we could pay for it.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ihUoRD4pYzI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I can't sleep so I'll answer.

Before we cut the Kennedy tax rates we never had a deficit problem.

Things were not horrible under Reagan but got worse as time went on. Reagan love him or hate him was a transcendent politician that pushed the country right so many policies outlasted him.

He and every president since have not enforced the antitrust act which led to the rise of the too big to fail.

Reagan's cutting of infrastructure and education have really hurt the country. College tuition was 20 percent of the cost in 1980 while gov funding at public colleges was the other 80 percent now it is reversed essentially.

I would like to point out today's GOP would find Reagan insane for the following reasons:
1 wanting an assault weapons ban
2 wanting capital gains taxes to be the same rates as income tax
3 saying social security should not be cut because it was not a cause of the deficit

We've been through this a dozen times and you're still wrong. The POTUS, no matter who it is, has zero impact on the cost of college tuition.

 

[GoIrish41]

Still bitter that he was more popular then your cult hero obama ever will be? Sour grapes.

For starters, it was in italics and a joke, playing off the original Krugman post calling him a joke. Reagan was the first president I ever voted for, so no, it isn't sour grapes at all. You go out of your way to argue when there is nothing to argue about.

 

[GoIrish41]

And if someone introduced you to 5 economists who won similar awards and had opinions opposite of your economic genius Krugman, you'd dismiss them because they don't work at Princeton or write columns for the new york times.

Go back and read the posts. I'm not defending Krugman or any position he has or doesn't have. I am simply pointing out how silly it is for a guy on a message board who almost certainly doesn't even the economic chops of Krugman to call a Nobel Prize winner in economics a joke.

 

[chicago51]

We've been through this a dozen times and you're still wrong. The POTUS, no matter who it is, has zero impact on the cost of college tuition.

Look it would be wrong of me to completely blaim Reagan or any President for the high cost of college tuition. One of the causes and there are many causes is the cost shifting and in a sense the semi privatization of public univervities. So when Reagan in the 1980s slashed spending on education by half it played a role in rising tuition. We can argue how big of a role but it was a factor.

 

[chicago51]

Its Monday I thought I would have a little fun this morning.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Going back a few pages, the disagreement came up when someone said Nobel Prizes these days are a joke because our president got a Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing.

So when someone states, "Krugman is an economics PhD and is the highest authority on the topic" because he got a Nobel Prize in that area, some might call it a joke.

Krugman's ideas haven't produced one iota of success in real life business practices. He got his Nobel Prize on theory alone and nothing else. I'm not calling him an idiot, just saying let's not compare him and Einstein.

Some doctor who finds a cure for a diease/ illness? Now we're talking Nobel Prize.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Look it would be wrong of me to completely blaim Reagan or any President for the high cost of college tuition. One of the causes and there are many causes is the cost shifting and in a sense the semi privatization of public univervities. So when Reagan in the 1980s slashed spending on education by half it played a role in rising tuition. We can argue how big of a role but it was a factor.

You're still wrong.

A) Where did he slash education? How much? When? Who got hit the hardest? What level of education? K-12? College? Vo tech?

B) Assuming he did cut federal education funds, it just means he was pulling back on money that never should have been allocated to any state or school for education. Private schools and colleges operate on their own. Local K-12 schools and universities operate within their state. Nowhere in our laws or Constitution will you find that the federal government is responsible for providing money to the states in this area.

 

[GoIrish41]

Going back a few pages, the disagreement came up when someone said Nobel Prizes these days are a joke because our president got a Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing.

So when someone states, "Krugman is an economics PhD and is the highest authority on the topic" because he got a Nobel Prize in that area, some might call it a joke.

Krugman's ideas haven't produced one iota of success in real life business practices. He got his Nobel Prize on theory alone and nothing else. I'm not calling him an idiot, just saying let's not compare him and Einstein.

Some doctor who finds a cure for a diease/ illness? Now we're talking Nobel Prize.

The original post was "Krugman is a joke." When Sully pointed out that Krugman worked for Reagan, I posted "Reagan was a joke" playing off the original Krugman post.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Ronald Reagan disagrees with you. Reducing the outflow of Social Security doesn't bring down the deficit. It has been well known that I don't like Reagan but he was right about Social Security. He saw the problem with the baby boomers coming so he doubled the fica tax (all on working families I might add not to rich people) so we could pay for it.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ihUoRD4pYzI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Nobody is arguing that the surplus existed. The question is what happened to the surplus. The answer is not desputiable...the gov't spent the money but issued special U.S. government bonds that are legally obligated to pay the stated rate of interest, and then repay the principal when they mature.

So, the trust exists but it is made up of bonds, not cash! However, we spend more than take in as a country. So, as these special bonds mature, we do not have cash sitting around to pay them off. So, we must issue new debt to pay off the old debt. Once we started paying out more than we took in, we needed to borrow more to pay out current benefits. Thus, our debt increases.

I cannot make this any more clear for you.

 

[chicago51]

You're still wrong.

A) Where did he slash education? How much? When? Who got hit the hardest? What level of education? K-12? College? Vo tech?

B) Assuming he did cut federal education funds, it just means he was pulling back on money that never should have been allocated to any state or school for education. Private schools and colleges operate on their own. Local K-12 schools and universities operate within their state. Nowhere in our laws or Constitution will you find that the federal government is responsible for providing money to the states in this area.

What I do know is that before Reagan came into office education was 12% of the federal budget and when left it was 6%. Now Reagan did increase spending so I shouldn't say it was a 50% cut. I'll say it was more likely a 20 to 25% cut, but I'll be honesting I am guessing here were as the 12% to 6% I know is fact.

I never said Reagan was against the constitution by slashing education spending. Also spending on education is against the constitution either was it promoting the general welfare of the nation. Thomas Jefferson I know for a fact was a big proponent of affordable college education, as Jefferson felt we needed have an enlightened society. That is why Jefferson established the University of Virginia as a free college. I realize free college today is a pipe dream but maybe we can take steps to make the cost less of a burden.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

What I do know is that before Reagan came into office education was 12% of the federal budget and when left it was 6%. Now Reagan did increase spending so I shouldn't say it was a 50% cut. I'll say it was more likely a 20 to 25% cut, but I'll be honesting I am guessing here were as the 12% to 6% I know is fact.

I never said Reagan was against the constitution by slashing education spending. Also spending on education is against the constitution either was it promoting the general welfare of the nation. Thomas Jefferson I know for a fact was a big proponent of affordable college education, as Jefferson felt we needed have an enlightened society. That is why Jefferson established the University of Virginia as a free college. I realize free college today is a pipe dream but maybe we can take steps to make the cost less of a burden.

Sooo conclusion: the federal government has no legal, written role in the education of American citizens, therefore Reagan or any other president cutting spending on education (which shouldn't exist in the fist place), is not the cause of rising college tuition.

On top of that, money does not fix education. We rank #2 in the world in spending per pupil on education. We rank in the 20's and 30's globally in math and science. That tells me there are cultural differences and problems.

 

[chicago51]

Nobody is arguing that the surplus existed. The question is what happened to the surplus. The answer is not desputiable...the gov't spent the money but issued special U.S. government bonds that are legally obligated to pay the stated rate of interest, and then repay the principal when they mature.

So, the trust exists but it is made up of bonds, not cash! However, we spend more than take in as a country. So, as these special bonds mature, we do not have cash sitting around to pay them off. So, we must issue new debt to pay off the old debt. Once we started paying out more than we took in, we needed to borrow more to pay out current benefits. Thus, our debt increases.

I cannot make this any more clear for you.

We still have a surplus at least according to the SS administration:

Trust Fund Data

If the surplus is really not there than the republicans spent the money. They spent the money to try to force a Democrat (Obama) to shoot "Santa Clause".

Jude Wanniski a key Republican strategist in the late 1970s came up with idea that Republicans should cut taxes when they have control in such a way that raises the heck out of the national debt so the Democrats would eventually "shoot Santa" and chip away at the social safety net they hate. That is why they never complained about the deficit except when a Democrat was in the White House.

 

[irishpat183]

Sooo conclusion: the federal government has no legal, written role in the education of American citizens, therefore Reagan or any other president cutting spending on education (which shouldn't exist in the fist place), is not the cause of rising college tuition.

On top of that, money does not fix education. We rank #2 in the world in spending per pupil on education. We rank in the 20's and 30's globally in math and science. That tells me there are cultural differences and problems.

That's the point they don't get.

You can throw wads of cash at it all you want.....the problem is the system. Firing bad teachers would be a start (of course the Unions won't allow it).


I love what Andrew Wilkow says on this subject....Give us a number. How much do you want for education? Because we keep hearing about "funding"...What is the number so we can cut a check.

 

[irishpat183]

We still have a surplus at least according to the SS administration:

Trust Fund Data

If the surplus is really not there than the republicans spent the money. They spent the money to try to force a Democrat (Obama) to shoot "Santa Clause".

Jude Wanniski a key Republican strategist in the late 1970s came up with idea that Republicans should cut tax when they have control in such a way that raises the heck out of the national debt so the Democrats would eventually "shoot Santa" and chip away at the social safety net they hate. That is why they never complained about the deficit except when a Democrat was in the White House.

With a record number of boomers retiring in the next few years, and more and more people applying for the benefit...it won't last long.

There is a reason that government is now kicking around going after our 401k's.

And there are PLENTY of democrats to blame for this as well. So cut the party line crap

 

[chicago51]

With a record number of boomers retiring in the next few years, and more and more people applying for the benefit...it won't last long.

There is a reason that government is now kicking around going after our 401k's.

And there are PLENTY of democrats to blame for this as well. So cut the party line crap

?

Last time I checked Democrats leave office with smaller deficits than when they enter office.

 

[chicago51]

I hope she wins. I hope Kentucky votes Mr. "My goal is to make Obama a one term President" out of office.

Go Ashley Judd!

Common Kentuck vote out the turtle!

 

[Ndaccountant]

We still have a surplus at least according to the SS administration:

Trust Fund Data

If the surplus is really not there than the republicans spent the money. They spent the money to try to force a Democrat (Obama) to shoot "Santa Clause".

Jude Wanniski a key Republican strategist in the late 1970s came up with idea that Republicans should cut taxes when they have control in such a way that raises the heck out of the national debt so the Democrats would eventually "shoot Santa" and chip away at the social safety net they hate. That is why they never complained about the deficit except when a Democrat was in the White House.

You are not listening to what I am saying.

Try to understand this. The surplus exists but it is not cash! It is made up of bonds.

When the bonds mature and must be paid off, as a country, we do not have the cash available to pay them off. So what do we do then? We borrow to pay off the old debt. This act should not add / subtract to the overall debt of the country.

The problem is that we are now paying out on a yearly basis, more than we get in taxes. So, if the trust is made up of bonds (bonds that we simply roll over, never pay off), we do not have cash to draw to cover these excess payments. So, as a country, we borrow more to pay them off. Thus, our debt increases.

For the record, in 2011, we started taking in less than what we paid out, on a non-interest basis. You must remove interest from the equation because, again, as a country we do not run a surplus. So the interest expense used to pay out SS still adds to the general debt.

 

[chicago51]

You are not listening to what I am saying.

Try to understand this. The surplus exists but it is not cash! It is made up of bonds.

When the bonds mature and must be paid off, as a country, we do not have the cash available to pay them off. So what do we do then? We borrow to pay off the old debt. This act should not add / subtract to the overall debt of the country.

The problem is that we are now paying out on a yearly basis, more than we get in taxes. So, if the trust is made up of bonds (bonds that we simply roll over, never pay off), we do not have cash to draw to cover these excess payments. So, as a country, we borrow more to pay them off. Thus, our debt increases.

For the record, in 2011, we started taking in less than what we paid out, on a non-intrest basis. You must remove interest from the equation because, again, as a country we do not run a surplus. So the interest expense used to pay out SS still adds to the general debt.

Is it this true?

Not trying to be testy here. You got some kind of published article or something to explain it. My sources have said otherwise. I'll always reexamine my stance on something if the evidence shows me a different picture.

If we can never access the money why would we have a Social Security trust fund this makes no sense?

Reagan doubled taxes on the boomer's so we have money in Social Security trust fund to pay them.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

That's the point they don't get.

You can throw wads of cash at it all you want.....the problem is the system. Firing bad teachers would be a start (of course the Unions won't allow it).


I love what Andrew Wilkow says on this subject....Give us a number. How much do you want for education? Because we keep hearing about "funding"...What is the number so we can cut a check.

I agree 100%. You'll never hear a woman tell you her weight and you'll never hear a public school tell you exactly how much they need to be perfectly funded.

 

[irishpat183]

?

Last time I checked Democrats leave office with smaller deficits than when they enter office.

Last time I checked, democrats love dipping into SS as well.

SS was self supporting until now. We are stealing money from future generations now to pay for it because of government wastefulness.

Again, quit with the party line crap. Democrats AND Republicans have made it a habit of using SS as their own spending accounts.


This is why I'd rather them just allow me to make my own decisions with my retirement money. Allow me to opt out.

 

[chicago51]

Last time I checked, democrats love dipping into SS as well.

SS was self supporting until now. We are stealing money from future generations now to pay for it because of government wastefulness.

Again, quit with the party line crap. Democrats AND Republicans have made it a habit of using SS as their own spending accounts.


This is why I'd rather them just allow me to make my own decisions with my retirement money. Allow me to opt out.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>They Created This <a href="https://twitter.com/search/%23UniteBlue">#UniteBlue</a> <a href="http://t.co/iHVHalBGDe" title="http://twitter.com/Tomthunkit/status/310169504120455168/photo/1">twitter.com/Tomthunkit/sta…</a></p>— Tomthunkit (@Tomthunkit) <a href="https://twitter.com/Tomthunkit/status/310944722623533056">March 11, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Last time I checked, democrats love dipping into SS as well.

SS was self supporting until now. We are stealing money from future generations now to pay for it because of government wastefulness.

Again, quit with the party line crap. Democrats AND Republicans have made it a habit of using SS as their own spending accounts.


This is why I'd rather them just allow me to make my own decisions with my retirement money. Allow me to opt out.

+10000

Does every discussion have to devolve into a Red-Blue gang-fight? Deifying any party just gives them leeway for more destruction.

 

[irishpat183]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>They Created This <a href="https://twitter.com/search/%23UniteBlue">#UniteBlue</a> <a href="http://t.co/iHVHalBGDe" title="http://twitter.com/Tomthunkit/status/310169504120455168/photo/1">twitter.com/Tomthunkit/sta…</a></p>— Tomthunkit (@Tomthunkit) <a href="https://twitter.com/Tomthunkit/status/310944722623533056">March 11, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

And most of the left voted for those wars......Every president has created more debt than the guy before him. Includign your hero, Obama.


And I didn't say Bush wasn't a part of the problem. It's government. Government is the problem.

And most of this recession is due to the housing crisis that Billy boy created. Did you forget that?

 

[Ndaccountant]

Is it this true?

Not trying to be testy here. You got some kind of published article or something to explain it. My sources have said otherwise. I'll always reexamine my stance on something if the evidence shows me a different picture.

If we can never access the money why would we have a Social Security trust fund this makes no sense?

Reagan doubled taxes on the boomer's so we have money in Social Security trust fund to pay them.

Trust Fund FAQs

It is all documented here. The easiest way to understand it is this:

Taxes come in and are sent to the US Treasury. The US Treasury issues these special bonds to the SSA. The SSA redeems bonds when they mature from the US Treasury. Where does the US Treasury get the money to payoff the old loans and the interest payments when the taxes it takes in no longer cover these expenses?

 

[irishpat183]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>They Created This <a href="https://twitter.com/search/%23UniteBlue">#UniteBlue</a> <a href="http://t.co/iHVHalBGDe" title="http://twitter.com/Tomthunkit/status/310169504120455168/photo/1">twitter.com/Tomthunkit/sta…</a></p>— Tomthunkit (@Tomthunkit) <a href="https://twitter.com/Tomthunkit/status/310944722623533056">March 11, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

And how hypocritcal it comes from a guy who supports sticking our nose in libya and Egypt.

And ACA will create more debt than either one of those wars when all is said and done.

 

[irishpat183]

[/IMG]

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Trust Fund FAQs

It is all documented here. The easiest way to understand it is this:

Funds come in from new investors and are sent to Bernie Madoff. Bernie Madoff issues these special bonds to the existing investors. The existing investors redeems bonds when they mature from the Bernie Madoff. Where does Bernie Madoff get the money to payoff the old loans and the interest payments when the new investors it takes in no longer cover these expenses?

Fixed.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Fixed.