The Tea Party Movement

[TheMulletMutilator]

That's pretty much all it boils to, a big cry of MINE MINE MINE. Evidence carefully chosen to rationalize the idea, theories cherry-picked to justify it.

Even a lot of Democrats concede that the Bush Tax cuts should be extended for at least a year. It is dumb to raise taxes in a recession. As for his money, he can do what he wants with it. Something tells me he will spend some of it some way or another. Hopefully at that time it isn't used on the study of monkeys using cocaine or reducing hot flashes through yoga. But he is free to do that if he wishes with his money. I just doubt many people do that. The government certainly does.

 

[sirkickyass]

https://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

Did you actually read the article this time?

First off, Steiner is a layperson and his analysis is overly simplistic as a result; relying only on looking at the Treasure website. In essence, he's engaging in straight cash accounting. He's essentially relying on the difference between the CBO analysis (which factcheck gives) and the Tresury's ledger number (which is what your source gives). This allows him to double-count all debt that the government owes to itself.

Your source goes out of his way to state that Clinton did pay down the public debt. The reason the cash accounting numbers make it appear the debt got larger is because the Social Security Administration purchased US Treasury securities. Thus, your source is actually engaging in the accounting trick, rather than the other way around. He gets to count excess money that was not spent as "debt" because it was used to buy US Treasury securities.

If you read the article, he's not even hiding the ball on the stunt.

Factcheck, and the CBO estimates it relies upon, on the other hand correctly calculate that not as full debt but as intra-governmental debt that is properly valued for its long term debt consequences only at the expected value of the yield on the securities. The principal value effectively doesn't matter because that is money the government owes to itself.

Factcheck went out of its way to dispel the social security as accounting trick argument:

Clinton's large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn't counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

He is playing the race card, homophobia card, and islamaphobia card. They all do.

Where did candrew play the card?

 

[TheMulletMutilator]

Did you actually read the article this time?

First off, Steiner is a layperson and his analysis is overly simplistic as a result; relying only on looking at the Treasure website. In essence, he's engaging in straight cash accounting. He's essentially relying on the difference between the CBO analysis (which factcheck gives) and the Tresury's ledger number (which is what your source gives). This allows him to double-count all debt that the government owes to itself.

Your source goes out of his way to state that Clinton did pay down the public debt. The reason the cash accounting numbers make it appear the debt got larger is because the Social Security Administration purchased US Treasury securities. Thus, your source is actually engaging in the accounting trick, rather than the other way around. He gets to count excess money that was not spent as "debt" because it was used to buy US Treasury securities.

If you read the article, he's not even hiding the ball on the stunt.

Factcheck, and the CBO estimates it relies upon, on the other hand correctly calculate that not as full debt but as intra-governmental debt that is properly valued for its long term debt consequences only at the expected value of the yield on the securities. The principal value effectively doesn't matter because that is money the government owes to itself.

Factcheck went out of its way to dispel the social security as accounting trick argument:





Where did candrew play the card?

A couple of things you are missing. You keep saying Clinton. It wasn't just Clinton. Look at the numbers prior 1994. 18 billion might not be a ton of money but it means there was no balance. It is a common misconception that there was.

 

[NAOS]

Yes, let's completely stop paying any attention to economic reality and listen only to windbags huffing and puffing for more and more and more control. Economic illiteracy is great! Look where it's gotten us.

I'm sure you're going to rant about a service lead economy next, and follow that up with cost of living nonsense.

Absolutely NOWHERE did I suggest we stop paying attention to the economic reality. In fact, I'm saying that we need to may more attention to the MATERIAL reality of local, national, and international economic manifestations.

You, I guess, are an UTTER fool.

 

[NAOS]

There was a time when Unions were necessary. Now they are just ridiculous and out of control. rather than giving up something for all members to keep their job they fight tooth and nail and see reductions in the work force because of it. Perfect example...

I'm not even going to watch the video because I refuse to play your game of "all unions are the same." That is a jagged pill you swallowed.

 

[NAOS]

When in doubt as always the critics will pull out the race card as well as homophobia. Sad really.

Shut up whitey.

 

[NAOS]

This is a chart of the percentage share of the national income that the top 1% receives over the last 100 years.

