Explaining Why Federal Deficits Are Needed[W:5330]

[Kushinator]

WTH is a ban wish?

Your tone and lack of respect for the forum rules are a rather clear signal you don't wish to be part of the posting community.

 

[Chainsaw]

I will check back in 3 months, you are not worth the time regurgitating BS you don't understand (but think you do, that is the scary part)

OUT!

 

[Kushinator]

fFF
So what you are so ignorant to believe, is that GDP and/or 'growth' would be the same without tech/computers???? Really!?!?!? FFFFFffffffffffruuuuuuuuuuuccccccccccccc..........LOL

Why is there some desire on your part to separate economic growth? You made a very ignorant statement, and when pressed to back it up, we get something that resembles intoxicated posting.

 

[Chainsaw]

Your tone and lack of respect for the forum rules are a rather clear signal you don't wish to be part of the posting community.

Like I said before, go rat me out to the police/moderators again, you coward.

 

[Kushinator]

Like I said before, go rat me out to the police/moderators again, you coward.

I don't have to report anything, nor have i before. But feel free to continue on with this lovely display of intelligent discussion. :lol:

 

[austrianecon]

I can't say whether or not I know more than most, but my hounds have a better understanding of the federal budget than you do.

There's no farce or trick involved here, that's just more RW BS, part of the mountain range you idiots have barfed up over the years. Gubmint spending can be best understood when it's looked at in its totality. That's just common sense. Social Security is a very large part of the federal budget. Why in the hell should it be left out of calculations?

LOL!

It's a farce and an accounting trick. In accounting principles one account is separate then another. For example: If you ran a hedge fund, you have company money and client money. Under accounting laws (and enforced by the SEC) you can't do Commingling to cover company loses. Jon Corzine as CEO of MF Global did this.

It's not common sense. Common sense is to treat account's separately. Then the Government borrows for the Trust and reflects in deficit as the Trust is lending to the Government. Under Unified budget this important point is missed. Government is liable for the money it borrows from Social Security every year which means future deficits costs which will surprise many in the future (near future).

 

[Chainsaw]

Why is there some desire on your part to separate economic growth? You made a very ignorant statement, and when pressed to back it up, we get something that resembles intoxicated posting.

The Mods have already sent me a nasty-gram,........AGAIN,........ warning me to behave based on your whining and sniveling. What a surprise!!! If I found out BigFoot was real, I would not be more surprised.

 

[Kushinator]

The Mods have already sent me a nasty-gram,........AGAIN,........ warning me to behave based on your whining and sniveling. What a surprise!!! If I found out BigFoot was real, I would not be more surprised.

I have not reported you; your behavior in this thread is a testament in its own right. Carry on :lol:

 

[Kushinator]

LOL!

It's a farce and an accounting trick. In accounting principles one account is separate then another. For example: If you ran a hedge fund, you have company money and client money. Under accounting laws (and enforced by the SEC) you can't do Commingling to cover company loses. Jon Corzine as CEO of MF Global did this.

The government isn't a private, for profit, corporation that has shareholders.

It's not common sense. Common sense is to treat account's separately. Then the Government borrows for the Trust and reflects in deficit as the Trust is lending to the Government. Under Unified budget this important point is missed. Government is liable for the money it borrows from Social Security every year which means future deficits costs which will surprise many in the future (near future).

Maybe? There is a strong possibility that the income cap will be lifted, and it will reduce most shortfalls up until 2032.

 

[austrianecon]

If anything resembles a parlor trick, it's trying to make intragovernmental assets and debts look like they should matter. There is money coming in, and there is money going out. Any other count is just silliness.

Social Security is not an intragovernmental asset, it's as asset to those who pay into Social Security.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Social Security is not an intragovernmental asset, it's as asset to those who pay into Social Security.

Social security is a government agency that holds government bonds, and those bonds will eventually be paid by the government. The government holds both the assets and the liabilities, so their position nets to zero. Money comes in, money goes out. It does not get saved, because the government is not able to save in their own currency.

SS assets don't belong to payees unless and until they start to collect.

 

[Kushinator]

Social Security is not an intragovernmental asset, it's as asset to those who pay into Social Security.

Social Security bonds are an intragovernmental liability. It is a potential asset, which is why it is social insurance.

 

[Chainsaw]

Social Security bonds are an intragovernmental liability. It is a potential asset.....

Wow the ignorance,......that could ONLY be true if the life expectancy was DROPPING!!!! Guess what?,.........IT IS NOT!!!!! You can't fix that kind of mamma's basement learnin'!!!!!

But I am done trying!!!

 

[Kushinator]

Wow the ignorance,......that could ONLY be true if the life expectancy was DROPPING!!!! Guess what?,.........IT IS NOT!!!!! You can't fix that kind of mamma's basement learnin'!!!!!

But I am done trying!!!

Thought you were out?

I will check back in 3 months, you are not worth the time regurgitating BS you don't understand (but think you do, that is the scary part)

OUT!

 

[Gaea]

Take out the GDP adjust created by pure technology............that is what we are talking about, what ends up in peoples bank accounts/Net Worth. Tech = everyday Joe is paid LESS/Less Net Worth from the same 'growth'. But like every standard lib, you don't give a sh1t about the real world, just as long as you can indoctrinate the dumba$$ with propaganda.

Sorry, but just because we have technological advancements doesn't mean that GDP/capita growth magically stops happening.

Technology doesn't mean "everyday Joe is paid less" either. "everyday Joe is paid less" because wages have stagnated while the top quintile (and especially the top 0.1%) of income earners have been taking home all of the pay. And that is a consequence of cutting taxes on the wealthiest individuals in the country.

 

[Chainsaw]

Thought you were out?

You are right!!!! I will do YOU the favor and NOT reply to your mis-education for 3 months. As hard as it is. Please remind me, cuz your learnin' is so easy.........

 

[austrianecon]

Social security is a government agency that holds government bonds, and those bonds will eventually be paid by the government. The government holds both the assets and the liabilities, so their position nets to zero. Money comes in, money goes out. It does not get saved, because the government is not able to save in their own currency.

SS assets don't belong to payees unless and until they start to collect.

Do you even read what you wrote? US Government is borrowing from SSA to cover shortfalls. That by DEFINITION is covering a deficit and kicking that deficit down the road. At the end of the day that DEBT has to pay paid back to SSA so SSA can continue to payout retirement and disability payments.

SS assets do belong to the payees.. it's why it's called a TRUST. Maybe you should learn what the legal term means: A trust is a fiduciary relationship in which one party, known as a trustor, gives another party, the trustee, the right to hold title to property or assets for the benefit of a third party, the beneficiary.

 

[Chainsaw]

Sorry, but just because we have technological advancements doesn't mean that GDP/capita growth magically stops happening.

Technology doesn't mean "everyday Joe is paid less" either. "everyday Joe is paid less" because wages have stagnated while the top quintile (and especially the top 0.1%) of income earners have been taking home all of the pay. And that is a consequence of cutting taxes on the wealthiest individuals in the country.

I will be damned. You don't think that when 3-10 joes are replaced by one computer controlled robot that makes the same GPD output, it doesn't 'compute' to the GDP on Main-Street? Based on that 'logic' I will be a changin' my thinkin'. You may want to ask what remaining auto workers are left in Detroit........and if they fear for being replaced.

 

[austrianecon]

Social Security bonds are an intragovernmental liability. It is a potential asset, which is why it is social insurance.

It's not an intragovernmental lability as it's borrowing from a Trust in which the Trust is legally obligated to certain duties that say DoE is not. It's also not Social Insurance and hasn't be since 1984 (official in 1986) when the Federal Government changed the status of Social Security to a retirement status in FERS (Federal Employees Retirement System) when it forced all FERS members to be part of Social Security. Anybody who had less then 5 years of Federal service was forced into Social Security which makes Social Security 1/3rd of their retirement package.

mmi knows about this.

 

[Gaea]

It's not common sense. Common sense is to treat account's separately. Then the Government borrows for the Trust and reflects in deficit as the Trust is lending to the Government. Under Unified budget this important point is missed. Government is liable for the money it borrows from Social Security every year which means future deficits costs which will surprise many in the future (near future).

Maybe you can explain to me - what exactly is the issue you have with intragovernmental debt?

When the government borrows money from the social security trust fund, it pays the interest to the social security trust fund. In other words, the only expense associated with borrowing is a revenue for the lending. So what's the problem?

 

[mmi]

everyday Joe is paid LESS/Less Net Worth from the same 'growth'.

Wages have been increasing at a steady and more or less accelerating rate for the past four years.



>>like every standard lib, you don't give a sh1t about the real world

Real in what sense?

>>indoctrinate the dumba$$ with propaganda.

Is that what happened to you?

I will check back in 3 months

Don't hurry back on our account.

It's a farce and an accounting trick. In accounting principles one account is separate then another.

The accounts are separate.

>>you can't do Commingling to cover company loses

That's not what's being done. Public debt is not the same as intragovernmental debt. You want them kept "separate" don't you?

Treasury keeps very careful records. Notice that intragovernmental debt is included in the national debt figure it publishes monthly. It's not included in the deficit because it's not money that the gubmint is required to pay back, but rather borrowing from the trust fund surpluses. That money is the gubmint's, and since we the people are the gubmint, it's our money.

We do have a moral and political obligation to keep the trust funds solvent, and ask yerself which political party and which ideology is more committed to living up to that obligation. Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system, and it's what ya might call "formalised." But is it at all realistic to expect that we won't be collecting taxes in future years to pay for things like public education and national defence? They're sort of pay-as-you-go as well.

You shouldn't feel bad that the reported deficits aren't as large as they are in yer mind — you have that debt clock and $19 TRILLION to holler about. Now if we can just stop electing RW Republicans who created that mountain of debt with their massive and unproductive tax cut giveaways to wealthy households, their dangerously irresponsible and highly destructive deregulation of the financial sector, and their reckless and very expensive overseas military misadventures … we'll be a lot better off.

>>future deficits costs which will surprise many in the future

Not if we stop allowing RWers to do so much damage to the economy and the gubmint's finances.

mamma's basement learnin'!!!!!

Yeah, we've seen it here before.

>>I am done trying!!!

You keep saying that but you don't go away.

it's called a TRUST.

And hopefully voters are beginning to realise who can be trusted and who can't.

Anybody who had less then 5 years of Federal service was forced into Social Security … mmi knows about this.

I don't have retirement coverage outside of SS. Do ya like me a little bit more now?

 

[austrianecon]

The government isn't a private, for profit, corporation that has shareholders.

No, the Government changed the rules for themselves.

Maybe? There is a strong possibility that the income cap will be lifted, and it will reduce most shortfalls up until 2032.

There is no possibility of income caps being lifted. Wasn't lifted 1993-1994 or 2009-2010. It also actually solves nothing in the long run, rather it delays the reality that earning 2% on those special treasury bonds is a joke... It would also reduce other federal income tax collections... it's another shell game scam (or Robbing Peter to pay Paul).

 

[Gaea]

I will be damned. You don't think that when 3-10 joes are replaced by one computer controlled robot that makes the same GPD output, it doesn't 'compute' to the GDP on Main-Street? Based on that 'logic' I will be a changin' my thinkin'. You may want to ask what remaining auto workers are left in Detroit........and if they fear for being replaced.

Depends on the worker. There are far fewer job opportunities for unskilled labor than in the past. But as technology has progressed, we've had new jobs open up as a result.

 

[Chainsaw]

Depends on the worker. There are far fewer job opportunities for unskilled labor than in the past. But as technology has progressed, we've had new jobs open up as a result.

Like serving you coffee at Starbucks???? The liberal/dem indoctrination is complete!!!

 

[mmi]

Like serving you coffee at Starbucks???? The liberal/dem indoctrination is complete!!!

Still here making a fool of yerself?

In Mar 2010, employment in professional and business services was 16.5 million, and it's now expanded to 20.1 million, a 22% increase. Overall private sector employment is up from 107.4 million to 121.8 million, a 13.4% increase.

So those on-average, higher-paying jobs are substantially overrepresented in the employment gains achieved over the past six years. One in four of the new jobs added during that period are in business and professional services.

In 2015, there were 870K workers paid the MW, and 1.7 million paid less than that. In 2010, there were 1.8 million paid MW, and 2.5 million paid less. So the number of very-low-wage employees fell by forty percent over that period.