114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2010 07:26 pm
Perhaps it is a bit early, but I have been trolling around looking for someone on A2K willing to host (or co-host with me) a thread on the potential Republican candidates for their party's nomination in the next Presidential election.
Everyone I have approached so far has not responded or has declined.
If there is a Repub who follows politics closely and has some time to kill, please contact me via pm. I guarantee you it will be an amusing year, and I (albeit a Dem), know how to run a thread.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2010 09:07 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I hope you are right about the bill not passing. I have considered there might be a protest from the current Congress but decided that as the next Congress will be more conservative, the lame duck Congress might not want to give the new government the pleasure.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2010 09:10 pm
@realjohnboy,
You have a habit of apologizing for your posts and that habit bothers me a bit.

As for your post having been voted down, I am not unconvinced that okie and ican are the same person. I think "they" do a great deal of voting.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  2  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 10:06 am
@realjohnboy,
Quote:
If that parsing of words is important to you, yes. I think you and I would agree that the government should have no business directly investing in the private sector but Presidents Bush and Obama did so, rightly in my mind during the financial meltdown. I am happy that we are coming out of that bailout reasonably unscathed. According to your sources, how much did it end up costing "us" in total?


If Bush had of gotten his way, the US government would have been the largest investor in the stock market, by a very large %. Expect it to be revisited in the next year.......at least in the house.
okie
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 01:16 pm
@BillW,
BillW wrote:

Quote:
If that parsing of words is important to you, yes. I think you and I would agree that the government should have no business directly investing in the private sector but Presidents Bush and Obama did so, rightly in my mind during the financial meltdown. I am happy that we are coming out of that bailout reasonably unscathed. According to your sources, how much did it end up costing "us" in total?
If Bush had of gotten his way, the US government would have been the largest investor in the stock market, by a very large %. Expect it to be revisited in the next year.......at least in the house.
To clarify, are you talking about allowing people to privately invest as part of the Social Security program, in an effort to prevent a complete financial collapse of the system? If so, I would remind you that it would be the American people investing in the markets, not the federal government. At least I think that was part of the idea, to allow people to invest privately, instead of giving all the money to Social Security to then loan to the government at a very low interest rate. I would remind you also that every last dollar of that Social Security Trust Fund has been spent by the government, so that all that is left in the Fund is promissory notes. If you compare the value of those notes to investments in the market, I wonder if the market would still have more value, even after the crash?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 01:28 pm
@okie,
Quote:
To clarify, are you talking about allowing people to privately invest as part of the Social Security program, in an effort to prevent a complete financial collapse of the system?


There is no imminent financial collapse of the Social Security system whatsoever.

Even more so, the plan wasn't ever to let every person just pay LESS into SS and keep a certain amount, which they then could invest (or not invest). It was for the GOVERMENT to make sure those funds actually were invested. Otherwise, you're just talking about cutting SS and letting people invest or not - which was never the plan.

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 01:54 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
To clarify, are you talking about allowing people to privately invest as part of the Social Security program, in an effort to prevent a complete financial collapse of the system?
There is no imminent financial collapse of the Social Security system whatsoever.
Perhaps not by Friday of this week, but most people realize the system is essentially broke and will be unable to continue paying out the benefits, especially as all the baby boomers continue to retire, unless some drastic measures are taken to keep it going.
Quote:
Even more so, the plan wasn't ever to let every person just pay LESS into SS and keep a certain amount, which they then could invest (or not invest). It was for the GOVERMENT to make sure those funds actually were invested. Otherwise, you're just talking about cutting SS and letting people invest or not - which was never the plan.
Cycloptichorn
I never said anything different. My assumption has always been that people would have to be able to demonstrate the money had been invested in an approved way.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 05:39 pm
http://www.npr.org/2010/12/09/131934075/poll-americans-want-deficit-cut-oppose-fixes

Quote:
Poll: Americans Want Deficit Cut, Oppose Fixes

A strong majority of Americans, both Republicans and Democrats, say they support a combination of spending cuts and tax increases to cut the deficit — but they falter when asked whether they support specific fixes.

That's according to the latest poll from the Pew Research Center. The center interviewed 1,500 adults in early December. Seven in 10 say the deficit is a major problem that must be addressed right now.

Reactions To Specific Proposals To Cut The Deficit

More than 70 percent of Americans polled in early December say the federal budget deficit is a major problem that must be addressed now. But a mere 30 percent approve the deficit commission's overall proposals on how to specifically do so. See how support for each proposal breaks out.

How Americans Respond To Specific Proposals To Reduce The Budget Deficit

http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2010/12/gr-budget-def-support-300.gif

"Only 23 percent say, 'Let's wait till the economy gets better,' " Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Center, tells NPR's Melissa Block.

Kohut says that in theory, Americans are open about ways to deal with the deficit, whether cutting government programs or increasing taxes. But when Pew drilled deeper, support waned.

The Bowles-Simpson deficit commission has proposed 12 ways to cut spending — and on all but two, Americans opposed them.

The two that engendered majority support were raising the Social Security contribution cap for affluent earners and freezing the salaries of federal workers. Other ideas — like raising the national gasoline tax — were fiercely opposed.

"For most of these issues, people are saying, 'No, we don't want to do that,' even though they're expressing with such sincerity and intensity, 'We gotta do something about this deficit,' " Kohut says.

Partisan Differences?


When it comes to party differences, Kohut says Democrats more than Republicans favor cutting back on weapons programs and troop levels.

But overall, the partisan differences are only "a matter of degree," he says. The majority of voters from both parties do not approve of such ideas as introducing a national sales tax and eliminating the home mortgage interest deduction.

Kohut says that one of the more interesting findings was that among the people who say they are Tea Party supporters, 65 percent opposed cutting federal funding for state programs like education and roads.

"And they have been vocal opponents of federal spending," he says.

Kohut says the government is going to have to make some hard decisions.

"As a pollster, I hate to say this, but this problem is going to be solved in spite of public opinion, not in response to public opinion," Kohut says. "We've seen numbers like this before. This is going to call for sacrifice and it's going to take an awful lot for America's political leaders in the Congress and the White House to sell these painful changes."


Per rjb's request.

Cycloptichorn
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 05:59 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cyclo, that's pure left wing, NPR, liberal progressive BULLSHIT!

No person in their right mind wants tax increases!
okie
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 07:56 pm
@H2O MAN,
The government collected over 2.5 trillion in tax receipts in 2008, which according my calculator is about $7,000 for each citizen of the country. It seems to me that should be enough to run the government. And that doesn't count what we paid State and local governments, where we actually receive some of our most important services like police and fire protection, and K-12 education. A question for all of us to ask, just what is the federal government doing for us with that 7 grand per person?
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 09:04 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Even more so, the plan wasn't ever to let every person just pay LESS into SS and keep a certain amount, which they then could invest (or not invest). It was for the GOVERMENT to make sure those funds actually were invested. Otherwise, you're just talking about cutting SS and letting people invest or not - which was never the plan.

Cycloptichorn


You are distoring both the facts and the original intent of Social security. When it was designed and enacted the fraction of contributors who lived long enough to collect benefits was smaller and the average duration of those benefits was much shorter - both a result of the great increase in life expectancy that has occurred since the late 1930s. In fact the government doesn't invest in anything. The treasury has been a net borrower since long before Social Security was enacted. The financial scheme behind Social Security involved financing current benefits from current collections - a Ponzi scheme just like Bernie Madoff's, and illegal for anyone outside government.
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2010 03:00 am
@okie,
Uuhh, you get to be part owner of a nice new predator drone, or an M-1 tank. Just one though, you can't have both for 7,000.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2010 03:09 am
@wayne,
Seven large wouldn't touch the main gun.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2010 10:23 am
@georgeob1,
See, georgeob, I can agree with you on some points. The governments been spending from the social security "trust" fund for many, many, decades. They don't know how not to spend. They play fiscal gemmicks(sp) all the time, and hope someday, somebody will wake up and smell the roses.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2010 10:28 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Even more so, the plan wasn't ever to let every person just pay LESS into SS and keep a certain amount, which they then could invest (or not invest). It was for the GOVERMENT to make sure those funds actually were invested. Otherwise, you're just talking about cutting SS and letting people invest or not - which was never the plan.

Cycloptichorn


You are distoring both the facts and the original intent of Social security.


Um, we were talking about the 2004-5 Republican 'private accounts' plan - not the original SS plan itself. Modifications to the original plan.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2010 11:11 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Um, we were talking about the 2004-5 Republican 'private accounts' plan - not the original SS plan itself. Modifications to the original plan.

Cycloptichorn


Oh ! You are right. Sorry about that.

By the way the Bush Social Security plan, or something very much like it, will almost certainly be required if we are to deal with the otherwise frightening projections for deficits associated with entitlements. Our current situation is no more sustainable than are those going on in Europe now.

Just as bad, our government accounting doesn't include public liabilities associated with the debts of Fannie & Freddy, as well as other implied federal guarantees including the various pension protection "funds".

It does indeed appear that the esteemed financial genius, Rep. Maxine Waters, was a bit off the mark with her immortal "...it ain't broke, so don't fix it " remark about Fannie & Freddy (with whom she was at the time discussing grants to a bank in which she had a financial interest).
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2010 11:17 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
It does indeed appear that the esteemed financial genius, Rep. Maxine Waters, was a bit off the mark with her immortal "...it ain't broke, so don't fix it " remark about Fannie & Freddy (with whom she was at the time discussing grants to a bank in which she had a financial interest).


Haha, she can always be relied upon to be wrong. I don't know why any of you guys think that I or most Dems support her, the lady is a fool.

Quote:
By the way the Bush Social Security plan, or something very much like it, will almost certainly be required if we are to deal with the otherwise frightening projections for deficits associated with entitlements. Our current situation is no more sustainable than are those going on in Europe now.


This I disagree with. SS is solvent for the near term and with only modest adjustments it will continue to be so - no 'private accounts' will be required. Increase the retirement age by 1 year every 25 years in the future, and decrease benefit payouts by 2% every 15 years, and the program works for the next century or more. Hardly draconic measures.

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  0  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2010 11:28 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
It does indeed appear that the esteemed financial genius, Rep. Maxine Waters, was a bit off the mark with her immortal "...it ain't broke, so don't fix it " remark about Fannie & Freddy (with whom she was at the time discussing grants to a bank in which she had a financial interest).
Don't forget what she said too about the "outstanding leadership of Franklin Raines." Democrat Meeks also chimed in to defend Raines, attacking folks that wanted accountability and defending corruption. Notice his statesmanlike language too. All of this while Raines was cooking the books at Fannie. And George, to this day the Dems have done absolutely nothing significant about that. Here is the video again.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2010 11:30 am
@okie,
I've already pointed out to you, Okie: Fannie Mae paid over 400 million dollars in fines relating to the corruption there. To say that the Dems or the Government have done 'absolutely nothing' about the problem is false; they did the exact same thing they would have done to any other corporation.

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  0  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2010 11:42 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Where did the 400 million come from, cyclops? Fine!!! What a laugh! I would bet it never came out of Raines bank account.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Raines
'Civil charges were filed against Raines and two other former executives by the OFHEO in which the OFHEO sought $110 million in penalties and $115 million in returned bonuses from the three accused.[8] On April 18, 2008, the government announced a settlement with Raines together with J. Timothy Howard, Fannie's former chief financial officer, and Leanne G. Spencer, Fannie's former controller. The three executives agreed to pay fines totaling about $3 million, which will be paid by Fannie's insurance policies. Raines also agreed to donate the proceeds from the sale of $1.8 million of his Fannie stock and to give up stock options. The stock options however have no value. Raines also gave up an estimated $5.3 million of "other benefits" said to be related to his pension and forgone bonuses.

An editorial in The Wall Street Journal called it a "paltry settlement" which allowed Raines and the other two executives to "keep the bulk of their riches."[10] In 2003 alone, Raines's compensation was over $20 million"
 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 08/05/2025 at 11:32:48