User Tag List

First 2345 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 43

  1. #31
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Little Linguist View Post
    Okay, here is a legitimate question:

    In the past 30 years, we have had only 4 years of budget surpluses, causing the country to spiral into crazy federal debt. See: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

    If you check out that website, the numbers are staggering. The ratio of assets to liabilities and savings to debt? Appalling.

    The programs that put the most burden on the federal budget can't be touched. So what is to be done long-term to ameliorate this problem?

    Sure, taxing the rich (or anyone for that matter) is a burden on the economy. But you cannot want everything from your government and not pay for it.

    So what - really what - is to be done????

    And, in addition, I'd like to say that the government does not function on the same principles as individuals. If an individual is highly indebted, you tell them to get new sources of income, save, and reduce expenditure. But government's job is to invest - and not to overburden its citizens with taxes. So...this is a major long-term issue that cannot be ameliorated with short-term solutions.
    The thing here is that we can't think of debt in the same way as citizens have debt, because we don't really want to be in debt to anyone.

    The number we really need to look at is deficit, because such large endeavors pretty much always tend to involve some form of debt (paying investors, securities, benefits, etc.)

    When they got into trouble is when they started to run a deficit - debt exceeds revenue and creates more debt.

    We could conceivably run a debt since securities are paid out on a schedule, and still be in the black. This means there's still an obligation to pay holders of securities, but still gaining money rather than losing it. That isn't necessarily a problem.

    When we consistently run a deficit though, the problem is two fold - those who hold securities get nervous that the government might print money to pay them off, which lowers the value of the money. We definitely want to try and avoid doing that because if people start selling off their securities, the value of our currency falls.

    The second problem would be dealing with the deficit in ways that can otherwise hurt the economy itself, such as the austerity we keep hearing about. That has to be avoided too or otherwise the value of money falls for a different reason (e.g. unemployment and lack of circulation)

  2. #32
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    The federal deficit is just like family household debt, supposing that family household owed most of its debt to itself, had no actual collection deadlines put upon it, took in more income in each successive year, and could print money.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  3. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    The federal deficit is just like family household debt, supposing that family household owed most of its debt to itself, had no actual collection deadlines put upon it, took in more income in each successive year, and could print money.


    Awesome!

    I hate all that bullshit home economics thinking and analogies which go around, I dont know why idiots find it so impressive or persuasive.

  4. #34
    null Jonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    FREE
    Posts
    2,485

    Default

    Prelude: Our federal government, and the national economy of which it is an integral component, is absolutely nothing like a household, and comparing it to one is an exercise in nonsense.

    Each and every day, people wake up. Some people work: some extract resources from the earth, some refine them, some invent, some manage others…Some don’t work. Some people study: some choose to commit themselves to years upon years of libraries and late nights, some to frat parties and to being yelled at by their parents (“I’ll get on track next semester!”)…Some don’t study. Some people play bingo with the other folks at the nursing home, some choose to sit alone all day and watch The Price Is Right… Some don’t any of these things. Yet, despite their differences, all of these people have something in common: each and every day, they consume. Further, each and every day, our economy produces everything these people are consuming (minus whatever trade deficit we have).

    If we were all entities beholden to and reliant upon only ourselves, we would each have to work. Every day we would have to find ways to meet our daily needs, and if we were lucky, we’d have time to work towards meeting our wants/desires as well. Working alone, the fruits of our labors (our worth, if you’d like) would be as plain as the stalks of corn, the lengths of rope, the sharpened sticks that we’d craft with our own hands. When we work together, things get muddy. What value to we place upon the work of a CEO? What about a factory worker? How do we decide who is allowed to consume what?

    The free market, which doesn’t at all imply a free people, does a fair (as in okay) job of incentivizing certain behaviors and allocating resources in a fair-ish (as in equitable) way; it’s a great starting point. Yet, as with all important aspects of our lives, we must check in with ourselves and our situation, and reflect upon what our objectives are and how well our current system is meeting those objectives. Does our current structure incentivize people to sit around and do nothing? (<- Many Republicans believe this is a major issue) Does it incentivize people to study ways to beat the system rather than make technological progress? Does it incentivize innovation? Similarly, does our current system provide adequately for those who cannot provide for themselves? (<-Many Democrats believe this is a major issue) Does it afford people with the opportunity to become innovators? Does it push them to want more than others have, or does it push them to bring happiness to those around them.

