What TARP money for jobs???

Yurt said:
good lord...are you actually claiming that all US assets are only worth 12 trillion dollars....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Nope... that is what Superfreak claims I have said. I can't find anywhere in the thread where I posted something so ridiculous, maybe he can post a quote... or maybe you can help him out and find that quote from me?
 
Dixie said:
Nope... that is what Superfreak claims I have said. I can't find anywhere in the thread where I posted something so ridiculous, maybe he can post a quote... or maybe you can help him out and find that quote from me?
Click to expand...

you just said it in post 39....total assets minus liabilities leaves us 12 trillion in the hole....

in hindsight, what you actually are saying is that the US has zero assets....you can have debt that does not exceed your assets :palm:
 
Yurt said:
you just said it in post 39....total assets minus liabilities leaves us 12 trillion in the hole....

in hindsight, what you actually are saying is that the US has zero assets....you can have debt that does not exceed your assets :palm:
Click to expand...

As far as tangible liquid assets, the "federal government" has very little!

Our national debt is negative $12 trillion. This is AFTER we calculate Federal Income Taxes and any other sources of revenue. We are in the hole $12 trillion! No, this doesn't count assets and holdings of all Americans and corporations, as Superfreak erroneously stated...that has nothing to do with the national debt... this is the amount of debt held on our nation, mostly by foreign sources. If we had tangible liquid assets to cover our expenditures, there wouldn't be a need for the US to borrow money and incur debt, we would not have a National Debt, but a National Surplus instead. That is NOT the case... our expenditures and liabilities are more than our revenues and income, and they are this way almost every year, and that is called a "budget deficit" and it means we have to borrow that much more money from someone else, because we don't have the tangible liquid assets to pay the bills!

All of this smoke and bullshit about collective "American" assets, both individual and corporate, along with US gold and oil holdings... that has nothing to do with the National Debt! It doesn't matter what individual Americans own... those are not national assets... (yet!)
 
Dixie said:
As far as tangible liquid assets, the "federal government" has very little!

Our national debt is negative $12 trillion. This is AFTER we calculate Federal Income Taxes and any other sources of revenue. We are in the hole $12 trillion! No, this doesn't count assets and holdings of all Americans and corporations, as Superfreak erroneously stated...that has nothing to do with the national debt... this is the amount of debt held on our nation, mostly by foreign sources. If we had tangible liquid assets to cover our expenditures, there wouldn't be a need for the US to borrow money and incur debt, we would not have a National Debt, but a National Surplus instead. That is NOT the case... our expenditures and liabilities are more than our revenues and income, and they are this way almost every year, and that is called a "budget deficit" and it means we have to borrow that much more money from someone else, because we don't have the tangible liquid assets to pay the bills!

All of this smoke and bullshit about collective "American" assets, both individual and corporate, along with US gold and oil holdings... that has nothing to do with the National Debt! It doesn't matter what individual Americans own... those are not national assets... (yet!)
Click to expand...

federal land (including resource rights) alone is worth well over 12 trillion dollars....

you claimed our assets are zero as our total assets and liabilities put us in the hole at 12 trillion....
 
Yurt said:
federal land (including resource rights) alone is worth well over 12 trillion dollars....

you claimed our assets are zero as our total assets and liabilities put us in the hole at 12 trillion....
Click to expand...

Again, the National Debt doesn't really have anything to do with intangible assets. You keep wanting to include "assets" in with "revenue" and they aren't the same thing. We aren't going to have a huge yard sale and liquidate our "assets" so why would they have any factoring consideration in our national debt? They essentially mean nothing to the national debt, because we aren't going to liquidate them and pay off the debt! The same is true with personal and corporate assets, they have nothing to do with the national debt... or even national revenues, other than tax revenues.
 
