Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-20-2013, 02:48 PM
 
20,717 posts, read 19,360,295 times
Reputation: 8283

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pawporri View Post
The favorite thing the Boy King loves to say and threaten with, when he thinks he won't be getting his way is :

"I won't be able to deliver social security checks to seniors or disability checks to veterans if the
Republicans don't raise the debt ceiling or let us go over the fiscal cliff !" The part he doesn't mention is
that he has the discretion to not do that if he so chooses.

So my question to you Mircea, let's suppose that he were to actually follow through on his threat. What would actually happen, in your opinion ?
First you need to know what its for. When you set money aside, you tell your wife that its a rainy day fund. Then on a sunny day you buy a set of golf clubs and put in an IOU from the recreational budget. If your wife asks you if the rainy day fund is solvent , you tell here that you invested it in a reliable security because you know them very well. Not only do you have a set of golf clubs, you have savings in your rainy day fund backed by you. That might even be used as a security to borrow money from a friend to buy a time share. Don't worry pal, I have the rainy day fund backing your loan...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-20-2013, 05:04 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,621 posts, read 19,163,062 times
Reputation: 21738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cranston View Post
I 100% agree with you....I have not seem the maths behind it but I think you have hit the nail on the head.
Then maybe you should look at the data, before acting in error.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pawporri View Post
The favorite thing the Boy King loves to say and threaten with, when he thinks he won't be getting his way is :

"I won't be able to deliver social security checks to seniors or disability checks to veterans if the
Republicans don't raise the debt ceiling or let us go over the fiscal cliff !" The part he doesn't mention is
that he has the discretion to not do that if he so chooses.

So my question to you Mircea, let's suppose that he were to actually follow through on his threat. What would actually happen, in your opinion ?
Technically, that's malfeasance and he could be impeached.

The Social Security Administration is a separate agency/office. The president is the Chief Executive. Because that is true, the president is directly responsible for those agencies/offices that report directly to the president (and that would also include the EPA and a few other agencies like the GAO).

If you look at the budget, or hear budget things mentioned on the news, they often speak in terms of discretionary spending and mandatory spending.

Mandatory spending involves those departments, agencies, offices and programs that were established by law through acts of Congress. They include things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Military Pay, Subsidized Housing and the like.

Discretionary spending is money government is not required by law to spend --- that would include things like ant farms, counting the number of times ducks pass gas, shrimp on treadmills, Jell-O parties, bridges to nowhere, exit ramps to nowhere, paying people to watch grass grow and things like that.

So in addition to malfeasance, failure to comply or enforce mandatory spending violates the law, so that includes high crimes and misdemeanors.

If there is an issue with the debt-ceiling and the budget deficit, then as Chief Executive, it's on him to make sure laws are enforced. If the president has to put a budget freeze on discretionary spending --- and that is most or the bulk of your deficit -- then that is what he needs to do -- and many presidents in the past have done that (Bush did).

If the freeze on discretionary spending doesn't resolve the problem, and if Congress refuses to increase the debt-ceiling, then the president needs to show leadership and work with Congress on reducing mandatory spending in order to stay under the debt-ceiling.

For example, if Congress says, "We've amended the laws for Food Stamps so that single family households no longer qualify" then the president needs to agree and sign off on it.

Or if Congress says, "We've amended HUD rules so that single family households no longer qualify for HUD housing subsidies," then the president needs to go along with that.

And if Congress isn't doing those things, then the president should be.

What I've been telling people since I came here in 2007, is that the world is changing, and that these changes are permanent, not temporary. Pandora's Box has been opened, the djini is out of the bottle or as Leonard Simms said, "You shouldn't have done that. You've opened the box! You shouldn't have used the numbers! It doesn't stop!"

I see the changes as good, positive, beneficial, to everyone in the whole world, but the vast majority of Americans don't see it that way. What they see is their life-style and standard of living being infringed upon; declining.....but what they don't understand....thanks largely to propaganda and disinformation efforts....is that they should never have had this high of a standard of living in the first place.

That's the Great Irony: The American Dream really is nothing but a Dream.

If the Bretton Woods Agreement never happens, if the US Dollar never gains supremacy as the de facto international reserve currency and the de facto international currency of trade, if the Marshall Plan never happens, if World War II never happens.....

...then you would be exactly like Russia is now. Maybe a notch or two above.

There would still be places in the US that did not have electricity; where people got their water from the well in the center of the village/town; no vast telecommunications or interstate highway system; most of you would have to go to an internet cafe to get on the internet and so on. The primary method of travel in the US? It would be the train.

I'm hard core to the right: no one is entitled to, or has a right to housing, but assuming for a moment they did, then they have no right to their own personal private residence, with their own personal private bathroom and bedroom.

