@heropsycho

ARGH!!! You're doing it again. Money the general fund owes to the payroll tax is still part of the total debt. Just because the government owes it to itself doesn't mean you get to take it out of your calculations as your factcheck.org article has. Public debt is not the only important factor.

Here are the total US debt figures from the treasury department:

09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66

If he actually ran a surplus don't you think that number should have dropped at some point?

My point is in the end, it doesn't matter what the gov't spends borrowed money on in the slightest. I get what you're saying, but the wars, corporate subsidies, etc. happened regardless if you borrow money specifically for that, or don't borrow money and raid the Social Security trust fund. Assuming said wars and corp subsidies happen regardless, which is better, borrow sooner by not raiding the Social Security trust fund which is heading for insolvency anyway and pay more interest, or borrow later by raiding the Social Security trust fund. It doesn't matter once you're headed for a path of unsustainability. Even if Social Security lasted another several decades, it was headed for insolvency. And once the federal government headed for unsustainability, does it matter which folds first - social security or the rest of essential gov't programs? No.

If you raid the trust fund as a tactical mechanism in conjunction with other policies to make the federal gov't and Social Security solvent, it's a smart move because you'll save some interest by not borrowing as much money, or paying down already existent higher interest debt. That's sorta my point - the gov't reversed course under the Bush administration and didn't do that. That's the real problem here, not raiding the Social Security trust fund. Even making some allowances for needing a deficit during the recession, and revamping for intelligence and military apparatus to fight the war on terror, it didn't stop there with keeping the Bush tax cuts, the prescription drug benefit, and opening an unnecessary war with Iraq. But we can agree to disagree.

But honestly, the question about if it was right to raid the Social Security trust fund is moot in the context of this discussion because even without borrowing against the fund, the Clinton administration still ran surpluses during his second term. Republicans, desperate to prove Democrats are fiscally irresponsible, try like heck to say he didn't, but he did.

"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...

Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years."

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

The Clinton Administration ran a surplus, period.

>> ^bmacs27:

@heropsycho
I couldn't disagree more. First of all, interest was still being paid on that same debt. The mechanism of using the social security surplus to finance the general fund was to purchase interest bearing treasury securities with the payroll tax. Now, people like you talk about those securities as though they aren't bonds at all and that interest isn't owed on that debt. That's the problem. The working class bought into a higher tax rate under the auspices that it was a retirement savings plan. Now public perception is robbing them of their interest because of Clinton's biff. If the payroll tax contributes interest-free to costly wars, corporatist subsidies, and theocratic pandering, then fold it into the progressive income tax and we can have a real conversation about paying our fair share.
You can probably smell that I'm a progressive, and thus would be inclined to support the Clintons. I just think this was one move where Reagan's scheming scored one for his team.

@heropsycho

I couldn't disagree more. First of all, interest was still being paid on that same debt. The mechanism of using the social security surplus to finance the general fund was to purchase interest bearing treasury securities with the payroll tax. Now, people like you talk about those securities as though they aren't bonds at all and that interest isn't owed on that debt. That's the problem. The working class bought into a higher tax rate under the auspices that it was a retirement savings plan. Now public perception is robbing them of their interest because of Clinton's biff. If the payroll tax contributes interest-free to costly wars, corporatist subsidies, and theocratic pandering, then fold it into the progressive income tax and we can have a real conversation about paying our fair share.

You can probably smell that I'm a progressive, and thus would be inclined to support the Clintons. I just think this was one move where Reagan's scheming scored one for his team.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

So Jim Rogers is a hypocrite, what's your point?
Are you implying/concluding something about Ron Paul's economic policies?

Not so much Paul's policies so much as Paul's supposed knowledge of macroeconomics.

Paul's Austrian economics says that expanding the monetary base the way the Fed has should result in immediate inflation since monetary "stimulus" doesn't do anything but raise the overall price level. According to Paul's prediction, anyone holding a stock of U.S. dollars in cash is a moron, because those dollars are expected to fall in value dramatically any day now. Smart investors would "sell" their dollars and move their wealth to a better investment instrument.

Similarly, Paul's Austrian economics say that running massive government deficits never have a positive effect, and will only lead to inflation and a rise in the government's borrowing costs. In investor terms, that means that you should expect treasury bond prices to fall -- and an investor looking to capitalize on that knowledge can make a profit by shorting bonds.

Jim Rogers is not doing either of those things. Which means one of two things:

1) Jim Rogers is a moron who knows nothing about investments.
2) Jim Rogers thinks Ron Paul's central economic predictions are wrong.

Either way, that means this is not a particularly ringing endorsement of Paul's economic chops. Either he's being praised by a Grade A moron, or his so-called supporter thinks Paul is actually full of shit on the economy, and was stupid enough to make that abundantly clear on TV.

The title I'd probably have sifted this with would be "Paul endorser forced to admit Paul doesn't know jack about economics." Well, at least I would have if titles could be that long...

@NetRunner

Who is the best candidate? How do we fix this broken political system?

How do we get: Timothy Geithner out of the Treasury? Lloyd Blankfein on trial for the biggest white collar racket in history? Troops recalled from quagmires of death boredom and despair?

You got any solutions, bro?

Or just more fallacious arguments?

A summary of what I saw:

Dude says Romney, Santorum and Obama are clueless on the economy, but Ron Paul is super-fantastic with his talk about hyperinflation and dollar devaluation.

Smart interviewer asks "So tell me Mr. Smartypants Ron Paul supporter guy, are you putting your money where your mouth is? Are you selling your dollars? Are you shorting U.S. Treasuries?"

The answer? "Uh, no, I'm holding onto my dollars, and I'm gonna go long on Treasuries, because there are 'lots of reasons' to do the exact opposite of what Ron Paul says a smart investor would do..."

Indeed there are, indeed there are.

Call an ace an ace - this worked. Obama continued a working policy.

Taxpayers on the hook for billions they'll never see recouped: NOT success. These same companies expecting the same bailouts again down the road? NOT success. While we're on the subject: Medicare fraud to the tune of 60 billion EVERY year? NOT success.

Bush was wrong and His Earness was wrong. These corporations should have filed for bankruptcy.

And stop with the Obamacare costing millions of jobs. You don't have any evidence to back it up.

SIGH.

These weak sauce "success" stories are nothing more than obamedia shills defending their king.


P.S. LIBERALS run Detroit and have for decades. Until that changes, it has NO chance.




>> ^heropsycho:

So are you admitting partisan vitriol is bad or not? If you are, then stop doing it yourself. Call an ace an ace - this worked. Obama continued a working policy.
And stop with the Obamacare costing millions of jobs. You don't have any evidence to back it up.
>> ^quantumushroom:
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!)...
Answers your question about Bush approving of the auto bailouts.
...the left would be howling about their obvious failure.

Meaning if Bush were President now, the left, using the same exact stats, would declare the bailouts a failure. Which, by the way, they are.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.
But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.

Didn't Bush make those bailouts? I mean weren't they done up but Bush people?

So are you admitting partisan vitriol is bad or not? If you are, then stop doing it yourself. Call an ace an ace - this worked. Obama continued a working policy.

And stop with the Obamacare costing millions of jobs. You don't have any evidence to back it up.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!)...
Answers your question about Bush approving of the auto bailouts.
...the left would be howling about their obvious failure.

Meaning if Bush were President now, the left, using the same exact stats, would declare the bailouts a failure. Which, by the way, they are.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.
But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.

Didn't Bush make those bailouts? I mean weren't they done up but Bush people?

1) Of course, Bush did everything; after all, he collapsed the economy. Let's thank him for that too.
2) How can you say that "Obamacare" has cost us millions when it doesn't even go into effect until 2014?

>> ^quantumushroom:

Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.
But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.

Did you know that Ford has also received HUGE help from the federal government? Why is it wrong for the government to help domestic industry. It's not like it's a new practice in the US, and it's not like other countries don't give their industries a similar advantage.>> ^quantumushroom:

I'd like to have a domestic auto industry IF it deserves to stay in business and meets expenses with profits from building cars consumers--not Chicago Jesus--want, not 50K rolling fireplaces like the chevy volt.
Ford didn't take any bailout money and they're doing fine. Plus how 'bout all those foreign car companies with domestic plants, sans greedy unions, building cars un-rich people can actually afford...

>> ^longde:
QM, would you rather have a domestic auto industry or not? >> ^quantumushroom:
Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.
But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.

I'd like to have a domestic auto industry IF it deserves to stay in business and meets expenses with profits from building cars consumers--not Chicago Jesus--want, not 50K rolling fireplaces like the chevy volt.

Ford didn't take any bailout money and they're doing fine. Plus how 'bout all those foreign car companies with domestic plants, sans greedy unions, building cars un-rich people can actually afford...


>> ^longde:

QM, would you rather have a domestic auto industry or not? >> ^quantumushroom:
Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.
But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.

Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!)...

Answers your question about Bush approving of the auto bailouts.

...the left would be howling about their obvious failure.

Meaning if Bush were President now, the left, using the same exact stats, would declare the bailouts a failure. Which, by the way, they are.


>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.
But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.

Didn't Bush make those bailouts? I mean weren't they done up but Bush people?

QM, would you rather have a domestic auto industry or not? >> ^quantumushroom:

Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.
But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.
But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.


Didn't Bush make those bailouts? I mean weren't they done up but Bush people?

Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive

Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.

But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.