As you can see, income inequality is presently the highest it's been since the late 1920s.

Clearly those people are really hurting and need their tax cuts made permanent.

You, Sir, are a big wet *** blanket.

 

[NAOS]

Have you ever seen a poor person hire a workforce and pay them? You may not like the idea of giving tax breaks to the wealthy but truthfully, who creates the jobs in this country? Also what percentage of total tax revenue does that top 1% pay? How about the top 5%? Redistribution of wealth is a nice concept until it makes everyone poor.

What do you see here:

This dude sees a giant job-creating machine!!!!

 

[TheMulletMutilator]

What do you see here:

This dude sees a giant job-creating machine!!!!

I see a large mansion that a man or woman had to purchase. He or she also has to hire a gardener to keep the lawn nice and cut. Oh don't forget that it is nice and white with no sign of paint peeling so he or she has to have the place painted once in awhile. I also assume that he or she has some kind of staff which may include maids and or a kitchen staff. Not to mention that if this person has this kind of house it is likely they have some nice cars as well. Maybe this is just one of their houses. I also see a commission for the person who sold them this mansion if they didn't inherit it. Just because you see a rich person's mansion doesn't mean there isn't more to it than that.

 

[Scat]

I'm not even going to watch the video because I refuse to play your game of "all unions are the same." That is a jagged pill you swallowed.

You say you're an educator? You should watch it. It deals specifically with a teacher's union.

 

[franklin]

Your source goes out of his way to state that Clinton did pay down the public debt. The reason the cash accounting numbers make it appear the debt got larger is because the Social Security Administration purchased US Treasury securities. Thus, your source is actually engaging in the accounting trick, rather than the other way around. He gets to count excess money that was not spent as "debt" because it was used to buy US Treasury securities.

If you read the article, he's not even hiding the ball on the stunt.

Factcheck, and the CBO estimates it relies upon, on the other hand correctly calculate that not as full debt but as intra-governmental debt that is properly valued for its long term debt consequences only at the expected value of the yield on the securities. The principal value effectively doesn't matter because that is money the government owes to itself.

You're making the circular argument that government borrowing from itself is not actually debt because it purchased marketable securities from itself that are only valuable if it can redeem them sometime in the future. Or in other words, it's not debt as long as we, the US, can raise the promised money in the future by taxing. We borrow from ourselves, spend the money, and you're telling TMM that factcheck dispelled this "myth"? That's pretty damned circular.

 

[Scat]

You're making the circular argument that government borrowing from itself is not actually debt because it purchased marketable securities from itself that are only valuable if it can redeem them sometime in the future. Or in other words, it's not debt as long as we, the US, can raise the promised money in the future by taxing. We borrow from ourselves, spend the money, and you're telling TMM that factcheck dispelled this "myth"? That's pretty damned circular.

It's known as kiting where you write yourself a check out of an account that has no money. Then you deposit into that account a check from another account that has no money. As long as you can keep depositing checks into the accounts to cover the checks you have written you never need any real money. What's wrong with that?

 

[NAOS]

It's known as kiting where you write yourself a check out of an account that has no money. Then you deposit into that account a check from another account that has no money. As long as you can keep depositing checks into the accounts to cover the checks you have written you never need any real money. What's wrong with that?

What is money? I'm serious.

 

[TheMulletMutilator]

What is money? I'm serious.

If we are talking about the dollar then it is now diminishing into glorified toilet paper. But gold is on the rise.... You just better hire a security team to guard your stash of it though.

 

[franklin]

Who creates jobs? Everyone. Demand is a necessary component in the creation of the demand for labor. If no one can afford ipods, Apple doesn't exist and there are no jobs for Apple employees.

Where your reasoning really breaks down is in the marginal analysis. The consensus of economic studies presently is that the wealthy tend to save tax gains rather than spending them, meaning that your position that less taxes on the wealthy is creating jobs is simply false. However, tax breaks on the middle and lower classes tend to get spent in the larger economy. In effect, you get a bigger bang for your tax break because the tax break is consumed by lower classes and not utilized by the wealthiest 1%.

