Obama supporters shocked, angry at new tax increases

Dungheap said:
The economy is still pretty shitty though. 7.8% unemployment is way too high. In a sane world, all of the tax cuts would have been extended and we'd worry about the deficit once unemployment was at least below 6%.
Click to expand...

except that when you continue outspending revenue by a $1T it will not drop back below. It is not too hard to see the writing on the wall. The point in time has come where we must cease being so f'ing selfish and we must actually pay for what we want ourselves and quit looking to steal from future generations.
 
Superfreak said:
except that when you continue outspending revenue by a $1T it will not drop back below. It is not too hard to see the writing on the wall. The point in time has come where we must cease being so f'ing selfish and we must actually pay for what we want ourselves and quit looking to steal from future generations.
Click to expand...

The idea that federal government deficits are causing high unemployment is just stupid.
 
Dungheap said:
The idea that federal government deficits are causing high unemployment is just stupid.
Click to expand...

Yes, so very stupid. /sarcasm

Which is why so many corporations are sitting on cash and waiting for the insanity in DC to stop prior to investing for future growth.

The pain is inevitable... it is only the degree and time frame that are in question now.
 
Superfreak said:
Yes, so very stupid. /sarcasm

Which is why so many corporations are sitting on cash and waiting for the insanity in DC to stop prior to investing for future growth.

The pain is inevitable... it is only the degree and time frame that are in question now.
Click to expand...


The bold is make-believe. Pure fantasy. Fiction. Bullshit. Nonsense. Etc. . .

Maybe you can find some economist somewhere that thought that the fiscal cliff would lead to increased corporate spending and lower unemployment, but I doubt you can find very many.
 
Dungheap said:
The revenue that otherwise would have been collected if there was no tax holiday was transferred from the general fund to the Social Security trust fund.
Click to expand...

Translation: We borrowed money to pay Social Security. How could that possibly effect Social Security one might ask? Well, stupid people may think it makes it solvent.
 
Damocles said:
Translation: We borrowed money to pay Social Security. How could that possibly effect Social Security one might ask? Well, stupid people may think it makes it solvent.
Click to expand...


I don't see the need to translate. Seems pretty straightforward.

And I don't recall anyone claiming that the transfers make Social Security solvent, just that the payroll tax holiday had no impact on Social Security's finances, which is true.
 
Dungheap said:
The bold is make-believe. Pure fantasy. Fiction. Bullshit. Nonsense. Etc. . .

Maybe you can find some economist somewhere that thought that the fiscal cliff would lead to increased corporate spending and lower unemployment, but I doubt you can find very many.
Click to expand...

Which goes to show you that you once again look to the short term and cannot see the long term picture. This is because you worship at the alter of short term stop gap government 'fixes'. Again... and do try to pay attention for once... we are going to have pain. That is inevitable at this point. The question is do we take it at once over a short period of time via a recession or do we go the way of Japan and have 2+ decades of anemic growth?
 
Liberals dismayed at the tax increases they wanted?
Perhaps they thought the tax was only to be levied on "righties" and "teabaggers"!

I'm fucking loving it!!

I might just die laughing at their reaction to their fearless leader seizing their 401Ks and IRAs!!

Fucking retards, the entire obamacult!!
 
Superfreak said:
Which goes to show you that you once again look to the short term and cannot see the long term picture. This is because you worship at the alter of short term stop gap government 'fixes'. Again... and do try to pay attention for once... we are going to have pain. That is inevitable at this point. The question is do we take it at once over a short period of time via a recession or do we go the way of Japan and have 2+ decades of anemic growth?
Click to expand...


That's a great response. I'm particularly fond of the quantum of data in support of the statement I called bullshit. Overwhelming really.
 
Dungheap said:
I don't see the need to translate. Seems pretty straightforward.

And I don't recall anyone claiming that the transfers make Social Security solvent, just that the payroll tax holiday had no impact on Social Security's finances, which is true.
Click to expand...

I actually did not know this. I had no idea they were covering it through the general fund. I do think that op ed Howey posted brings up a good point -covering the tax holiday via the general fund can make the claim that SS does not affect the deficit a murky one. However, given this new information, I do agree that now was not the best time to end the holiday. I still feel that this was not a good idea in the first place, and they should have found better ways to stimulate the economy. I felt that a check sent to all filers would not have been a bad idea.
 
Dungheap said:
I don't see the need to translate. Seems pretty straightforward.