Dixie said:
Again, the National Debt doesn't really have anything to do with intangible assets. You keep wanting to include "assets" in with "revenue" and they aren't the same thing. We aren't going to have a huge yard sale and liquidate our "assets" so why would they have any factoring consideration in our national debt? They essentially mean nothing to the national debt, because we aren't going to liquidate them and pay off the debt! The same is true with personal and corporate assets, they have nothing to do with the national debt... or even national revenues, other than tax revenues.
Click to expand...

? land is not an intangible asset....assets are part of the equation, why are you now trying to avoid what you said earlier? you're completely changing what you just said....
 
Yurt said:
? land is not an intangible asset....assets are part of the equation, why are you now trying to avoid what you said earlier? you're completely changing what you just said....
Click to expand...

No, my words have been distorted throughout this entire thread, because that is what Superfreak excels in doing! He takes something you said, twists and contorts it into something absurd, then claims you have said this and proceeds to argue against it.

I never said anything about intangible assets, and they aren't part of the equation regarding National Debt... revenues are. The debt is our expenditures minus our revenues, and it is called "debt" because it is not greater than zero, if that were the case, it would be called a "surplus" and not a "debt."

US land holdings don't have anything to do with how much money the US is going to borrow this year from China, because they lack the REVENUE to pay the bills! Granted, US holdings DO play a role in how much credit China is willing to extend to us.
 
Yurt said:
? land is not an intangible asset....assets are part of the equation, why are you now trying to avoid what you said earlier? you're completely changing what you just said....
Click to expand...

The idiot keeps jumping back and forth between National Debt and Net Worth.

You start discussing Net Worth and he says 'that don't have nuttin to do with debt'. You state I understand ditzie, but you said the NET worth of the country is -$12 trillion. He says...'what der countree u talkin bout?.. the one that the whole world talks about or u want two talk bout the ditzie world fantasy where only da guvment is relevant to net worth'

You then describe the way Net worth is calculated and he states... 'assets is um figured into the debt along with dem liebilities'.

Bottom line is ditzie has no fucking clue. Just look above at the time I wasted on that idiot. Save yourself the pain.
 
Superfreak said:
The idiot keeps jumping back and forth between National Debt and Net Worth.

You start discussing Net Worth and he says 'that don't have nuttin to do with debt'. You state I understand ditzie, but you said the NET worth of the country is -$12 trillion. He says...'what der countree u talkin bout?.. the one that the whole world talks about or u want two talk bout the ditzie world fantasy where only da guvment is relevant to net worth'

You then describe the way Net worth is calculated and he states... 'assets is um figured into the debt along with dem liebilities'.

Bottom line is ditzie has no fucking clue. Just look above at the time I wasted on that idiot. Save yourself the pain.
Click to expand...

interesting...you may be on to something...he just said land was an intangible asset (responding to my comment about federal land) and then in the next post claimed he never said anything about intangible assets...
 
Yurt said:
interesting...you may be on to something...he just said land was an intangible asset (responding to my comment about federal land) and then in the next post claimed he never said anything about intangible assets...
Click to expand...

You see... if you point out where ditzie is wrong, he quickly trys to change the subject and then proclaim that he never said what he just said.

I think he truly believes that when he makes a new post we cannot see his previous posts.

Either that or he has multiple personalities that have no recollection of what the others say and are incapable of acknowledging what they write. The problem is they all post under the screen name of ditzie. Thus it can be quite a lot of fun keeping up with all of his different positions.
 
Yurt said:
interesting...you may be on to something...he just said land was an intangible asset (responding to my comment about federal land) and then in the next post claimed he never said anything about intangible assets...
Click to expand...

Welcome to Dixieland. Its one backpedal after another, and the self contradictions abound like pork in a pig farm. He always claims not to have said things that he indeed did say, and not even that long ago. I've seen it happen with nary a post inbetween.
 
Beefy said:
Welcome to Dixieland. Its one backpedal after another, and the self contradictions abound like pork in a pig farm. He always claims not to have said things that he indeed did say, and not even that long ago. I've seen it happen with nary a post inbetween.
Click to expand...

You need to pay closer attention...

He is now contradicting himself in the very same post. He will say 'I never said that' right after saying 'that'.
 
Superfreak said:
You need to pay closer attention...

He is now contradicting himself in the very same post. He will say 'I never said that' right after saying 'that'.
Click to expand...

Yeah, its pretty futile talking to a guy who doesn't even know his own positions.

I have never, ever in my life seen someone take both sides of more issues with more vehemence than this guy. He must be an elaborate troll. I cannot imagine this level of inability to understand or think, or be objective can be real.
 
I've not taken two sides in this issue or any issue. There is the side I have consistently been on, and there are the myriad of sides erroneously proposed by Superfreak and Yurt. The only reason I am talking about "intangible assets" is because Superfreak brought them up, when he tried to claim I said something idiotic.

We have to delineate what is meant by "our net worth" here... Are we talking about the collective net worth's of all individual American citizens and all American corporations, along with all Government assets and holdings? Sure, that totals more than the National Debt, but those things have absolutely NOTHING to do with the "net worth" of the US Government or the national debt.

Now, we also have two different things to delineate with regard to US government debt. Are we talking about actual accrued US debt including the unfunded liabilities? That is in excess of $106 trillion! Are we talking about "expenditure" debt? That is around $54 trillion. After revenue and "intake" is accounted for (and this comes from various sources), our DEFICIT is $12 trillion, meaning we have a national debt of $12 trillion.

We have what amounts to a semantics argument here with Superfreak... something else he is infamous for! He wants to consider "our country" to be the collective assets of every entity in the country, and say this minus our national debt is our "net worth" but that presumes I am even entertaining the idea that "our country" means something besides "our government" in a discussion about "national debt." If we are talking about the 'net worth' of our government, the national debt is a fairly good standard for that, because it is debt we have incurred because of revenue shortfalls. If we had more revenues traditionally coming in than we were spending, there would be no national debt, there would be a national surplus.

The only thing I can see you guys demonstrating here, is either profound retardation, or gross misunderstanding of terms used in the debate. In the case of Onzies, I lean toward profound retardation, with Yurt and Freak, I tend to think you've just misunderstood something or misconstrued what I have said.
 
"I've not taken two sides in this issue or any issue"

Most schizophrenics fail to recognize their own schizophrenia...
 
Dixie said:
I've not taken two sides in this issue or any issue. There is the side I have consistently been on, and there are the myriad of sides erroneously proposed by Superfreak and Yurt. The only reason I am talking about "intangible assets" is because Superfreak brought them up, when he tried to claim I said something idiotic.

We have to delineate what is meant by "our net worth" here... Are we talking about the collective net worth's of all individual American citizens and all American corporations, along with all Government assets and holdings? Sure, that totals more than the National Debt, but those things have absolutely NOTHING to do with the "net worth" of the US Government or the national debt.

Now, we also have two different things to delineate with regard to US government debt. Are we talking about actual accrued US debt including the unfunded liabilities? That is in excess of $106 trillion! Are we talking about "expenditure" debt? That is around $54 trillion. After revenue and "intake" is accounted for (and this comes from various sources), our DEFICIT is $12 trillion, meaning we have a national debt of $12 trillion.

We have what amounts to a semantics argument here with Superfreak... something else he is infamous for! He wants to consider "our country" to be the collective assets of every entity in the country, and say this minus our national debt is our "net worth" but that presumes I am even entertaining the idea that "our country" means something besides "our government" in a discussion about "national debt." If we are talking about the 'net worth' of our government, the national debt is a fairly good standard for that, because it is debt we have incurred because of revenue shortfalls. If we had more revenues traditionally coming in than we were spending, there would be no national debt, there would be a national surplus.

The only thing I can see you guys demonstrating here, is either profound retardation, or gross misunderstanding of terms used in the debate. In the case of Onzies, I lean toward profound retardation, with Yurt and Freak, I tend to think you've just misunderstood something or misconstrued what I have said.
Click to expand...

please show me where SF brought up intangible assets....a quick search of this thread reveals you are the first person to mention it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top