Cool so the Social Security trust fund bonds aren't a debt? The Federal Government doesn't have to pay that back? Really? Sorry - it's a debt. And the links I posted said as much. You've posted nothing but saying "well if we pay it back then it's no longer a debt"... And? it's a debt until then. That's the fact.
Look at the current year - Oct 1 2015 to today. It's over $1.2 trillion and counting. And the last Bush budget? That was FY2007. Nothing was passed after that - per Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid (who ran Congress).
Should I be celebrating that we're only going an additional half trillion dollars into debt every year now?
When Obama took over the White House, we were running a deficit FOUR TIMES what we're running now.
BS. Back that claim up. The actual facts show the current real deficit is nearly as high as its ever been. Equal to that when President Obama was sworn in - larger than any deficit pre-Obama, actually...
What, are you saying we do NOT owe that money, it's not committed expenditures? I know if we used a GAAP approach we'd be over $120 trillion, but assuming we slough off future SS payments to those not currently collecting, we still need about $19.4 trillion today.
Of the $19.4 trillion, what do you claim we do not owe?
Seems like a pretty solid methodology to me. Even Time Magazine, no conservative outlet, notes that the official CPI is quite a bit lower than other oft-used measures of inflation, and that the CPI calculation has been tweaked consistently for the last several decades.
Yeah. Current (as of July 12, 2016) the national debt is $19.37 trillion. On October 1, 2015, it was $18.15 trillion. So that's an increase of $1.22 trillion in 9.5 months. That'll probably reach around $1.4 trillion. Oh, yeah, it's not the "on budget" deficit that's bandied about in the media, but it's the REAL deficit - it's spending above revenues. That which adds debt.
no, its those who keep thinking we are stopping him because of his color and not his horrible horrible policy is flat out racebaiting scumbaggary
Horrible policy? He's the first president since WWII that hasn't taken the nation into a recession. Instead, he took the nation out of one and there has been steady, if slow, growth every quarter since.
Only if you fudge the inflation numbers (which this Administration has been doing). Run the numbers with the same CPI calculations as used back in the 70s and 80s and you'll find inflation is running about 7-8%, and that puts the economy still in a recession.
But hey, it's OK we're still running a real deficit of $1.4 trillion, annually, so it's all good!
How do you determine what "real" GDP growth is? Again, you seem to imply that how it was done in the 1970's and 1980's were the "correct way".
If you're going to draw comparisons between different decades, you need a standard measurement. Keep the way inflation was calculated, and you'd find the GDP would be about 10% lower - because that's the impact of inflation on it. And by that measure - we're still in the recession that started in 2007.
All I hear is that people "feel" like they aren't as well off compared to some rose-colored memory of decades past. That "feeling", of course, is greatly affected by what kind of narrative their favorite media source paints.
Artificial is to change the measure so that your GDP appears to grow faster than it really does. Inflation scales down the GDP growth rate, and calculating inflation is - as you rightfully point out - a fairly fuzzy function. However, if you want to talk about ending a recession, or the "best GDP growth in decades" you should use the same measures and ways of calculating your variables - not change them from Administration to Administration.
If we used the 1980 inflation metric, we'd see inflation is not at the 1% level claimed now, but around 9%. That brings the GDP growth way down, especially over the last several years, and we'd find that rather than having a GDP growing by 2-3% per year as claimed, we'd actually have a slowly shrinking GDP. Meaning we'd still be in a recession (as defined pre-1990s). That would change the narrative in the media - and might be politically untenable for the current group of fools in DC.
I think a LOT of the tension in the US right now is because of the constant media narrative of "we're doing great! See how wonderful DC is to the rest of you?" versus the actual results felt by the average person. Stagnant wages, ever-increasing costs, lack of jobs. It's a LOT easier, emotionally, when you're struggling but you also know everyone else is as well, and you're all trying to work for something better. When all you're told is that everything is fine, there is not problem, and YOU lose your job or your house or start missing payments on bills - it feels like it's just YOU and it's you against everyone else.
An honest, consistent metric for inflation would show that.
Fudge inflation numbers (artificially calculate them as low - like we're doing relative to the 1980 metric) and the GDP will rise. Inflation factors in to the nominal GDP, and understating inflation will cause the nominal GDP to overstated.
If we used the same inflation metric as back in the 1970s and 1980s we'd still be officially in a recession - since 2006. And if you look at the stock market and correct for the 70s/80s inflation metric, you'd see it's basically flat since 2007 as well. We're "doing well" in the stock simply because of the massive influx of cash from the Federal Reserve, and it's papered over as "good" by fudging the inflation and unemployment numbers.
No, this is about bitcoin in China and China's much more about the pork. You can get beef, but it's the pig that powers the bellies of China. So it should be:
You are all pigs. Pigs say oink. OOOOOINK! OOOOOINK! Oink pigs OOOOOINK! Oink say the pigs. YOU PIGS!
You're complaining that the editors got something 100% right? I mean, they've got some even simpler stuff utterly wrong before. I mean, look at the Self-Driving Tesla Owners Share Videos of Reckless Driving story: somehow, a Volvo engineer became a Volvo driver!
Well, to be honest, there's a good chance that the Volvo engineer DOES drive a Volvo, so...
The Federal Government itself says it wastes over 7 TIMES as much as the entire NASA budget, every year. Medicare, Medicaid, and EITC fraud alone is $95 billion a year.
Well to be honest, it can IDENTIFY many topics at one time, but it's proven to be unable to handle even one topic at a time... Pretty ineffective, overall.
Read the link I provided. It will show you that fuel taxes from cars are a net income relative to spending on highways. It's funding of passenger trains (more than just AMTRAK - there are Federal subsidies for commuter/light rail), buses and to a much lesser extent, airplanes. That's the point. But it doesn't fit your pre-determined conclusions (we need more taxes!) so...
Yes, because transportation spending is overwhelmingly going to public transport (NOT a Federal issue) and AMTRAK/rail. It is not going back to the source of the income. Get rid of those expenses and you'd find more than enough money to maintain roads.
Who says that's not how it's supposed to be? Perhaps that is the commodity one country can offer. Small places like Gibralter, Isle of Man, Seychelles - not a lot of natural resources, and extremely limited populations. They have nothing much to offer other than financial services - and they do that very well. But I guess if you want to do the modern liberal colonialism and dictate what sovereign nations should do, then give it a shot. Don't be surprised though when it goes nowhere...
Neither of your links address what mine does (well, your second one hints at it): diversion of funds from vehicles/road use to public transport causes. Cut that back and you wouldn't have the deficit in the transportation funds. The Federal Government consistently takes monies from sale of gasoline for personal vehicles and spends it on infrastructure projects and transportation initiatives not related to personal vehicles.
Slashdot Mirror
FY2008 was never signed, it was submitted but that was it. FY2009 was signed by President Obama. Thus FY2007 was the last Bush signed budget. You don't know of what you speak.
Cool so the Social Security trust fund bonds aren't a debt? The Federal Government doesn't have to pay that back? Really? Sorry - it's a debt. And the links I posted said as much. You've posted nothing but saying "well if we pay it back then it's no longer a debt"... And? it's a debt until then. That's the fact.
Look at the current year - Oct 1 2015 to today. It's over $1.2 trillion and counting. And the last Bush budget? That was FY2007. Nothing was passed after that - per Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid (who ran Congress).
When Obama took over the White House, we were running a deficit FOUR TIMES what we're running now.
BS. Back that claim up. The actual facts show the current real deficit is nearly as high as its ever been. Equal to that when President Obama was sworn in - larger than any deficit pre-Obama, actually...
Oh and about Obama having high approval? In the latest Quinnipiac poll he's considered the worst of all Presidents post WW II.
Not only is it part of the deficit, it's the biggest part of our debt.
What, are you saying we do NOT owe that money, it's not committed expenditures? I know if we used a GAAP approach we'd be over $120 trillion, but assuming we slough off future SS payments to those not currently collecting, we still need about $19.4 trillion today.
Of the $19.4 trillion, what do you claim we do not owe?
Seems like a pretty solid methodology to me. Even Time Magazine, no conservative outlet, notes that the official CPI is quite a bit lower than other oft-used measures of inflation, and that the CPI calculation has been tweaked consistently for the last several decades.
Yeah. Current (as of July 12, 2016) the national debt is $19.37 trillion. On October 1, 2015, it was $18.15 trillion. So that's an increase of $1.22 trillion in 9.5 months. That'll probably reach around $1.4 trillion. Oh, yeah, it's not the "on budget" deficit that's bandied about in the media, but it's the REAL deficit - it's spending above revenues. That which adds debt.
Horrible policy? He's the first president since WWII that hasn't taken the nation into a recession. Instead, he took the nation out of one and there has been steady, if slow, growth every quarter since.
Only if you fudge the inflation numbers (which this Administration has been doing). Run the numbers with the same CPI calculations as used back in the 70s and 80s and you'll find inflation is running about 7-8%, and that puts the economy still in a recession.
But hey, it's OK we're still running a real deficit of $1.4 trillion, annually, so it's all good!
So, if she doesn't flip Ohio and Florida - who wins?
the same way they obstructed Obama for the last eight years.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid just cried a little bit as you forgot the years they ran Congress...
How do you determine what "real" GDP growth is? Again, you seem to imply that how it was done in the 1970's and 1980's were the "correct way".