I see that as part of the problem with American culture and standard of living. Billions and Billions and Billions of people grew up in households where they had to share the bedroom with an older or younger sibling.....they all survived....and they're probably that much better off, because of it.

But, now,....you have kids who have never known any hardship of any kind --- except for perhaps a dead cell-phone battery --- growing up in their own personal private bedrooms with their own personal private baths, and they think they're owed it; entitled to it; and they refuse to yield even a millimeter.

It's going to be really, really hard for them over the next 15-30 years.....really, really bitter people sitting around screaming and crying "I'm entitled! I'm entitled!" but there's nothing to give them.

And in spite of my most heroic efforts, many still do not grasp the full extent or the scope of the problem(s).

Social Security is a perfect example.

We aren't taking $Billion here. We're talking about a looming short-fall of $500 Billion per year rising to more than $1.5 TRILLION per year before slacking off to a fairly steady $1.2 TRILLION per year....over the course of about 25 years or so staring in about 6 years.

All this stupid nonsense...COLA....raise the retirement age....eliminate the cap....is just that --- stupid nonsense.

It's like having a car with no engine. So, these uninformed people want to paint the car. Okay, great, you got a bright orange Earl Schrieb paint-job.......you still need an engine. "We filled it up with gasoline." Great. You still need an engine. "We got some cool rims and neat tires for it." Super. You still need an engine. "Yo, check out the sound system." Terrific, but what part of "You don't have an engine" do you not understand?

And that's all problematic, because you owe $TRILLIONS for Social Security, and $TRILLIONS for Medicare and the bill is coming due really fast, like in the next few years, and there's no money and no way to pay for it. And then some idiots want a national health system....something else they couldn't pay for on top of things they already cannot pay for.

The only effective solution is to raise the tax rates, but that will result in lower tax revenues for States and cities, and then also job losses, causing lower federal tax revenues, which in turn results in increased annual deficits, leading to a point where it costs more and more money to pay the interest on the National Debt......and that's looming.....not now, or the next couple of years, but in about 15-17 years.

And then some idiots scream about defense spending. Without your military, who would use the US Dollar? Well, a lot of countries will continue to use the US Dollar --- good for you --- but they will not be using it exclusively --- bad for you.

So you cut defense to save $400 Billion annually, but the cost to do so is $550 Billion annually, and you take a net loss of $150 Billion annually -- and a lower standard of living as icing on the cake. How's that going to work out for everyone? Not good.

Anyway, the only way I ever see Obama getting impeached is if the Democrats turn on him. I'm not sure why they would. I guess it would depend on what actually happened.

Surrealistically....

Mircea
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2013, 07:21 PM
 
Location: The Lakes Region
3,074 posts, read 4,725,532 times
Reputation: 2377
Quote:
Technically, that's malfeasance and he could be impeached.

The Social Security Administration is a separate agency/office. The president is the Chief Executive. Because that is true, the president is directly responsible for those agencies/offices that report directly to the president (and that would also include the EPA and a few other agencies like the GAO).

If you look at the budget, or hear budget things mentioned on the news, they often speak in terms of discretionary spending and mandatory spending.

Mandatory spending involves those departments, agencies, offices and programs that were established by law through acts of Congress. They include things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Military Pay, Subsidized Housing and the like.

Discretionary spending is money government is not required by law to spend --- that would include things like ant farms, counting the number of times ducks pass gas, shrimp on treadmills, Jell-O parties, bridges to nowhere, exit ramps to nowhere, paying people to watch grass grow and things like that.

So in addition to malfeasance, failure to comply or enforce mandatory spending violates the law, so that includes high crimes and misdemeanors.

If there is an issue with the debt-ceiling and the budget deficit, then as Chief Executive, it's on him to make sure laws are enforced. If the president has to put a budget freeze on discretionary spending --- and that is most or the bulk of your deficit -- then that is what he needs to do -- and many presidents in the past have done that (Bush did).

If the freeze on discretionary spending doesn't resolve the problem, and if Congress refuses to increase the debt-ceiling, then the president needs to show leadership and work with Congress on reducing mandatory spending in order to stay under the debt-ceiling.

Mircea
Of course, this will never be editorialized in the main stream Pravda media and the Republicans are probably
too stupid to explain it, on 8th grade level, to the average voting working stiffs who voted for Obamanation.
Thanks for laying it out in a clear and precise manner.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2013, 07:28 PM
 
Location: The Lakes Region
3,074 posts, read 4,725,532 times
Reputation: 2377
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
First you need to know what its for. When you set money aside, you tell your wife that its a rainy day fund. Then on a sunny day you buy a set of golf clubs and put in an IOU from the recreational budget. If your wife asks you if the rainy day fund is solvent , you tell here that you invested it in a reliable security because you know them very well. Not only do you have a set of golf clubs, you have savings in your rainy day fund backed by you. That might even be used as a security to borrow money from a friend to buy a time share. Don't worry pal, I have the rainy day fund backing your loan...
You wouldn't be referring to the investment in Solyndra, would you ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2013, 08:05 PM
 
621 posts, read 658,201 times
Reputation: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
The primary method of travel in the US? It would be the train.



For had that well underway as being replaced with his model T. Then with his follow on cars.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Social Security is a perfect example.

We aren't taking $Billion here. We're talking about a looming short-fall of $500 Billion per year rising to more than $1.5 TRILLION per year before slacking off to a fairly steady $1.2 TRILLION per year....over the course of about 25 years or so staring in about 6 years.
Unless we have a new crop of productive workers.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
And that's all problematic, because you owe $TRILLIONS for Social Security, and $TRILLIONS for Medicare and the bill is coming due really fast, like in the next few years, and there's no money and no way to pay for it. And then some idiots want a national health system....something else they couldn't pay for on top of things they already cannot pay for.

The only effective solution is to raise the tax rates, but that will result in lower tax revenues for States and cities, and then also job losses, causing lower federal tax revenues, which in turn results in increased annual deficits, leading to a point where it costs more and more money to pay the interest on the National Debt......and that's looming.....not now, or the next couple of years, but in about 15-17 years.
Wage inflation with the minimum wage law. One thing it will do is to get you a new crop of workers as we have a new baby boom. Again I see the time table speed up a bit but you are very accurate about the scope of the problem.


Automated machines are taking the place of workers. So they need to be taxed to take care of those workers that they displace.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2013, 01:58 AM
 
106,658 posts, read 108,810,853 times
Reputation: 80146
they can fix social security just by plugging the loop holes that allow you to double dip when you are a couple.

we can collect tens of thousands more by using file and suspend and selective application methods.

i love being able to collect a spouses while allowing my own to grow 8% a year but that is insane when they need the money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2013, 08:30 AM
 
20,717 posts, read 19,360,295 times
Reputation: 8283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pawporri View Post
You wouldn't be referring to the investment in Solyndra, would you ?
Actually no. Its stupid in it own right. The government should never directly fund for profit as anything other than a consumer and then under prejudice.

The problem with social security is that it does not directly fund anything so what is the lock box supposed to represent? Its a social benefit and should be treated as such, especially since all it does is invest in general obligations. Its entire worth is backed by taxation. If it followed the Solyndra model, it would be the government buying crappy retirement homes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2013, 08:39 AM
 
Location: Central Massachusetts
6,593 posts, read 7,088,475 times
Reputation: 9332
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
they can fix social security just by plugging the loop holes that allow you to double dip when you are a couple.

we can collect tens of thousands more by using file and suspend and selective application methods.

i love being able to collect a spouses while allowing my own to grow 8% a year but that is insane when they need the money.

Wait I do differ here I think. If a couple both contributed then why shouldnt they be able to collect both either at the same time if they need it or begin with one and then the other later to be added?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2013, 08:39 AM
 
Location: The Lakes Region
3,074 posts, read 4,725,532 times
Reputation: 2377
[quote=gwynedd1;28347283]Actually no. Its stupid in it own right. The government should never directly fund for profit as anything other than a consumer and then under prejudice.

The problem with social security is that it does not directly fund anything so what is the lock box supposed to represent? Its a social benefit and should be treated as such, especially since all it does is invest in general obligations. Its entire worth is backed by taxation. If it followed the Solyndra model, it would be the government buying crappy retirement homes.[/QUOTE]

Don't think for a second that the "Boss Tweed's @ Tammany Hall" didn't walk away with billions of
taxpayer dollars in the Solyndra scheme. Where are the investigative reporters on that case ? (Paid
off I'm sure..............)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2013, 08:50 AM
 
20,717 posts, read 19,360,295 times
Reputation: 8283
[quote=Pawporri;28347433]
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
Actually no. Its stupid in it own right. The government should never directly fund for profit as anything other than a consumer and then under prejudice.

The problem with social security is that it does not directly fund anything so what is the lock box supposed to represent? Its a social benefit and should be treated as such, especially since all it does is invest in general obligations. Its entire worth is backed by taxation. If it followed the Solyndra model, it would be the government buying crappy retirement homes.[/QUOTE]

Don't think for a second that the "Boss Tweed's @ Tammany Hall" didn't walk away with billions of
taxpayer dollars in the Solyndra scheme. Where are the investigative reporters on that case ? (Paid
off I'm sure..............)
Oh well, corruption is not supported by any economic model other than dealing with the occasion to it. Publicly run usually has efficiency problems albeit with bloated salaries and nepotism . Government budgets going to private contractors is usually the worst of everything and where most of the public funds are stolen. And yet we have more and more suckers who want to fall for "privatization". That is what makes da guberment billionaires like Ross Perot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:44 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top