And I don't recall anyone claiming that the transfers make Social Security solvent, just that the payroll tax holiday had no impact on Social Security's finances, which is true.
Click to expand...

Well that depends on whether or not you believe it will ever be paid "back"... Social Security is simply debt nowadays to begin with. To say that borrowing money from it to spend in the general fund then saying that borrowing more to "pay" for a decrease in "funding"... it just shows an ignorance of how SS is currently "invested".

Adding more borrowed money to fill in the gaps of money you are borrowing is not a fiscally sound policy.
 
Darla said:
I actually did not know this. I had no idea they were covering it through the general fund. I do think that op ed Howey posted brings up a good point -covering the tax holiday via the general fund can make the claim that SS does not affect the deficit a murky one. However, given this new information, I do agree that now was not the best time to end the holiday. I still feel that this was not a good idea in the first place, and they should have found better ways to stimulate the economy. I felt that a check sent to all filers would not have been a bad idea.
Click to expand...

Again, they aren't. 1.2 Trillion overspending is not "covering" anything from the General fund. Especially when the General Fund borrows every dime of SS and spends it. The only "holdings" for SS currently is simply debt. They are simply transferring money on paper. Moving borrowed money from one pocket to another doesn't make it any less borrowed.
 
Damocles said:
Well that depends on whether or not you believe it will ever be paid "back"... Social Security is simply debt nowadays to begin with. To say that borrowing money from it to spend in the general fund then saying that borrowing more to "pay" for a decrease in "funding"... it just shows an ignorance of how SS is currently "invested".

Adding more borrowed money to fill in the gaps of money you are borrowing is not a fiscally sound policy.
Click to expand...


Well, if you think the US government will default on debt issued to the Social Security trust fund then that a whole 'nother can of worms. And if that's your view, I don't see why you would oppose the payroll tax holiday on any grounds. What's the problem? You're upset that the government is foregoing a 2% tax that it will use to buy government debt that the government will never pay back anyway? Weird.

And everything that follows "Social Security is simply debt nowadays . . ." is incoherent babble. I don't follow a word of it. Also, too, your bizarre use of "scare quotes" is really distracting.
 
Lets try a more individual example for you Dung so that maybe you can grasp it.

A person who brings in revenue of $50k per year is offered a credit card that has 0% financing for six months and given a credit limit of $20k. That person spends the $20k and then asks for more. The Credit card company gives him another $30k. This process continues to repeat with the borrower paying the only the interest and refinancing the principal. Say the borrower is able to extend his debt ceiling 4 times and is now asking for a fifth.

If you are the credit card company, are you seeing a problem? Are you going to want that person to take out more in debt? Or do you see where he is headed?

Now say that borrower has unlimited capabilities to borrow... does this change the eventual outcome?
 
Dungheap said:
Just read pretty much any macroeconomic analysis of the impact of the fiscal cliff published anywhere by anyone.
Click to expand...

again moron... you look to the short term... THERE IS GOING TO BE PAIN... it is the degree and timing of it that is in question. Simply having the government spend spend spend is not going to solve anything.

You seem to think there is a magical pill that will help us avoid what is coming.
 
Dungheap said:
The revenue that otherwise would have been collected if there was no tax holiday was transferred from the general fund to the Social Security trust fund.
Click to expand...

But that wasn't the point was it ? SS is already not collecting enough to cover its costs....Its in the read since 2010.....and the "general fund" is a joke....

The gov. doesn't have the money to pay back what its borrowed and is borrowing the money itself.....

The SS needs every penny it can get.....

But looking at it from your perspective, I see your point....SS is solvent as long as it gets back what has been borrowed by the feds. Too bad theres no money
to actually us pay with.
 
Superfreak said:
again moron... you look to the short term... THERE IS GOING TO BE PAIN... it is the degree and timing of it that is in question. Simply having the government spend spend spend is not going to solve anything.

You seem to think there is a magical pill that will help us avoid what is coming.
Click to expand...


I don't expect you to agree with me about anything, but do me a solid and stop saying that there is "going to be pain." There is plenty of pain right now.
 
Darla said:
I actually did not know this. I had no idea they were covering it through the general fund. I do think that op ed Howey posted brings up a good point -covering the tax holiday via the general fund can make the claim that SS does not affect the deficit a murky one. However, given this new information, I do agree that now was not the best time to end the holiday. I still feel that this was not a good idea in the first place, and they should have found better ways to stimulate the economy. I felt that a check sent to all filers would not have been a bad idea.
Click to expand...


Exactly......that is just what Bush did do....Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top