Not exactly. You correctly note current consensus about where stimulating is most effective. The first half is big picture blind, ignoring aggregate demand. There is no current economic consensus regarding the effects of rich saving more. You've incorrectly extrapolated a conclusion based on limited input into a highly complex model--the economy. You've ignored "big picture" benefits of rich saving more, which pushes borrowing rates lower, which is highly stimulative. Arguing against this is an argument against our entire economic machine. Interest rates are the main tool used to control economic growth (since no longer seem to believe in raising taxes during the good times). They're also what the current consensus says will help the middle class. There are dissenters over Federal Reserve policy and currently low rates. These arguments, however, are not arguments against the benefits of low rates. They're attacking the detrimental effects only.

In sum, your supply argument is empirically denied. Tax cuts for the lower and middle classes, however, empirically stimulate demand. And greater demand means more jobs.

This was big in word and small in substance. Empirically, of course.

 

[franklin]

If you mean the current economic meltdown, it started with the removal of a lot of controls during the last couple of years in the Clinton administration. The resulting boom-bust cycle is an almost predictable result, compare the ecnomic behaviro of the US in teh second half of the 19th century (contrast with the second half of the 20th, when the controls were in place). Your comment on economic illiteracy are nothing more than ironic.

Why are you arguing with me about something I haven't commented on? The lefty fundamentalist that you are, I'll do you a favor and insist that the current economic meltdown started with the right's political prophet, Pope Ronny. RR started the borrow and spend boom that no president since was able to stop without being thrown out of office. Maybe Bush 1 tried, but they booted him when he lied. Read my lips. Every president since continued the trend until KABOOM! it blew up under Bush 2's watch. That's the debt game, but we make ourselves feel better by blaming it on our favorite political boogey man.

Politicians attempt to skirt recessions and take credit for the outcome by borrowing and spending to offset declines. It's a drug addiction. Repubs are just as Keynesian with their military stimulus, but they won't admit it. Did Clinton balance the budget or not? Who really gives a ****. He was able to raise taxes in a strong economy. Big ****ing deal. That's really no different than the Fed raising interest rates. It's a different tool that accomplishes the same goal of controlling the economic growth rate, err inflation. It's all about control in a system that was built to requires such controls. If you're a righty then go read Milton Friedman's views on counter-cyclical policy. If you're a lefty then read Keynes views on counter-cyclical policy. Then, whatever you are, read the other major side right after.

 

[DeliveryBoy]

In the 50's and 60's they were the John Birch Society. In the 60's and 70's, they were the Silent Majority. In the 80's and 90's, they were the militia movement. Now they're the Tea Party.

Absolutely nothing is new about this. It's a bunch of dumb, unhinged white right wingers that have convinced themselves that their views are a lot more common than they actually are. They just have much better media coverage this time.

Also, anyone that lived through the Bush administration and still thinks there "is no difference between Democrats and Republicans" needs to see a psychiatrist immediately.

 

[TheMulletMutilator]

In the 50's and 60's they were the John Birch Society. In the 60's and 70's, they were the Silent Majority. In the 80's and 90's, they were the militia movement. Now they're the Tea Party.

Absolutely nothing is new about this. It's a bunch of dumb, unhinged white right wingers that have convinced themselves that their views are a lot more common than they actually are. They just have much better media coverage this time.

Also, anyone that lived through the Bush administration and still thinks there "is no difference between Democrats and Republicans" needs to see a psychiatrist immediately.

https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38558455/

I guess this ruins your myth of dumb white right wingers....

 

[NAOS]

If we are talking about the dollar then it is now diminishing into glorified toilet paper. But gold is on the rise.... You just better hire a security team to guard your stash of it though.

I was serious. What is money? Don't give that gold standard bull**** and then sweep it under the rug. You can't hide behind an abstraction (that's been my whole point). Also, while your at it, tell me why the perfect system isn't a bunch of black markets. Thanks.

 

[TheMulletMutilator]

I was serious. What is money? Don't give that gold standard bull**** and then sweep it under the rug. You can't hide behind an abstraction (that's been my whole point). Also, while your at it, tell me why the perfect system isn't a bunch of black markets. Thanks.

Wow, I was being very cordial and joking around with you. I guess someone needs a lesson in manners.