Escape Artists
The Lounge at the End of the Universe => Gallimaufry => Topic started by: Darwinist on April 11, 2008, 01:37:32 PM
-
What do you do when your country is running a massive budget deficit and is fighting a war costing billions of dollars? You send your citizens money, that's what! Here is the schedule when all you US taxpayers can expect your money from "W". Have fun stimulating the economy!
Direct Deposit Payment Schedule
Last 2 digits of your Social Security Number
Deposit should be sent to your bank account by:
00 – 20 May 2
21 – 75 May 9
76 – 99 May 16
Paper Check
Last two digits of your Social Security number:
Your check should be in the mail by:
00 – 09 May 16
10 – 18 May 23
19 – 25 May 30
26 – 38 June 6
39 – 51 June 13
52 – 63 June 20
64 – 75 June 27
76 – 87 July 4
88 – 99 July 11
-
I really wish this country wasn't run by idiots.
We're heading into a recession (or so some think), the dollar is very weak, and inflation is ridiculous. The worst thing to do is print more money, but that's exactly what they're doing. Ugh. We're pretty much stealing that money from our grandchildren.
What the government really needs to do is publish accounting sheets as a whole like any other business is required to do. Income statements, balance sheets, and retained earnings statements. I think it would really help confidence in the government and the economy to see their assets in black and white (or red). I think most people would be amazed at how many assets the US government actually has.
The funny thing is that I am planning on spending the check on a vacation in Ireland this summer. Let's see that help the US economy.
-
What's depressing is the $180 billion that's going out to us would barely make a dent in the national deficit (and I'm not gonna lie: I can really use the money, regardless of the logic (or lack thereof) of sending it out).
Does anyone know if it's possible to refuse tax refunds? For those who are so inclined and can afford to, why don't they just return the money? If I could actually afford to, and only if enough other people could be convinced to do the same, I think I might actually do it. Two humongous, gargantuan "if's," though. There would probably also have to be some contract written up that the money would go towards the deficit. But I have no idea what kind of impact that might have on the economy. I guess the bigger question is, would it even help? Probably not. I don't think it would matter who was in office, I think it would be just an excuse to spend more money. Is there any room for hope? Now I'm depressed as well as tired and cranky (http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=1501.msg24141#msg24141).
-
What's depressing is the $180 billion that's going out to us would barely make a dent in the national deficit (and I'm not gonna lie: I can really use the money, regardless of the logic (or lack thereof) of sending it out).
Or, alternatively, it could pay for about three hours of the War in Iraq.
Does anyone know if it's possible to refuse tax refunds?
Well, if you get a paper cheque, you can not cash it.
-
What the government really needs to do is publish accounting sheets as a whole like any other business is required to do. Income statements, balance sheets, and retained earnings statements. I think it would really help confidence in the government and the economy to see their assets in black and white (or red). I think most people would be amazed at how many assets the US government actually has.
Exactly! We should see this information, it's our frakking tax dollars they're spending. I wish we had a president with some business acumen. If a company ran it's finances like this country upper management would've been looking for a job long ago.
-
Exactly! We should see this information, it's our frakking tax dollars they're spending. I wish we had a president with some business acumen. If a company ran it's finances like this country upper management would've been looking for a job long ago.
Why do they need business acumen when they can just throw money from helicopters and keep the people happy?
I was pretty shocked to find most people share our lack of excitement about the "free" money from the government. Maybe it's just because most people I interact with have a little knowledge of economics, but I have only spoke with one person (my wife's aunt) that thinks this is a good idea. She is the same peron who, when we told her we booked our trip to Ireland, said "I thought you were going to Europe." ::)
Does anyone honestly think this is a good idea?
On a similar note, I'm sure the assets of the US are huge. Think about the value of all the national parks. If the US government were to be liquidated to pay their debts (like a business) there would be plenty of cash at the end of the liquidation. Hell, with the power of eminent domain they could just claim whatever land they needed and sell that off to pay their debts.
-
Have fun stimulating the economy!
What a joke. Most people aren't going to go buy big screen teevees or Xboxes. They're going to pay bills. That's what my wife and I are going to do.
... yeah George, stimulate this. :P
-
I wish we had a president with some business acumen. If a company ran it's finances like this country upper management would've been looking for a job long ago.
Now, I'm admittedly and ashamedly naïve when it comes to politics, and I'm no great fan of Bush (whether you liked him or not, he has so let us down), but do you think it's the man or the office? I think it's the office, but I'm a little jaded and cynical when it comes to politics and feel like it's become corruptive to all but the purest hearts.
honestly, i have no business even posting in such a political thread; i don't know why i'm doing it
-
I wish we had a president with some business acumen. If a company ran it's finances like this country upper management would've been looking for a job long ago.
Now, I'm admittedly and ashamedly naïve when it comes to politics, and I'm no great fan of Bush (whether you liked him or not, he has so let us down), but do you think it's the man or the office? I think it's the office, but I'm a little jaded and cynical when it comes to politics and feel like it's become corruptive to all but the purest hearts.
honestly, i have no business even posting in such a political thread; i don't know why i'm doing it
Birdless, you're sounding like a Libertarian. I like it!
-
I wish we had a president with some business acumen. If a company ran it's finances like this country upper management would've been looking for a job long ago.
Now, I'm admittedly and ashamedly naïve when it comes to politics, and I'm no great fan of Bush (whether you liked him or not, he has so let us down), but do you think it's the man or the office? I think it's the office, but I'm a little jaded and cynical when it comes to politics and feel like it's become corruptive to all but the purest hearts.
honestly, i have no business even posting in such a political thread; i don't know why i'm doing it
totaly agrree with that last statment but I have trouble with the other one b/c I tend to agree with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dalberg-Acton,_1st_Baron_Acton
on that issue
we just finished with the depression in my history class and from that stand point paying off the national debt would help in some aspects
as it would pump alot ( I think it is in the 7 to 8 trillion range ) into the economy but at the same time that $ would have to come from taxes so that would take money out of the general population.
so the overall effect would be to make the rich richer and everyone else poorer ( bad English I know but it gets the point across)
so I dont know how that would work as a whole
and for the record I dont think that the refunds are all that great of an idea but like most people when they are offered money they did not expect they generally take it ( it is not free money they are giving your money back but that is another thread.
-
I wish we had a president with some business acumen. If a company ran it's finances like this country upper management would've been looking for a job long ago.
Now, I'm admittedly and ashamedly naïve when it comes to politics, and I'm no great fan of Bush (whether you liked him or not, he has so let us down), but do you think it's the man or the office? I think it's the office, but I'm a little jaded and cynical when it comes to politics and feel like it's become corruptive to all but the purest hearts.
honestly, i have no business even posting in such a political thread; i don't know why i'm doing it
It's the system. Wasn't it Adams or Franklin who said that the lifespan of a democracy is 200 years? Well, just like people are getting older, so is the system, and it's siphoning more and more of the resources of the young to keep the old afloat. If it was Gore or Kerry in office we'd be in the same situation, just the entitlements would be distributed differently. Clinton, Obama, McCain... no change. Not really.
Besides, we don't live in a democracy. We live in a representative republic. Spreading democracy is spreading mob rule; spreading the idea of a republic is the way to go, representative or not.
I've blogged about this back when I was a political blogger, but basically we are not actualized enough (Maslow's hierarchy of needs) to be able to truly govern ourselves. Would that we could. Would that even ONE of Robert Heinlein's futures came true. Would that we could all be independent traders, moving from territory to territory, a sovereign state inside our own vehicle, scrounging for parts, hiring mercenaries and savant engineers who talk to ships and pilots who play with dinosaurs and have wives that can kick everyone's ass...
You see where I'm going here.
Anyway, there is no fixing the system.
In one fell swoop, the W money will duplicate the percentage raise I got last May. My half of the check (my wife will take the other half I'm sure) will pay for 20 fill-ups at current prices, probably closer to 10 by the end of the year.
I can't wait until our tax bills for 2008 come due and we end up paying income tax on it...
Anyway, I'll probably just bank the money. In about three months I'll finally own my car and then my $300/month car payments will go to the bank too until I have enough for a good down-payment on a hybrid. I'm no granola-eating liberal, but I live 25 miles away from work. I can't afford gas, and I can live with a Prius if it means I save money in the long run.
Enough rambling.
-
we just finished with the depression in my history class and from that stand point paying off the national debt would help in some aspects
as it would pump alot ( I think it is in the 7 to 8 trillion range ) into the economy but at the same time that $ would have to come from taxes so that would take money out of the general population.
I think you're confusing revenue with assets and liabilities with expenses. The debt the US owes is a liability that it exchanged for cash. It now has to pay it back by generating more cash through generating revenue (more taxes), cutting expenses (fewer programs), selling assets, or taking on more liabilities. So far the government just takes out more and more liabilities. There is a lot of other stuff they can do besides raise taxes to pay off the debt.
Also, it wouldn't inject any money into the economy. Most US debt is foreign owned. If we paid back all our debts we would be giving out a bunch of money overseas. However, if we just gave people the finger and said we weren't paying our debts the economic crash that would follow would make the great depression look like a blip on the radar. It would be pretty much an admission that the US government can't pay its debts.
so the overall effect would be to make the rich richer and everyone else poorer ( bad English I know but it gets the point across)
so I dont know how that would work as a whole
Paying back the debt wouldn't do anything of the sort. It would just increase the value of the dollar to the other currencies of the world. That's why just handing out money (like the gov't is doing) is such a terrible idea. If more dollars are out there it devalues all dollars because they becomes less scarce as compared to foreign currency. There's nothing wrong with a little recession. It's easily recoverable. Inflation isn't.
and for the record I dont think that the refunds are all that great of an idea but like most people when they are offered money they did not expect they generally take it ( it is not free money they are giving your money back but that is another thread.
I think it's a terrible idea, but there is no way in hell I'm giving it back. The government has already shown they can't manage money. Why would I give them more? Plus, if I don't take this money all I'm going to be left with is less devalued money than I had before.
-
It's the system. Wasn't it Adams or Franklin who said that the lifespan of a democracy is 200 years? Well, just like people are getting older, so is the system, and it's siphoning more and more of the resources of the young to keep the old afloat. If it was Gore or Kerry in office we'd be in the same situation, just the entitlements would be distributed differently. Clinton, Obama, McCain... no change. Not really.
Not so sure about that. If Gore or Kerry had been in office, we probably wouldn't have spent several trillion dollars on a war where no-one can even define what "winning" would mean. Clinton's budget was designed to have the national debt paid off in full by 2012, and it would not have been difficult for a fiscally responsible president to stay close to that budget; instead it's now ten times higher than it was when Bush took office; the five billion dollar budget surplus per year has been turned into the largest budget deficit any country has ever had.
People who aren't morons (or possibly evil; I don't know) wouldn't have thought that massively increasing spending while simultaneously cutting taxes was a sustainable policy.
-
People who aren't morons (or possibly evil; I don't know) wouldn't have thought that massively increasing spending while simultaneously cutting taxes was a sustainable policy.
Let's be honest here. If you could get away with spending as much money as you wanted on whatever you wanted and not have to be held liable for it wouldn't you? I know I would. Granted, I wouldn't spend money on blowing things up (much). I would spend money on trying to solve the current energy crisis. There is no accountability though. Why should they have a balanced budget?