    Interest, taxes, debt, deficits, inflation, capital gains, profits, etc, etc, etc, etc… are all mechanisms that represent the many ways goods and services are distributed and certain behaviors (work, leisure, consumption, etc.) are incentivized. Fundamentally, these mechanisms are no more complicated than that. Yet, implicit in each are sets of connotations, hidden realities, and differing levels of dishonesty (intentional or unintentional).

    Federal debt, in particular, is a way of shifting the consumption of resources from those who have much to those who have little. It is done with the promise that those who have much now will have even more in the future. A man making $1,000,000 per year after taxes chooses not to consume everything the free market affords him (by virtue of the wages it sets and the profits it allocates), and instead gives some portion of that money (and thus, the goods/services it would buy) to the government with the expectation of being given some greater amount in the future. The government, in turn, allocates that money (and thus, the goods/services it buys) to those who it determines are “in need.” Those who choose to “invest” in the government in this way will be the beneficiaries of future increases in GDP (+GDP -> +Tax Revenue), or they will be suckers who are entitled to money that, on a real basis (after inflation), is actually worth less than what they initially invested.

    A major issue of our time is determining the primary reasons why we are running a deficit, and figuring out whether there is a better way to achieve the same results, or whether we need to go in a different direction entirely. Some questions to ask: How and why is that man above allocated more money per year than he chooses to spend? Why are there some people who need/want more than they are allocated by our “free-ish” market system?

    Some people, I think @DiscoBiscuit is an example, believe that the primary reason we are running a deficit and have debt is because there are people in our country who want something for nothing, because expectations and entitlements are out of whack and need revision. Essentially, we need to let the wealthy keep their money (the US don’t need your stinkin’ dollars… do something else with them!) and tell the poor to become accustomed to less and/or work harder/smarter. Some people, like myself and perhaps @Magic Poriferan, believe the debt is primarily a product of a “free-ish” market that isn’t functioning adequately to meet the “justifiable” demands of the populace; thus, any “fix” to the debt/deficit would need to be met with a corresponding “fix” to other mechanisms to maintain or further promote equality.

    There is no question that there are people who want something for nothing: Some people are lazy fucks who contribute nothing to our economy and collect their welfare/disability/etcetera when they are perfectly capable of working (and could even get a job if they tried!); some people are overpaid CEOs or trust fund kids or day traders who essentially get more than is a reasonable reflection of their contribution to society. The question is, which sorts of people have a greater impact? Is America a country where one man works 60 hours a week laboring to support a family and barley scrapes by while another man works 50 hours a week as a hedge fund manager and makes enough so that his kids will never have to work? Or, is America a country where one man pretends to be disabled so he can sit on his ass while another man works 60 hours a week, pouring his sweat and tears into a small business he built from the ground up? Maybe it’s somewhere in between… and if it is, I'll leave you with the words of our founding fathers, which I believe are very applicable to our current circumstance:

    "It is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer." - Benjamin Franklin

    "It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished." - John Adams
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  5. #35
    Freaking Ratchet Rail Tracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,041

    Default

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2397933.html

    Quite honestly, the Fiscal Cliff is a pathetic excuse.

    Payroll tax increase.
    Pork money for corporations like Nascar and and tax breaks for Goldman Sachs(and similar companies) who bring money oversees to other places (think Cayman Islands.)
    A gains tax that was suppose to be ~23, moved to only 20.

    Payroll taxes are what most of the poor and the middle class pay (especially middle class.) That 450k increase in tax for the so called "wealthy" is just a blimp of their salary compared to how big of a salary it is for someone making 50k a year. Having a 1k reduction is felt a lot more than the same 1k in reduction that is taken from the "wealthy."

    I'd want to see what happens with the debt ceiling. It just might be another cave in, I bet.

    I bet you the entitlement cuts are only towards the middle class and poor and that there won't be any entitlement cuts to the wealthy.

  6. #36
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    The federal deficit is just like family household debt, supposing that family household owed most of its debt to itself, had no actual collection deadlines put upon it, took in more income in each successive year, and could print money.
    Yeah. The reason I pointed that out is a technical distinction because people keep looking at the $16 trillion number, which isn't the right number. It's put out as the more scary number, but it is normal. The $16 trillion is actually obligations that cannot be avoided.

    It's like having a car payment. In technical terms, that is comparable to the $16 trillion debt. But, you can have this car payment and still be making money.

    Deficit is when you can't make the car payment, and the repo men are knocking at your door to take the car back. Except in this case, the government is the repo man, so it can't take away its own stuff.

    Edit: or to put it differently, the debt is stuff that has already been promised to be paid, such as Social Security and treasuries. It's not simply the government spending more than it has. It's pre-existing obligation that will not go away once made. It's the bill of things that the government has already obligated itself to pay out over time, and spans out for many years into the future.

    The deficit on the other hand is a yearly number of how much the government is behind on the bills. Since the lenders can't just come and take everything back, what they do is take out yet another loan to cover the deficit for that year, and it gets added on to the debt, because it's yet another obligation that must be paid.

  7. #37
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    Some people, I think @DiscoBiscuit is an example, believe that the primary reason we are running a deficit and have debt is because there are people in our country who want something for nothing, because expectations and entitlements are out of whack and need revision. Essentially, we need to let the wealthy keep their money (the US don’t need your stinkin’ dollars… do something else with them!) and tell the poor to become accustomed to less and/or work harder/smarter.
    The people want what they can get. Over the last several decades, politicians (in their lust for reelection) have been willing grow the debt without any thought of future fiscal constraints because they thought the economy would be growing at a rip roaring pace indefinitely.

    The problem is that once people get some sort of benefit, regardless of whether that benefit actually helps the economy, they will fight tooth and nail to keep from losing it. This is something we will have to get over. We will also have to get over the reactionary knee jerk garbage wherein the folks paint any change in our entitlement programs as morally unjust per se. There is no argument that can rebut that kind of blind moral absolutism. For any kind of a financial system to work, one must be able to adjust both revenues and expenditures. If, as the recent cliff deal is evidence of, only one side of the revenue/spending issue gets dealt with, one can never effectively cater one's system to a changing world.

    It'd be a much safer bet to keep my name out of your mouth in the future.

  8. #38
    Striving for balance Little Linguist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    xNFP
    Posts
    6,885

    Default

    Hmmm....

    Okay, real question: Who here has a concrete plan/idea on how to ameliorate the situation (that is feasible, able to be implemented, and has a reasonable chance of being accepted)?

  9. #39
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Little Linguist View Post
    Hmmm....

    Okay, real question: Who here has a concrete plan/idea on how to ameliorate the situation (that is feasible, able to be implemented, and has a reasonable chance of being accepted)?
    I don't know. It's hard to actually come up with such a thing without being on the inside.

    I will say though that the deficit has been going down since 2009, and that it isn't necessarily a hopeless situation because the deficit is yearly, it's not a recurring number that just goes up and up like some kind of Fibonacci sequence.

    It won't be paid down immediately though, unless somebody can magic up a trillion dollars from somewhere.

    Edit: and actually looking at monthly numbers, we had a surplus of $59 billion in April and another surplus of $75 billion in September of 2012. I wonder what they were doing there, and why it wasn't done the rest of the year?

    Edit edit: in addition to that, those two monthly surpluses are the only ones we've had at all in the past four years. What went on with that? Prior to 2008 the monthly figures were up and down, with a surplus one month and a deficit the next and so on. That makes me wonder exactly what the hell is going on.

  10. #40
    Freaking Ratchet Rail Tracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Little Linguist View Post
    Hmmm....

    Okay, real question: Who here has a concrete plan/idea on how to ameliorate the situation (that is feasible, able to be implemented, and has a reasonable chance of being accepted)?
    Almost a zip chance, I know that much. Otherwise, I wouldn't be getting into these issues and into government, lol.

    Too much arm twisting to get anywhere that I am surprised Boehner is actually doing fine.

    I'm surprised that 85 Republicans in the house actually voted on the bill.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 370
    Last Post: 02-07-2016, 09:54 PM
  2. [NT] NTs, how do you deal with Reality...
    By rivercrow in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 06-15-2010, 08:45 AM
  3. [MBTItm] Here is a really cool test dealing with symbolisms.
    By ladypinkington in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 09-05-2009, 08:09 PM
  4. [NF] NFs, how do you deal with Thinking...
    By SolitaryWalker in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: 01-27-2009, 10:34 PM
  5. Why drug dealing should be legalized...
    By The Ü™ in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 08-10-2007, 02:21 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO