Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

...a surplus held in gov't bonds that have to be paid for by present/future tax revenue. In other words, there is no social security surplus.

It's amazing that there are still people who believe in the mirage known as the social security surplus, eh? Like most everything else, it's been plundered for current gain, to the detriment of the future.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

It's amazing that there are still people who believe in the mirage known as the social security surplus, eh? Like most everything else, it's been plundered for current gain, to the detriment of the future.

It's like supply side economics. Despite the preponderance of evidence, there will always be people who want to believe in it so strongly that their conviction is unfalsifiable.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

It's amazing that there are still people who believe in the mirage known as the social security surplus, eh? Like most everything else, it's been plundered for current gain, to the detriment of the future.

The Baby Boomers perfected that line of thinking to an art form.

 

[Tundra]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

SS actually paid out more than it took in last year. It has a surplus of IOUs, but I don't think those are worth too much.

I know it went negative recently. But it's strange to say SS surplus doesn't exist because they bought US treasury instead of other assets. If that's the case then you need to take out the $2trillion IOU bought by SS and say our national debt is only $10 trillion instead of $12trillion. No wonder banks get away with so much smoke and mirrors not to mention our politicians and pundits. if people can be so easily fooled.

I thought this was funny. Irish finance minister in 2008... harping about cheap guarantees and 2 years later Ireland needs.... a bailout.

We actually took worst of both worlds, total guarantee, no control. And spent money out the wazoo $700billion TARP, $150billion Tax break (takeover bank law), $2trillion secret toxic asset purchase by Fed.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2008/1024/1224715115776.html

Fri 10 Oct 2008
Irish bailout cheapest in world, says Lenihan

MINISTER FOR Finance Brian Lenihan has said the bank guarantee scheme was "a necessary first step" and "the cheapest bailout in the world so far".

Mr Lenihan said the guarantee was "the cheapest bailout" compared with bank rescues in other countries, including the UK and the US, where "billions and billions of taxpayers' money are being poured into financial institutions".

Lets hope our total cost will much much lower than Japan, although I've noticed most of our cost is hidden under Fed program. And I don't see them opening their books anytime soon to congress or peon taxpayers.

http://www.moneyweek.com/news-and-charts/economics/bank-bailouts-helping-or-hindering.aspx

3. Japan's Lost Decade: The 1996 rescue of Japan's zombie banks cost more than $100 billion in public funds. Two years later, the Obuchi Plan spent another $500bn of taxpayers' money � some 12% of Japan's GDP � on loan losses, bank recapitalizations and depositor protection.

 

[Tundra]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

I agree with the republicans about Obamacare. Instead of focusing on our financial and the unemployment it wrought and the mountain of debt,
our president fixated on the looming healthcare costs. which is a problem in the FUTURE. Same with the Republicans fixation on Social Security which is even more distant FUTURE problem.

How can we ignore the problem right in our faces. "The worst financial crisis since the great depression" and go after FUTURE liability in medi/SS.

I'm shocked the Irish finance minister hasn't gotten fired yet.

Fri 10 Oct 2008Irish bailout cheapest in world, says Lenihan

MINISTER FOR Finance Brian Lenihan has said the bank guarantee scheme was "a necessary first step" and "the cheapest bailout in the world so far".

Irish Finance Minister Brian Lenihan insisted his government needed no money itself because it's fully funded through mid-2011. But Lenihan said he would welcome a "contingency capital fund" -- a backstop for the country's troubled banks -- effectively an overdraft or credit line.

"The banks grew to such a size that they became too unmanageable for the state itself. That's the big difficulty here. ... And it's clear that we will need some form of external assistance to address the difficulties," Lenihan said at the conclusion of daylong talks at the Irish Central Bank.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

The Baby Boomers, the most selfish generation to grace the planet, have now started getting their government written Social Security and Medicaid checks. Bankruptcy is inevitable. They drove us to it while they've been in power, and now they're going to finish the job.

... and yet if anyone dares to suggest even minor changes (capping/recalculating benefit increases, gradually raising the retirement age, means testing benefits, expanding social security taxes on benefits), the senior citizens' lobby spouts off its alarmist rhetoric about how the government wants the poor to starve to death or die (despite the fact the elderly have the highest net worth of any demographic and are being funded by payroll taxes from people who are generally worse off than they are).

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

... and yet if anyone dares to suggest even minor changes (capping/recalculating benefit increases, gradually raising the retirement age, means testing benefits, expanding social security taxes on benefits), the senior citizens' lobby spouts off its alarmist rhetoric about how the government wants the poor to starve to death or die (despite the fact the elderly have the highest net worth of any demographic and are being funded by payroll taxes from people who are generally worse off than they are).

Well, what else would you expect from selfish people? The rich people of that generation ESPECIALLY (heard many interviews on this) look forward to, and will collect their social security checks despite the fact that they have more money then they can spend.

There is no way out of this box. Future generations are forked.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Bottom line is spending is spending. One can always justify it if they work hard enough at it.but only if it doesn't effect me!"

Very broad brush there. There is considerable spending that is critical...and other that is very wasteful. There are times when the country is bloated and in bubble territory where spending is bad and times when nobody is spending that the govt doing it makes for an important patch. The concern we should be having is the fact that because our government is based on populism and greed, it cant discern between times and places where spending is important...and times and places where its wasteful.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Very broad brush there. There is considerable spending that is critical...and other that is very wasteful. There are times when the country is bloated and in bubble territory where spending is bad and times when nobody is spending that the govt doing it makes for an important patch. The concern we should be having is the fact that because our government is based on populism and greed, it cant discern between times and places where spending is important...and times and places where its wasteful.

Yeah, well, the only thing "bubbling" right now is the national debt. The dotcommers bubbled their money into real estate (esp. in CA), which then bubbled into mortgage companies, which then bubbled into CDOs, and the bubble has finally consolidated once and for all at the Federal Government. There's no where else for it to go - except maybe China...

 

[MattS]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Very broad brush there. There is considerable spending that is critical...and other that is very wasteful. There are times when the country is bloated and in bubble territory where spending is bad and times when nobody is spending that the govt doing it makes for an important patch. The concern we should be having is the fact that because our government is based on populism and greed, it cant discern between times and places where spending is important...and times and places where its wasteful.

Just just made my point over again. What you consider critical I might not. I think that it is better to err on the side of the Gov't being frugal as oppose to what we have now.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Very broad brush there. There is considerable spending that is critical...and other that is very wasteful. There are times when the country is bloated and in bubble territory where spending is bad and times when nobody is spending that the govt doing it makes for an important patch. The concern we should be having is the fact that because our government is based on populism and greed, it cant discern between times and places where spending is important...and times and places where its wasteful.

That's right. You're the one who is always moaning about how spending money to secure our borders is wasteful and shouldn't be paid for the the feds. Yup, you've got a lot of credibility on this subject.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

... and yet if anyone dares to suggest even minor changes (capping/recalculating benefit increases, gradually raising the retirement age, means testing benefits, expanding social security taxes on benefits), the senior citizens' lobby spouts off its alarmist rhetoric about how the government wants the poor to starve to death or die (despite the fact the elderly have the highest net worth of any demographic and are being funded by payroll taxes from people who are generally worse off than they are).

Bottom line is, they really don't care much about the next generations. That's harsh, but they can't all be that blind to not see what such attitudes and resulting policies and spending do to future generations.

 

[MattS]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

That's right. You're the one who is always moaning about how spending money to secure our borders is wasteful and shouldn't be paid for the the feds. Yup, you've got a lot of credibility on this subject.

But...But....that's not CRITICAL spending.....

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Bottom line is, they really don't care much about the next generations. That's harsh, but they can't all be that blind to not see what such attitudes and resulting policies and spending do to future generations.

Wanna bet? Do you understand the definition of selfish?

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Very broad brush there. There is considerable spending that is critical...and other that is very wasteful. There are times when the country is bloated and in bubble territory where spending is bad and times when nobody is spending that the govt doing it makes for an important patch. The concern we should be having is the fact that because our government is based on populism and greed, it cant discern between times and places where spending is important...and times and places where its wasteful.

And, nobody has the spine to take a real leadership stance as they will be voted out of office at the first opportunity, unless they have skeletons in the closet, or are in the closet or have money stashed in the closet...then that will come out the next day.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Wanna bet? Do you understand the definition of selfish?

So you are arguing that they care about future generations, yet knowingly spend their childrens' and grandchildrens' money today? That doesn't jive at all. I don't get what you are saying at all.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

He was responding to your line that "they can't all be that blind" - yes they can. It's called willful ignorance.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Just just made my point over again. What you consider critical I might not. I think that it is better to err on the side of the Gov't being frugal as oppose to what we have now.

Not a point you made: all spending is not created equal...there is a critical role the govt needs to play in basic services and timing is important.

Point of yours that I did make: if the process to get to optimal spending is broken, maybe we err on the side of less spending.

So Matt...I welcome 'fiscal conservatism' yet think its misnamed as often conservatives are not fiscal conservatives. I think it makes sense for one to characterize themself a fiscal conservative...or to be for massive increases in areas of govt like border control...not both. See below...

You're the one who is always moaning about how spending money to secure our borders is wasteful and shouldn't be paid for the the feds.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

He was responding to your line that "they can't all be that blind" - yes they can. It's called willful ignorance.

Willful means there is a choice and awareness, meaning it's not blind.

 

[Tundra]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Yeah, well, the only thing "bubbling" right now is the national debt. The dotcommers bubbled their money into real estate (esp. in CA), which then bubbled into mortgage companies, which then bubbled into CDOs, and the bubble has finally consolidated once and for all at the Federal Government. There's no where else for it to go - except maybe China...

I agree, but China is tightening their credit and raising capital requirements (lowering leverage).

If Federal Reserve BANK is an independent entity, then that's where all our debt is going via printing press. QE2 $600billion.

http://www.uprofish.com/2009/11/qe-gov-bond-yields-and-us/

In the US, purchases via QE are expected to be 12% of US GDP, almost four times the US CA (current account) deficit; in the UK, the BoE has purchased 12% of UK GDP worth of gilts almost five times UK’s CA deficit.

In fact, during 2Q2009, treasury balance increased by $339B and the Fed purchased $164B of it. The Fed purchased 48% of total net issuance! Foreign countries bought $99B or 29% and non-Fed US bought only 23%

Well, looks like Fed realized they are the only ones buying our debt and keeping a lid on interest rate going up. So they are "forced" to do QE2 and putting a lipstick on the pig (JOB CREATION).

So, I think there is a good reason for Barclay’s to worry about the end of QE. The Fed has signaled the end of QE on Nov 5, 2009, with the announcement to cut back agency debt purchase from previous $200B to $175B

It seems that the Fed’s strategy is to keep the short-term rate low but to start withdrawing QE. This will push up long-term rates. How aggressive will the Fed be in ending QE? Global sovereign debt issuance will be bigger in 2010 meaning higher competition