-
People who aren't morons (or possibly evil; I don't know) wouldn't have thought that massively increasing spending while simultaneously cutting taxes was a sustainable policy.
Let's be honest here. If you could get away with spending as much money as you wanted on whatever you wanted and not have to be held liable for it wouldn't you? I know I would. Granted, I wouldn't spend money on blowing things up (much). I would spend money on trying to solve the current energy crisis. There is no accountability though. Why should they have a balanced budget?
Why did Clinton have a balanced budget?
Because he didn't want to be remembered as the president who sold America to the Chinese? Because he understood that the money he spent had to come from somewhere?
Of course, Bush has a long history of spending far more than he has and bankrupting companies, so obviously he was an obvious pick for being able to manage the economy of an entire country.
-
Of course, Bush has a long history of spending far more than he has and bankrupting companies, so obviously he was an obvious pick for being able to manage the economy of an entire country.
And what consequences are there for Bush screwing up the budget and, eventually, the US economy? Nothing. That's the definition of a broken system.
-
Of course, Bush has a long history of spending far more than he has and bankrupting companies, so obviously he was an obvious pick for being able to manage the economy of an entire country.
And what consequences are there for Bush screwing up the budget and, eventually, the US economy? Nothing. That's the definition of a broken system.
Yeah, I'm halfway convinced that a monarchy is the way to go. Instead of being elected on the basis of having a nice smile on TV, and walking into a hundred-thousand-a-year consultancy job when you leave office, regardless of how poorly you do is flawed compared with training someone from birth in how to run a country and knowing that if they screw up they get beheaded...
-
Of course, Bush has a long history of spending far more than he has and bankrupting companies, so obviously he was an obvious pick for being able to manage the economy of an entire country.
Ok with the statement that I am not putting out a position on good or bad what companies were you talking about here?we just finished with the depression in my history class and from that stand point paying off the national debt would help in some aspects
as it would pump alot ( I think it is in the 7 to 8 trillion range ) into the economy but at the same time that $ would have to come from taxes so that would take money out of the general population.
I think you're confusing revenue with assets and liabilities with expenses. The debt the US owes is a liability that it exchanged for cash. It now has to pay it back by generating more cash through generating revenue (more taxes), cutting expenses (fewer programs), selling assets, or taking on more liabilities. So far the government just takes out more and more liabilities. There is a lot of other stuff they can do besides raise taxes to pay off the debt.
Also, it wouldn't inject any money into the economy. Most US debt is foreign owned. If we paid back all our debts we would be giving out a bunch of money overseas. However, if we just gave people the finger and said we weren't paying our debts the economic crash that would follow would make the great depression look like a blip on the radar. It would be pretty much an admission that the US government can't pay its debts.
so the overall effect would be to make the rich richer and everyone else poorer ( bad English I know but it gets the point across)
so I dont know how that would work as a whole
Paying back the debt wouldn't do anything of the sort. It would just increase the value of the dollar to the other currencies of the world. That's why just handing out money (like the gov't is doing) is such a terrible idea. If more dollars are out there it devalues all dollars because they becomes less scarce as compared to foreign currency. There's nothing wrong with a little recession. It's easily recoverable. Inflation isn't.
and for the record I dont think that the refunds are all that great of an idea but like most people when they are offered money they did not expect they generally take it ( it is not free money they are giving your money back but that is another thread.
I think it's a terrible idea, but there is no way in hell I'm giving it back. The government has already shown they can't manage money. Why would I give them more? Plus, if I don't take this money all I'm going to be left with is less devalued money than I had before.
thanks for the clarification I am not real clear on all economic terms so I think I was trying to say most of the same things I just mis-said them due to my lack of knowledge. I did not know that most US debts were to other countries so ya you learn something new every day
-
thanks for the clarification I am not real clear on all economic terms so I think I was trying to say most of the same things I just mis-said them due to my lack of knowledge. I did not know that most US debts were to other countries so ya you learn something new every day
I did a little more research, and I was wrong before. MOST debt isn't owned by foreign nations. Here is a breakdown of the US debt:
(http://www.optimist123.com/./photos/uncategorized/2007/08/23/piechart200706.png)
So 1/3 is owned by US citizens, 1/3 by foreign countries, and 1/3 by the US government (pretty much issuing themselves loans, or printing money). This site has a really neat debt to GDP ratio clock which is a lot more meaningful than the national debt clocks seen everywhere. It is what a company would report as their debt to earnings ratio, and it's a measure of solvency:
http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2006/05/pie_chart_of_wh.html (http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2006/05/pie_chart_of_wh.html)
Overall, we aren't doing too bad. If the gov't isn't going to cut spending they need to get their money somehow. If they didn't take out loans taxes would need to be higher. Still, less debt is always better, and I don't know one thing the government does EFFICIENTLY. There is probably a private sector contractor that could do everything the government does, but at half price.
-
Have fun stimulating the economy!
What a joke. Most people aren't going to go buy big screen teevees or Xboxes. They're going to pay bills. That's what my wife and I are going to do.
Same here. Most of the people I know are also paying off debt. So much for W's big idea. A person I heard on the radio said that the government should've given out debit cards (like the ones they gave out to Katrina victims) to insure that people spend them on goods and services rather than paying off debt. Too late.
-
Of course, Bush has a long history of spending far more than he has and bankrupting companies, so obviously he was an obvious pick for being able to manage the economy of an entire country.
Ok with the statement that I am not putting out a position on good or bad what companies were you talking about here?
Zapata Oil: Owned by friends of Bush Sr. Bush seems to have done nothing for them other than draw a fat salary and spend all of his time on vacation in South America.
Arbusto Energy Inc: Owned by Bush. Started with funding from Bush Sr's political supporters (such as the Bin Laden family). Ran at a loss every year, and owned more dry wells in Texas than any other oil company. Bush sold his interest just before they went bankrupt. Was never prosecuted for insider trading for reasons probably utterly unrelated to his father being vice-president at the time.
Texas Rangers Baseball Team: Bought by Bush for ~$500,000, borrowed $7,500,000 from the city of Arlington to build a new stadium the team couldn't afford, refused to pay it back and sold the team on for $14million. Texas taxpayers shouldered the cost.
These are all the jobs that Bush has had before becoming governor of Texas (unless you count being AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam), and they don't give the impression that he should be left in charge of a hamster, let alone a country...
-
...
These are all the jobs that Bush has had before becoming governor of Texas (unless you count being AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam), and they don't give the impression that he should be left in charge of a hamster, let alone a country...
It just goes to show you...democracy (or representative democracy) doesn't work. Tyranny by majority vote is more like it.
-
Damn me I'm posting in here again, dammit. But it's interesting... and I got behind so now I have to catch up…
Birdless, you're sounding like a Libertarian. I like it!
What little I know about them does appeal to me, though there are a few tenets that I have issues with, but what party doesn't have those?
totaly agrree with that last statment but I have trouble with the other one b/c I tend to agree with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dalberg-Acton,_1st_Baron_Acton
THANK you, CGF! I was wondering who said that. But the office holds the power that corrupts, thus my statement that I feel like its the office, not the man... does that make sense?
I'm no granola-eating liberal, but I live 25 miles away from work. I can't afford gas, and I can live with a Prius if it means I save money in the long run.
I feel your pain: i live 50 miles away from work, and am wanting to get a Prius or even a Honda Civic... more so a Prius after reading Chodon's post (http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=1501.msg24157#msg24157).
Not so sure about that. If Gore or Kerry had been in office, we probably wouldn't have spent several trillion dollars on a war where no-one can even define what "winning" would mean.
There's no way to tell to what degree, but I think there would have been some military operations regardless of who was in office, though perhaps better planned ones. Those attacks on 9/11 demanded a military response. Money would have been spent. Again, maybe with more discretion or strategic thinking, and maybe not as much, but still a lot.
Let's be honest here. If you could get away with spending as much money as you wanted on whatever you wanted and not have to be held liable for it wouldn't you? I know I would. Granted, I wouldn't spend money on blowing things up (much). I would spend money on trying to solve the current energy crisis. There is no accountability though. Why should they have a balanced budget?
I think you're a better man than that, Chodon. I bet you wouldn't spend thoughtlessly if you knew someone was going to be held liable for it.
And what consequences are there for Bush screwing up the budget and, eventually, the US economy? Nothing. That's the definition of a broken system.
Oh! By the way, some fascinating listening on This American Life a few weeks ago (http://thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1236).
Yeah, I'm halfway convinced that a monarchy is the way to go. Instead of being elected on the basis of having a nice smile on TV, and walking into a hundred-thousand-a-year consultancy job when you leave office, regardless of how poorly you do is flawed compared with training someone from birth in how to run a country and knowing that if they screw up they get beheaded...
Hahahaha!! That's the best argument I've ever heard for a monarchy... love it.
-
Not so sure about that. If Gore or Kerry had been in office, we probably wouldn't have spent several trillion dollars on a war where no-one can even define what "winning" would mean.
There's no way to tell to what degree, but I think there would have been some military operations regardless of who was in office, though perhaps better planned ones. Those attacks on 9/11 demanded a military response. Money would have been spent. Again, maybe with more discretion or strategic thinking, and maybe not as much, but still a lot.
It didn't demand a military response against Iraq, though.
In fact, what it demanded was a police response, tracking down the people responsible and bringing them to justice instead of attacking governments that had little (Afghanistan) or nothing (Iraq) to do with the attacks. It demanded the capture or death of Bin Laden, which seems to be something that Bush and the Pentagon have absolutely no interest in.
-
I think you're a better man than that, Chodon. I bet you wouldn't spend thoughtlessly if you knew someone was going to be held liable for it.
I would spend the money on things I thought were important. Bush thinks the war is important, but he's an idiot. I think that fusion research and space exploration is important, but most of the country would think I'm an idiot. It just depends on how the media wants to present things. People eat whatever the media feeds them.
Oh! By the way, some fascinating listening on This American Life a few weeks ago (http://thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1236).
I listened to that on a podcast. Some of that is so freaking screwed up, and you and I are footing the bill. Anarchy is sounding better and better by the day.
Does anyone know of a government that has ever relinquished power voluntarily? I was trying to think of an example and I couldn't come up with one. Seriously.
-
yes its stupid... but...
if i'm 17 and part of the work force do i get a check? :P
or do i have to be 18...
-
It didn't demand a military response against Iraq, though.
Yeah, you're totally right about that. I have no idea if the WMDs was an excuse invented or if it was faulty intelligence. Either way, the focus presented to the UN should have been on the atrocities committed by Saddam rather than the WMDs.
I would spend the money on things I thought were important. Bush thinks the war is important, but he's an idiot. I think that fusion research and space exploration is important, but most of the country would think I'm an idiot. It just depends on how the media wants to present things. People eat whatever the media feeds them.
Good point, and the implication that Bush was doing something he didn't believe in was unintended. I think he is trying to do what he believes is right, but I don't think he's counting the cost. And the lack of an exit strategy was just stupid. That makes me wonder what the hell is going on in Washington.
I listened to that on a podcast. Some of that is so freaking screwed up, and you and I are footing the bill. Anarchy is sounding better and better by the day.
Does anyone know of a government that has ever relinquished power voluntarily? I was trying to think of an example and I couldn't come up with one. Seriously.
Yeah, it's one of my favorite podcasts. I was glad they showed not only Bush's mistakes but problems that existed before he came to office. And to your second question, I think there were some in the ancient times that did, but I don't know that "give up or be completely annihilated" is really considered volunteering. Oh... are you talking about a person in authority who abdicated to someone they thought might be more qualified? No idea. None that I know of.
-
Does anyone know of a government that has ever relinquished power voluntarily? I was trying to think of an example and I couldn't come up with one. Seriously.
You might want to look at the Velvet Divorce that turned Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The government, in an orderly and peaceful manner, voted to dissolve itself, and Prime Minister Vaclav Havel resigned rather than oversee the "destruction of the country (he went on to be elected the Czech Republic's first Prime Minister).
The British Empire voluntarily relinquished power over the Republic of Ireland, India, Pakistan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Zimbabwe, and dozens of other territories, returning them to home rule. Probably not exactly what you're thinking of, though.
-
Oh... are you talking about a person in authority who abdicated to someone they thought might be more qualified? No idea. None that I know of.
George Washington refused to stand for office a third time, on the grounds that it would be undemocratic to let people vote for a president they knew they wanted. Or something. I never did work out how that managed to get spun a an act of pro-democracy selflessness...
-
yes its stupid... but...
if i'm 17 and part of the work force do i get a check? :P
or do i have to be 18...
I'm not a tax genius but I believe as long as you made $3,000 in wages and were not listed as a dependent on another person's return you qualify. Might want to check the IRS web site, though. Good luck.
-
It didn't demand a military response against Iraq, though.
Yeah, you're totally right about that. I have no idea if the WMDs was an excuse invented or if it was faulty intelligence. Either way, the focus presented to the UN should have been on the atrocities committed by Saddam rather than the WMDs.
Of course, if the main reason had been regime change, rather than WMDs, links to al Qaeda, or whatever the lie du jour was, people might have expected the administration to have half an idea what form that change was going to take, and how it would be achieved.
Five years later, it's blatantly obvious that they just kind of assumed that if you take a strongly Muslim population with a historical dislike of America and give them free elections then they'd automatically vote for the modern, secular pro-American party, and they've been thrown by the fact that they seem to want to vote for the Muslim theocratic anti-American party.
It's not like anyone could have predicted that, is it?
-
It didn't demand a military response against Iraq, though.
Yeah, you're totally right about that. I have no idea if the WMDs was an excuse invented or if it was faulty intelligence. Either way, the focus presented to the UN should have been on the atrocities committed by Saddam rather than the WMDs.
Of course, if the main reason had been regime change, rather than WMDs, links to al Qaeda, or whatever the lie du jour was, people might have expected the administration to have half an idea what form that change was going to take, and how it would be achieved.
Five years later, it's blatantly obvious that they just kind of assumed that if you take a strongly Muslim population with a historical dislike of America and give them free elections then they'd automatically vote for the modern, secular pro-American party, and they've been thrown by the fact that they seem to want to vote for the Muslim theocratic anti-American party.
It's not like anyone could have predicted that, is it?
Funny thing is my wife's 6th grade students think Iraq blew up the World Trade Center. No joke.
I weep for our future sometimes.
-
Funny thing is my wife's 6th grade students think Iraq blew up the World Trade Center. No joke.
I believe it. Most people I know think that Iraq had "something to do with" 9/11. None of them can ever say quite what, though...
-
If Gore or Kerry had been in office, we probably wouldn't have spent several trillion dollars on a war where no-one can even define what "winning" would mean.
"'Winning' means what I'm pointing at when I say it." - W, the Great Decider. :)
-
Funny thing is my wife's 6th grade students think Iraq blew up the World Trade Center. No joke.
I believe it. Most people I know think that Iraq had "something to do with" 9/11. None of them can ever say quite what, though...
On 15 September, 2001, I predicted that our government would try to use the attacks as a pretext for going after Iraq - I was called all kinds of names by friends and family... much worse names than "granola-crunching liberal". (I actually really like granola, though.) They told me I was a traitor and couldn't understand why I was on the side of the "Moslems", and that I should stop making things up.
All because I had heard about this:
On September 15, 2001, in a meeting at Camp David, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggested an attack on Iraq because he was deeply worried about the availability of "good targets in Afghanistan."
I wasn't the only one concerned; Tony Blair was (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/20/nbrit20.xml), after Rumsfeld, Cheney, and others made arguments like these:
Richard Perle, head of the Defence Advisory Board, said America should take the opportunity to remove Saddam from power even if he played no part in the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.
Turns out Rumsfeld was gunning for Saddam as early as 9/12 (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq_58).
Of course, I'm just a "liberal conspiracy theorist*", so what do I know? :-\
*according to my aunt, at least
-
Turns out Rumsfeld was gunning for Saddam as early as 9/12 (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq_58).
That late? I thought the PNAC (http://www.newamericancentury.org/) had it on the agenda in 2000.
-
I weep for our future sometimes.
I feel the same but for different reasons not that that isnt a very good one but have you looked at the candidates for president this election?
No matter who wins the US loses
-
I weep for our future sometimes.
I feel the same but for different reasons not that that isnt a very good one but have you looked at the candidates for president this election?
No matter who wins the US loses
Yup ... anybody who thinks electing McCain, Clinton, or Obama will bring about any significant or meaningful change is kidding themselves. The American electoral process has been a joke without a punchline for a long time.
-
Overall, we aren't doing too bad. If the gov't isn't going to cut spending they need to get their money somehow. If they didn't take out loans taxes would need to be higher. Still, less debt is always better, and I don't know one thing the government does EFFICIENTLY. There is probably a private sector contractor that could do everything the government does, but at half price.
Nope, sorry. I call BS on this. I would think that one of these days, that particular trope would die based on obvious evidence, but apparently somebody has to say it.
The most efficient medical care system in the country is run by: The Veterans Administration.
Sloppy old-fashioned government Medicare is administered for about half the cost (as measured as a percentage of premium dollars) of the average private insurer.
Putting a fully-equipped, combat-ready Marine in the field costs a fraction of one of Blackwater's "private security contractors."
And no, I don't have time to run down citations for all that, but try this experiment: Pull out your property tax bill, which (in most areas) covers primary and secondary education, police protection, snow removal, fire proctection, trash removal, plus a small raft of amenities and maintenance services. Now start calling around and pricing some of those services from "efficient private contractors." I can pretty well guarantee you'll run out of money long before you've got all those services covered. (Private school alone would consume my entire bill.)
Sure, governments waste money. But the fact is that we aren't exactly geniuses at spending our own money, either. Consider, briefly, what by now are probably billions of dollars that have been spent to put four-wheel drive on vehicles that will never face a surface more demanding than damp concrete. Or the one-third of the typical American's closet filled with clothes they haven't worn in two years. Or the truly mind-boggling sums spent on maintaining credit-card debt -- almost invariably spent for things that DO NOT increase long-term earnings or decrease long-term expenses.
Wasting money isn't a government thing, it's a human thing. While it's certainly very important to hold government to account, it's equally important to maintain some perspective on the question. Failure to do so has led to us turning a larger and larger portion of our national fate over to "efficient private contractors" like Blackwater, Bear Sterns, Enron, etc.
As for what the government has done EFFICIENTLY. I dunno, let's see: Eradicated infectious diseases that were once the scourge of childhood, built the largest road network ever conceived, defeated two enemies that constituted an honest-to-god existential threat (Axis powers in WWII, the old Soviet Union), sent men to the moon and robots to the outer planets, and bankrolled the basic research that led to modern computing. I could go on, but I'll stop.
Currently, yes, we're badly mismanaged. Perhaps electing people who make a show of not liking government to run government isn't such a great idea. But suggesting that government can't do anything just because it's government is every bit as intellecually lazy as assuming that government can solve every problem.
OK, I'm done now....
-
Overall, we aren't doing too bad. If the gov't isn't going to cut spending they need to get their money somehow. If they didn't take out loans taxes would need to be higher. Still, less debt is always better, and I don't know one thing the government does EFFICIENTLY. There is probably a private sector contractor that could do everything the government does, but at half price.
Nope, sorry. I call BS on this.
(much snippage)
OK, I'm done now....
Well put; thank you. If you are asked for citations to back that up, I'll volunteer to be your research toady. :)
I've been growing increasingly tired of the reasoning that "private is better" over the last few years.
1) When I was in the Air Force, a number of generals and admirals were convinced that hiring a contractor to provide IT services to our large, unweildy Govt buildings would be cheaper and more efficient than keeping all of those Govt employees on the payroll to do it. So, they launched a huge contract, offered early retirement to all of those GOV IT guys, and forced MicroCrap products onto our desktops. Oh, and they hired all those GOV IT guys at 150% of their GS pay... and the generals and admirals retired and found contractor jobs... and I won't go into the hell that is "getting any IT support".
2) Can anyone tell me the real difference between being forced to pay a tax to pay for substandard medical care (like the National Health), and being forced to pay a premium to pay for substandard care (like Kaiser Permanente)? I've survived both, but damn.
3) Why is it that when it comes time to "be responsible" and "cut out entitlements", it's the programs that actually feed and house poor people that get axed... but the oil subsidies and grain subsidies keep rolling out the door? (Don't even start me on the Defense budget... which sets all kinds of records BEFORE counting the war spending...)
Anyway... that's just my inarticulate raving in support of Windup's well-stated argument. :)
-
Overall, we aren't doing too bad. If the gov't isn't going to cut spending they need to get their money somehow. If they didn't take out loans taxes would need to be higher. Still, less debt is always better, and I don't know one thing the government does EFFICIENTLY. There is probably a private sector contractor that could do everything the government does, but at half price.
Nope, sorry. I call BS on this. (snip)
Okay, this is something very interesting to me. I don't understand how bureaucracy (one of the few things government does well) can make something more efficient. There are some things government does BETTER than the private sector, or things the private sector can't do at all. Examples include roads, police, national defense. They do not do it more efficiently though. Nobody can honestly say that if a business were run like a government it would remain solvent. The only thing that keeps government going is they can charge whatever they want for their "services" by raising taxes. We all pay for services we don't use, which is stupid.
I think it can be best understood as an analogy. A guy comes to your house and does some yardwork. You didn't ask him to. In fact, you were going to do it yourself. That's awful nice of him though. After he's done he comes to your door and asks for $300. You didn't need him to do that. You were perfectly capable of doing it yourself, but now he's charging you for work you didn't need done in the first place. When you tell him to piss off he pulls out a gun and demands the $300 or he's going to take you away and lock you up until you pay him. That is what the government does with taxes (or at least a portion of them). It's paramount to robbery.
Putting a fully-equipped, combat-ready Marine in the field costs a fraction of one of Blackwater's "private security contractors."
That's because the government buys in bulk. Also, the marines are MUCH less well equipped than Blackwater contractors. Marines (and army soldiers) often buy their own equipment because the stuff issued by the government is crap. Don't believe me? Check out this forum (http://lightfighter.net/eve?s=7336015661&ORIGINAL_REFERRER_URL=http%3A%2F%2Flightfighter.net%2Feve).
Pull out your property tax bill, which (in most areas) covers primary and secondary education, police protection, snow removal, fire proctection, trash removal, plus a small raft of amenities and maintenance services. Now start calling around and pricing some of those services from "efficient private contractors." I can pretty well guarantee you'll run out of money long before you've got all those services covered. (Private school alone would consume my entire bill.)
That is only because a) 10-50% of your income is going toward taxes and b) there is little competition because people can use government services for "free". If they had to provide their own services there would be more competition between companies, so prices would drop.
Sure, governments waste money. But the fact is that we aren't exactly geniuses at spending our own money, either. Consider, briefly, what by now are probably billions of dollars that have been spent to put four-wheel drive on vehicles that will never face a surface more demanding than damp concrete. Or the one-third of the typical American's closet filled with clothes they haven't worn in two years. Or the truly mind-boggling sums spent on maintaining credit-card debt -- almost invariably spent for things that DO NOT increase long-term earnings or decrease long-term expenses.
You are confusing personal finances with business and government finances. People buy things because they think it will get them laid or make people like them so they can get laid. People are, for the most part, idiots. Take a marketing class sometime. It's really eye opening. It doesn't have anything to do with this discussion though.
Wasting money isn't a government thing, it's a human thing. While it's certainly very important to hold government to account, it's equally important to maintain some perspective on the question. Failure to do so has led to us turning a larger and larger portion of our national fate over to "efficient private contractors" like Blackwater, Bear Sterns, Enron, etc.
Yeah, and look how well inefficiency worked out for those companies. Government can just borrow more money to keep themselves solvent, so there are no consequences to making poor fiscal decisions. Doesn't that scare anyone else?
As for what the government has done EFFICIENTLY. I dunno, let's see: Eradicated infectious diseases that were once the scourge of childhood, built the largest road network ever conceived, defeated two enemies that constituted an honest-to-god existential threat (Axis powers in WWII, the old Soviet Union), sent men to the moon and robots to the outer planets, and bankrolled the basic research that led to modern computing. I could go on, but I'll stop.
I agree these could not have been accomplished without government involvement (except maybe the polio vaccine). However, I disagree they did it efficiently. I shudder to think of how much all those programs cost. If my tax dollars were only going to these programs though, I would be fine with it because they are good causes that can't be achieved without the steamroller power of a government.
Currently, yes, we're badly mismanaged. Perhaps electing people who make a show of not liking government to run government isn't such a great idea. But suggesting that government can't do anything just because it's government is every bit as intellecually lazy as assuming that government can solve every problem.
I don't see how it's intellectually lazy to say that a broken system can't fix itself. I just think people should be able to do what they want with the money they earn. If that means contributing to charity, fine. If that means hording it all in a giant safe filled with gold coins like Scrooge McDuck, fine. To say that people need to give up a huge portion of their money to an inefficient machine that mismanages and uses it for things that go against the will of the people is unfair and wrong.
-
Okay, this is something very interesting to me. I don't understand how bureaucracy (one of the few things government does well) can make something more efficient. There are some things government does BETTER than the private sector, or things the private sector can't do at all. Examples include roads, police, national defense. They do not do it more efficiently though. Nobody can honestly say that if a business were run like a government it would remain solvent. The only thing that keeps government going is they can charge whatever they want for their "services" by raising taxes. We all pay for services we don't use, which is stupid.
Two problems I have with this:
1) "Government" does not necessarily equal "bureaucracy", and...
2) "Bureaucracy" is not necessarily "bad".
I hear that saw ("Nobody can honestly say that if a business were run like a government it would remain solvent.") all the time, and I have to wonder if those who say it are aware that the government is not supposed to turn a profit, and that the regulations are usually in place because We the People asked for protection from businesses which aggressively corner markets, monopolize resources, and fail to serve the people who are paying for their services. (See the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendleton_Civil_Service_Reform_Act) for the historical perspective.)
"Efficiency" is not the litmus test we should be using; or do you want to tell me that the AT&T monopoly was "better" because it was more efficient?
I think it can be best understood as an analogy. A guy comes to your house and does some yardwork. You didn't ask him to. In fact, you were going to do it yourself. That's awful nice of him though. After he's done he comes to your door and asks for $300. You didn't need him to do that. You were perfectly capable of doing it yourself, but now he's charging you for work you didn't need done in the first place. When you tell him to piss off he pulls out a gun and demands the $300 or he's going to take you away and lock you up until you pay him. That is what the government does with taxes (or at least a portion of them). It's paramount to robbery.
This is a false analogy... unless the guy coming to your yard was invited by a commission established at the request of your grandparents. Remember, most of the well-established government services we have today are the result of our predecessors VOTING for them. If they aren't performing satisfactorily, you do have the right to protest and lobby for change... and I don't deny that it's a difficult and frustrating way to go about doing things, because it does require some education and motivation on the part of the constituency. (But I don't want to get off on the tangent of how ignorant and apathetic our constituency can be...)
Putting a fully-equipped, combat-ready Marine in the field costs a fraction of one of Blackwater's "private security contractors."
That's because the government buys in bulk. Also, the marines are MUCH less well equipped than Blackwater contractors. Marines (and army soldiers) often buy their own equipment because the stuff issued by the government is crap. Don't believe me? Check out this forum (http://lightfighter.net/eve?s=7336015661&ORIGINAL_REFERRER_URL=http%3A%2F%2Flightfighter.net%2Feve).
I believe you... but the other reason the contractors cost more is because they are not accountable to Congress for their expenses. One of the benefits of bureaucracy is that the budget for the Marines is established by law, and accounted for; they may get crap equipment, but they get what they paid for, and you can track where your taxpayer dollars went. With Blackwater, you will never know where your tax dollars went... hell, if they hadn't shot up so many people, most folks wouldn't have known we were paying them at all.
Sounds like a great way to run a business, though; bid low, cut corners where possible, and hide behind contractual "immunity" when your over-armed, trigger-happy thugs start blowing away locals.
Pull out your property tax bill, which (in most areas) covers primary and secondary education, police protection, snow removal, fire proctection, trash removal, plus a small raft of amenities and maintenance services. Now start calling around and pricing some of those services from "efficient private contractors." I can pretty well guarantee you'll run out of money long before you've got all those services covered. (Private school alone would consume my entire bill.)
That is only because a) 10-50% of your income is going toward taxes and b) there is little competition because people can use government services for "free". If they had to provide their own services there would be more competition between companies, so prices would drop.
Respectfully disagree; what we see happening with the cycle of regulation/de-regulation is that "private" providers (think power, telephones, roads, etc.) consolidate, and *raise* prices until the government is asked to step in (by the people who can't afford to pay their bills any more). The government in question (these things are usually done at the state level) rarely manages the "business" well... usually because obeying the laws of supply and demand is politically dangerous, and they try to keep the "prices" artificially low until the "business" tanks. Then they "privatize" somehow, prices go up (they call it a "correction") and somehow, they never do go down.
Sure, governments waste money. But the fact is that we aren't exactly geniuses at spending our own money, either. Consider, briefly, what by now are probably billions of dollars that have been spent to put four-wheel drive on vehicles that will never face a surface more demanding than damp concrete. Or the one-third of the typical American's closet filled with clothes they haven't worn in two years. Or the truly mind-boggling sums spent on maintaining credit-card debt -- almost invariably spent for things that DO NOT increase long-term earnings or decrease long-term expenses.
You are confusing personal finances with business and government finances. People buy things because they think it will get them laid or make people like them so they can get laid. People are, for the most part, idiots. Take a marketing class sometime. It's really eye opening. It doesn't have anything to do with this discussion though.
Government is by the idiots, of the idiots, and for the idiots. That's why, instead of getting frustrated and dropping out, we should be getting more involved. Take that marketing class, and then start showing up at city council meetings.
As for what the government has done EFFICIENTLY. I dunno, let's see: Eradicated infectious diseases that were once the scourge of childhood, built the largest road network ever conceived, defeated two enemies that constituted an honest-to-god existential threat (Axis powers in WWII, the old Soviet Union), sent men to the moon and robots to the outer planets, and bankrolled the basic research that led to modern computing. I could go on, but I'll stop.
I agree these could not have been accomplished without government involvement (except maybe the polio vaccine). However, I disagree they did it efficiently. I shudder to think of how much all those programs cost. If my tax dollars were only going to these programs though, I would be fine with it because they are good causes that can't be achieved without the steamroller power of a government.
Again, you cite inefficiency. Again, that is not the litmus test. War and Diplomacy are both incredibly inefficient - both are accepted government functions - and you wouldn't choose between them by saying "This one is more efficient, so we should go with that." (At least, I hope not.)
Currently, yes, we're badly mismanaged. Perhaps electing people who make a show of not liking government to run government isn't such a great idea. But suggesting that government can't do anything just because it's government is every bit as intellecually lazy as assuming that government can solve every problem.
I don't see how it's intellectually lazy to say that a broken system can't fix itself. I just think people should be able to do what they want with the money they earn. If that means contributing to charity, fine. If that means hording it all in a giant safe filled with gold coins like Scrooge McDuck, fine. To say that people need to give up a huge portion of their money to an inefficient machine that mismanages and uses it for things that go against the will of the people is unfair and wrong.
I agree that our tax system is horribly unfair (I'm a converted fan of the FairTax legislation (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main)) but the fact is that everyone here is benefiting in some way from being in this country. People like to trumpet that "Freedom isn't Free"... until it comes time to pay the tax bill. (Hmm... that was what pissed me off about "Rent" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_%28film%29), too...)
I say, if you don't like the way taxes work... fix it. But what is intellectually lazy is to pretend that you can take your ball and go home until someone else fixes the system. We're all in this together, and TANSTAAFL cuts both ways. Sure, it would be great if everyone worked hard and pulled their own weight, but the fact is that we are always going to be asked to pick up the slack for someone else. Like all those freeloading infants, and those "useless" old timers! (Just in case you don't catch my ironic meaning, here: everyone needs something from society at some point.)
Sure there are cheaters that need to be dealt with... but you don't give up the internet just because of a few hackers; you don't abandon the use of money because of a few counterfeiters; and you don't give up on a noble experiment just because after 200+ years it is "too hard". :)
-
Ahem, breaking up the few thousand words of text with something completely different.
(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/funny-pictures-cats-boxes-shrodinger.jpg)
God you guys are boing to moderate.
-
I agree that our tax system is horribly unfair (I'm a converted fan of the FairTax legislation (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main))…
Wow! I've been complaining for years that we should be taxed on what we spend, not on what we earn! I didn't know there was a national, organized movement towards that end. Though I have to admit that there are probably some backlashes to this system that I'm unaware of. Does anyone know where I can find out the pros and con's spelled out simply and objectively?
-
I did some serious thinking about this thread yesterday to determine the real, true, root cause of the problems I see in government. I came to the following conclusion: government isn't the problem, it's the people that put them in place.
A perfect example is Detroit's mayor, Kwame Kilpatrick. He is a neoptist, liar, and an adulterer. Not attributes that make a good leader, but people still voted for him. THAT is my problem. People put these terrible leaders in positions of power and as long as they are fat, dumb, and happy they're okay with negligent leaders. The United States, as a whole, is complacent. More people need to be activists for their causes, and need to strive to be well-informed. