Export thread

This could be disastrous.

The closer things get to election time, the more everything becomes about politics. That means there's practically no chance any sort of resolution about the federal debt will be reached around the time that congress needs to reach it.

Oooooh boy.

Meh. They will act, but only at the last second, "to avert disaster."

They will NOT be proactive about it, because it's not in their favor politically.

Further, they won't take action based on one projection. They'll wait to see if we actually get close (this last time they waited until we had less than 100billion margin, then told Obama to wait until after winter recess) then start bickering about who's fault it was, then convene special meetings to get it done, rather than working on it during the normal course of business.

The funny thing is that we were supposed to decrease spending by 2.1 trillion and increase the debt ceiling by the same amount, yet only one month after it passed we're talking about how that 4 trillion margin we supposedly just opened up is closing more quickly than expected.

I have absolutely no faith in anyone doing anything about this, ever. The "sides" screaming at each other are just theatrics for the cable news shows and blogs. No one jumps until the money tells them to.

My plan:


STOP SPENDING SO FUCKING MUCH OF OUR FUCKING MONEY.

Best thing would be for the DC to ban any and all television reporters six months prior to any election.

This is exactly why the Republicans kicked the can down the road to where they did. Did anyone else think there was any other reason?

I thought it was because they didn't want the debt ceiling raised, and wanted cuts instead. Isn't that what the january vote against the ceiling hike was about?

stienman said:

I thought it was because they didn't want the debt ceiling raised, and wanted cuts instead. Isn't that what the january vote against the ceiling hike was about?

Click to expand...

Hehe, if only. The Republican leadership knows the disaster which would occur in not raising the debt ceiling but wanted to use their fringier elements to get something in return for doing what had to be done. It sort of backfired on them when they realized they really couldn't control the tea party candidates as well as they thought. Having that (R) in front of their name doesn't make them their lemmings I guess.

Quotemander Prime said:

My plan:


STOP SPENDING SO FUCKING MUCH OF OUR FUCKING MONEY.

Click to expand...

Gasp, you mean this isn't just a taxation problem? Rich people and fair shares and what not? STOP the GOD DAMN PRESSES.

GasBandit said:

Gasp, you mean this isn't just a taxation problem? Rich people and fair shares and what not? STOP the GOD DAMN PRESSES.

Click to expand...

Nobody but the pundits said it was.

Yeah, the rich people and fair shares is a completely separate problem. A lot of people mix them because what seems like a fix to one seems like a fix to the other, even though that's not true.

Maybe you guys should lay off a bit of that military spending. Not all of it, I mean, a good military is important, but maybe spend less than everyone in the world combined.

Frankie Williamson said:

Maybe you guys should lay off a bit of that military spending. Not all of it, I mean, a good military is important, but maybe spend less than everyone in the world combined.

Click to expand...

We probably could stand some military cuts, but that's about 20% of our expenditures. Can you guess what the rest is?

Damn right our money should take care of people here at home. That's the damn point of a society.

Krisken said:

Damn right our money should take care of people here at home. That's the damn point of a society.

Click to expand...

I'm sure the greeks felt the same. Problem is, the money's not there and no tax rate will make up the shortfall. But whatever, I'm sure we'll all enjoy our nanny state.

Comments like "nanny state" make you very hard to take serious. Unless of course you have no intention of being taken serious.

Can someone explain Social Security Insurance and the hatred it seems to attract to me a little bit better? My understanding of it is pretty much limited to: every check, money gets taken out by the federal government for what they've labeled as social security insurance. Every month I pay in, and every month the government pays out to who knows how many people. I'm fairly certain that there's no account in my name under the SSI budget bucket in D.C. (or, you know, the Cayman Islands, or Germany, or wherever it is that they keep this money); so when it comes time for me to retire, whether that time is when I'm 67+ years old or if, god forbid, I become disabled and can't work anymore at a younger age, my getting benefits paid out depends on other people continuing to pay in - the people in the generations below mine on the age ladder, and so on.

Is the argument that the government is kicking in an additional amount of money beyond that which is kicked in by all of these workers' SSI deductions, which is then used to bring SSI wages up to a semi-livable wage for the people who are currently on SSI benefits; thereby spending more money than we (as a nation) have available? Or is the argument that instead of putting this SSI money into paying for people to live off of what basically amounts to a government stipend, we should be using the money collected for SSI to do other things, like build roads and schools or pay USPS workers' wages?

