The Tea Party Movement

[TheMulletMutilator]

That's pretty much all it boils to, a big cry of MINE MINE MINE. Evidence carefully chosen to rationalize the idea, theories cherry-picked to justify it.

Even a lot of Democrats concede that the Bush Tax cuts should be extended for at least a year. It is dumb to raise taxes in a recession. As for his money, he can do what he wants with it. Something tells me he will spend some of it some way or another. Hopefully at that time it isn't used on the study of monkeys using cocaine or reducing hot flashes through yoga. But he is free to do that if he wishes with his money. I just doubt many people do that. The government certainly does.

 

[sirkickyass]

https://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

Did you actually read the article this time?

First off, Steiner is a layperson and his analysis is overly simplistic as a result; relying only on looking at the Treasure website. In essence, he's engaging in straight cash accounting. He's essentially relying on the difference between the CBO analysis (which factcheck gives) and the Tresury's ledger number (which is what your source gives). This allows him to double-count all debt that the government owes to itself.

Your source goes out of his way to state that Clinton did pay down the public debt. The reason the cash accounting numbers make it appear the debt got larger is because the Social Security Administration purchased US Treasury securities. Thus, your source is actually engaging in the accounting trick, rather than the other way around. He gets to count excess money that was not spent as "debt" because it was used to buy US Treasury securities.

If you read the article, he's not even hiding the ball on the stunt.

Factcheck, and the CBO estimates it relies upon, on the other hand correctly calculate that not as full debt but as intra-governmental debt that is properly valued for its long term debt consequences only at the expected value of the yield on the securities. The principal value effectively doesn't matter because that is money the government owes to itself.

Factcheck went out of its way to dispel the social security as accounting trick argument:

Clinton's large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn't counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

He is playing the race card, homophobia card, and islamaphobia card. They all do.

Where did candrew play the card?

 

[TheMulletMutilator]

Did you actually read the article this time?

First off, Steiner is a layperson and his analysis is overly simplistic as a result; relying only on looking at the Treasure website. In essence, he's engaging in straight cash accounting. He's essentially relying on the difference between the CBO analysis (which factcheck gives) and the Tresury's ledger number (which is what your source gives). This allows him to double-count all debt that the government owes to itself.

Your source goes out of his way to state that Clinton did pay down the public debt. The reason the cash accounting numbers make it appear the debt got larger is because the Social Security Administration purchased US Treasury securities. Thus, your source is actually engaging in the accounting trick, rather than the other way around. He gets to count excess money that was not spent as "debt" because it was used to buy US Treasury securities.

If you read the article, he's not even hiding the ball on the stunt.

Factcheck, and the CBO estimates it relies upon, on the other hand correctly calculate that not as full debt but as intra-governmental debt that is properly valued for its long term debt consequences only at the expected value of the yield on the securities. The principal value effectively doesn't matter because that is money the government owes to itself.

Factcheck went out of its way to dispel the social security as accounting trick argument:





Where did candrew play the card?

A couple of things you are missing. You keep saying Clinton. It wasn't just Clinton. Look at the numbers prior 1994. 18 billion might not be a ton of money but it means there was no balance. It is a common misconception that there was.

 

[NAOS]

Yes, let's completely stop paying any attention to economic reality and listen only to windbags huffing and puffing for more and more and more control. Economic illiteracy is great! Look where it's gotten us.

I'm sure you're going to rant about a service lead economy next, and follow that up with cost of living nonsense.

Absolutely NOWHERE did I suggest we stop paying attention to the economic reality. In fact, I'm saying that we need to may more attention to the MATERIAL reality of local, national, and international economic manifestations.

You, I guess, are an UTTER fool.

 

[NAOS]

There was a time when Unions were necessary. Now they are just ridiculous and out of control. rather than giving up something for all members to keep their job they fight tooth and nail and see reductions in the work force because of it. Perfect example...

I'm not even going to watch the video because I refuse to play your game of "all unions are the same." That is a jagged pill you swallowed.

 

[NAOS]

When in doubt as always the critics will pull out the race card as well as homophobia. Sad really.

Shut up whitey.

 

[NAOS]

This is a chart of the percentage share of the national income that the top 1% receives over the last 100 years.

As you can see, income inequality is presently the highest it's been since the late 1920s.

Clearly those people are really hurting and need their tax cuts made permanent.

You, Sir, are a big wet *** blanket.

 

[NAOS]

Have you ever seen a poor person hire a workforce and pay them? You may not like the idea of giving tax breaks to the wealthy but truthfully, who creates the jobs in this country? Also what percentage of total tax revenue does that top 1% pay? How about the top 5%? Redistribution of wealth is a nice concept until it makes everyone poor.

What do you see here:

This dude sees a giant job-creating machine!!!!

 

[TheMulletMutilator]

What do you see here:

This dude sees a giant job-creating machine!!!!

I see a large mansion that a man or woman had to purchase. He or she also has to hire a gardener to keep the lawn nice and cut. Oh don't forget that it is nice and white with no sign of paint peeling so he or she has to have the place painted once in awhile. I also assume that he or she has some kind of staff which may include maids and or a kitchen staff. Not to mention that if this person has this kind of house it is likely they have some nice cars as well. Maybe this is just one of their houses. I also see a commission for the person who sold them this mansion if they didn't inherit it. Just because you see a rich person's mansion doesn't mean there isn't more to it than that.

 

[Scat]

I'm not even going to watch the video because I refuse to play your game of "all unions are the same." That is a jagged pill you swallowed.

You say you're an educator? You should watch it. It deals specifically with a teacher's union.

 

[franklin]

Your source goes out of his way to state that Clinton did pay down the public debt. The reason the cash accounting numbers make it appear the debt got larger is because the Social Security Administration purchased US Treasury securities. Thus, your source is actually engaging in the accounting trick, rather than the other way around. He gets to count excess money that was not spent as "debt" because it was used to buy US Treasury securities.

If you read the article, he's not even hiding the ball on the stunt.

Factcheck, and the CBO estimates it relies upon, on the other hand correctly calculate that not as full debt but as intra-governmental debt that is properly valued for its long term debt consequences only at the expected value of the yield on the securities. The principal value effectively doesn't matter because that is money the government owes to itself.

You're making the circular argument that government borrowing from itself is not actually debt because it purchased marketable securities from itself that are only valuable if it can redeem them sometime in the future. Or in other words, it's not debt as long as we, the US, can raise the promised money in the future by taxing. We borrow from ourselves, spend the money, and you're telling TMM that factcheck dispelled this "myth"? That's pretty damned circular.

 

[Scat]

You're making the circular argument that government borrowing from itself is not actually debt because it purchased marketable securities from itself that are only valuable if it can redeem them sometime in the future. Or in other words, it's not debt as long as we, the US, can raise the promised money in the future by taxing. We borrow from ourselves, spend the money, and you're telling TMM that factcheck dispelled this "myth"? That's pretty damned circular.

It's known as kiting where you write yourself a check out of an account that has no money. Then you deposit into that account a check from another account that has no money. As long as you can keep depositing checks into the accounts to cover the checks you have written you never need any real money. What's wrong with that?