If you're going to draw comparisons between different decades, you need a standard measurement. Keep the way inflation was calculated, and you'd find the GDP would be about 10% lower - because that's the impact of inflation on it. And by that measure - we're still in the recession that started in 2007.
All I hear is that people "feel" like they aren't as well off compared to some rose-colored memory of decades past. That "feeling", of course, is greatly affected by what kind of narrative their favorite media source paints.
Lowest labor force participation rate in 2 generations. Record levels of food stamps use. Record numbers on welfare. Stagnant wages. A Federal Government adding $4 billion in debt every day. It's not all roses now, not at all...
Artificial is to change the measure so that your GDP appears to grow faster than it really does. Inflation scales down the GDP growth rate, and calculating inflation is - as you rightfully point out - a fairly fuzzy function. However, if you want to talk about ending a recession, or the "best GDP growth in decades" you should use the same measures and ways of calculating your variables - not change them from Administration to Administration.
If we used the 1980 inflation metric, we'd see inflation is not at the 1% level claimed now, but around 9%. That brings the GDP growth way down, especially over the last several years, and we'd find that rather than having a GDP growing by 2-3% per year as claimed, we'd actually have a slowly shrinking GDP. Meaning we'd still be in a recession (as defined pre-1990s). That would change the narrative in the media - and might be politically untenable for the current group of fools in DC.
I think a LOT of the tension in the US right now is because of the constant media narrative of "we're doing great! See how wonderful DC is to the rest of you?" versus the actual results felt by the average person. Stagnant wages, ever-increasing costs, lack of jobs. It's a LOT easier, emotionally, when you're struggling but you also know everyone else is as well, and you're all trying to work for something better. When all you're told is that everything is fine, there is not problem, and YOU lose your job or your house or start missing payments on bills - it feels like it's just YOU and it's you against everyone else.
An honest, consistent metric for inflation would show that.
Fudge inflation numbers (artificially calculate them as low - like we're doing relative to the 1980 metric) and the GDP will rise. Inflation factors in to the nominal GDP, and understating inflation will cause the nominal GDP to overstated.
If we used the same inflation metric as back in the 1970s and 1980s we'd still be officially in a recession - since 2006. And if you look at the stock market and correct for the 70s/80s inflation metric, you'd see it's basically flat since 2007 as well. We're "doing well" in the stock simply because of the massive influx of cash from the Federal Reserve, and it's papered over as "good" by fudging the inflation and unemployment numbers.
No, no we're people. We don't have souls, but we are people!
No, this is about bitcoin in China and China's much more about the pork. You can get beef, but it's the pig that powers the bellies of China. So it should be:
You are all pigs. Pigs say oink. OOOOOINK! OOOOOINK! Oink pigs OOOOOINK! Oink say the pigs. YOU PIGS!
You're complaining that the editors got something 100% right? I mean, they've got some even simpler stuff utterly wrong before. I mean, look at the Self-Driving Tesla Owners Share Videos of Reckless Driving story: somehow, a Volvo engineer became a Volvo driver!
Well, to be honest, there's a good chance that the Volvo engineer DOES drive a Volvo, so...
The Federal Government itself says it wastes over 7 TIMES as much as the entire NASA budget, every year. Medicare, Medicaid, and EITC fraud alone is $95 billion a year.
Well to be honest, it can IDENTIFY many topics at one time, but it's proven to be unable to handle even one topic at a time... Pretty ineffective, overall.
Read the link I provided. It will show you that fuel taxes from cars are a net income relative to spending on highways. It's funding of passenger trains (more than just AMTRAK - there are Federal subsidies for commuter/light rail), buses and to a much lesser extent, airplanes. That's the point. But it doesn't fit your pre-determined conclusions (we need more taxes!) so...
Yes, because transportation spending is overwhelmingly going to public transport (NOT a Federal issue) and AMTRAK/rail. It is not going back to the source of the income. Get rid of those expenses and you'd find more than enough money to maintain roads.
Who says that's not how it's supposed to be? Perhaps that is the commodity one country can offer. Small places like Gibralter, Isle of Man, Seychelles - not a lot of natural resources, and extremely limited populations. They have nothing much to offer other than financial services - and they do that very well. But I guess if you want to do the modern liberal colonialism and dictate what sovereign nations should do, then give it a shot. Don't be surprised though when it goes nowhere...
Neither of your links address what mine does (well, your second one hints at it): diversion of funds from vehicles/road use to public transport causes. Cut that back and you wouldn't have the deficit in the transportation funds. The Federal Government consistently takes monies from sale of gasoline for personal vehicles and spends it on infrastructure projects and transportation initiatives not related to personal vehicles.