Krisken said:

Comments like "nanny state" make you very hard to take serious. Unless of course you have no intention of being taken serious.

Click to expand...

That's just because you have trouble taking serious anything that challenges your position that socialism cures everything.

Gared said:

Can someone explain Social Security Insurance and the hatred it seems to attract to me a little bit better? My understanding of it is pretty much limited to: every check, money gets taken out by the federal government for what they've labeled as social security insurance. Every month I pay in, and every month the government pays out to who knows how many people. I'm fairly certain that there's no account in my name under the SSI budget bucket in D.C. (or, you know, the Cayman Islands, or Germany, or wherever it is that they keep this money); so when it comes time for me to retire, whether that time is when I'm 67+ years old or if, god forbid, I become disabled and can't work anymore at a younger age, my getting benefits paid out depends on other people continuing to pay in - the people in the generations below mine on the age ladder, and so on.

Is the argument that the government is kicking in an additional amount of money beyond that which is kicked in by all of these workers' SSI deductions, which is then used to bring SSI wages up to a semi-livable wage for the people who are currently on SSI benefits; thereby spending more money than we (as a nation) have available? Or is the argument that instead of putting this SSI money into paying for people to live off of what basically amounts to a government stipend, we should be using the money collected for SSI to do other things, like build roads and schools or pay USPS workers' wages?

Click to expand...

The argument is that the baby boomers are retiring, and we don't have enough workers paying in to support the retirees drawing out. Also - if a private citizen tries to do what social security does by design, they call it a ponzi scheme and throw them in jail. And there's a reason - because it's a horrible, unsustainable system.

You are correct, however, that despite disingenuous wording to the contrary, what happens with SocSec money is it basically just goes right into the general ledger, and payments out of it come from there too. There is no "social security" trust fund or lock box, it's all rhetorical fantasy.

Meanwhile, Galveston, TX privatized its social security before they made such things illegal, and it has outperformed the federal version every year by not-negligible amounts.

Sure, you just keep going with that. Since you don't know what socialism is (again), here's a handy link.

GasBandit said:

The argument is that the baby boomers are retiring, and we don't have enough workers paying in to support the retirees drawing out. Also - if a private citizen tries to do what social security does by design, they call it a ponzi scheme and throw them in jail. And there's a reason - because it's a horrible, unsustainable system.

You are correct, however, that despite disingenuous wording to the contrary, what happens with SocSec money is it basically just goes right into the general ledger, and payments out of it come from there too. There is no "social security" trust fund or lock box, it's all rhetorical fantasy.

Meanwhile, Galveston, TX privatized its social security before they made such things illegal, and it has outperformed the federal version every year by not-negligible amounts.

Click to expand...

So then the takeaway is that, all political rhetorical bullshit aside, the government requires every working stiff to pay into a deeply flawed retirement system, whereby the current retirees are actually being paid by the current workers, and the current workers will only be paid if the workers in generations below ours continue to pay in. However, I'm also encouraged to pay into an IRA because no one can guarantee that SSI will have enough money for me to live comfortably on when I retire; but that I would have more disposable income, with which I could either buy more consumer goods - which would ostensibly help the economy - or pay into my IRA, if only the government would quit requiring that I pay into said ponzi-scheme?

Gared said:

So then the takeaway is that, all political rhetorical bullshit aside, the government requires every working stiff to pay into a deeply flawed retirement system, whereby the current retirees are actually being paid by the current workers, and the current workers will only be paid if the workers in generations below ours continue to pay in. However, I'm also encouraged to pay into an IRA because no one can guarantee that SSI will have enough money for me to live comfortably on when I retire; but that I would have more disposable income, with which I could either buy more consumer goods - which would ostensibly help the economy - or pay into my IRA, if only the government would quit requiring that I pay into said ponzi-scheme?

Click to expand...

What is failed to be mentioned in all that is Wall Street doesn't benefit from Social Security and would LOVE for it to be removed in favor of IRA's, which are investments in the stock market. The question remains, for me at least, do we really trust the stock market as a safe place to be putting our retirement?

Krisken said:

What is failed to be mentioned in all that is Wall Street doesn't benefit from Social Security and would LOVE for it to be removed in favor of IRA's, which are investments in the stock market. The question remains, for me at least, do we really trust the stock market as a safe place to be putting our retirement?

Click to expand...

I don't trust the stock market for shit. Anything that's that easily manipulated - whether it's being manipulated on purpose or not doesn't matter to me - isn't somewhere that I currently feel comfortable putting a significant portion of my income. On the other hand, since everything is tied to the market, in one way or another, what choice do I really have? I could put money into CDs through my not-for-profit credit union, but the interest rate on the certificate is based on some incredibly complex calculation which in turn is based on the prime rate, which is at least marginally affected by the markets. Or, I could put my money in a coffee can and never gain any interest on it, but also never lose any of it, but I'd have to be extremely lucky to save enough money on my own to be able to retire and live comfortably - by which I mean, not on the street. Or, I can trust a financial adviser to pick the right stocks/bonds/funds/etc. to get me a semi-steady gain from my investments. Or, of course, I could make a giant wall-sized chart of all of the available stocks and throw darts at it to pick where I invest.

I used to think that I was informed enough about a good number of the major companies in America to pick my own stocks and do fairly well; but now I know that that's bullshit. But do I want to keep trusting the government to keep track of the money for me and hope that there's enough people still paying in to the SSI pool for me to get something out of it when my time to retire comes around? I'm finally starting to take enough control of my personal and/or family finances to consider that paying so much money out in federal income tax per check that I'm almost guaranteed to get a substantial refund each year may not be as good a choice as paying the break-even amount and having more money to do with as I please during the course of the year.

I suppose it really comes down to a lesser of two evils situation. Who do you trust more, the government, or Wall Street? Neither isn't really an option.

The "debt ceiling" is just a new term devised by the corporations pulling the strings to keep the cable news blowhards screaming at each other to convince the masses that the "other side" is evil. Even Ron Paul still has that "R" next to his name.

Fuck all of 'em. Let it all burn.

DarkAudit said:

The "debt ceiling" is just a new term devised by the corporations pulling the strings to keep the cable news blowhards screaming at each other to convince the masses that the "other side" is evil. Even Ron Paul still has that "R" next to his name.

Fuck all of 'em. Let it all burn.

Click to expand...

Remember when we were the United States of America? Back before we had red states and blue states? I knew the first time I saw CNN driving home that individual states could be completely devoted to one party or another, and that people in said state who didn't support the majority party were pointless, that we were in for some dark times. The way the political reporters carry on, you'd believe that everyone in Washington (state) is a god-hating, liberal Democrat; and that everyone in the red state of your choice is a neo-conservative, bible-thumping Republican; that there's not a single Republican in Washington (state).

If it weren't for the fact that life for me, and a whole lot of my family and friends, would be incredibly adversely effected by total economic collapse, I'd say "let it all burn," too. I would love to see both sides absolutely refuse to budge one single iota on the next budget bill, to watch the entire thing fall to ruin - but I'm also realistic to know that there are people out there who still wouldn't understand that the "fault" for this problem rests on the shoulders of both parties, and on all of the voters (whether they voted or not), and that when you get down to it, it doesn't matter if they're a democrat or a republican - they're a politician, and they're likely corrupt or too weak to stand up to the corruption.

See, the problem with American political arguments is that one side calls the other "communists" or "socialists", while the other calls the opposing side "fascists" or "Nazis".

And both sides end up sounding ADUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What really sickens me about this is that the congress is so completely off the deep end now that they will actually wait for the last second to increase the theatrics and to increase their image as being White Knights coming to save the day, or tough idealists who....whatever.

All the while ignoring the fact that playing chicken with the debt ceiling is a great way to get our credit rating downgraded, which would do HORRIBLE things to the state of our debt. It's by far the single worst thing you could do to the national debt at the moment.

Gared said:

I suppose it really comes down to a lesser of two evils situation. Who do you trust more, the government, or Wall Street? Neither isn't really an option.

Click to expand...

That sums up way more than just this single topic. Though, for the purposes of planning for retirement, you don't HAVE to put it in a stock, or a bond, or even a mutual fund... you could just stick it in a savings account. But people want their money to be more than they earned later, so yeah... you either risk it in the stock market, or... well, even if you have social security, you'd still better be risking some in the stock market.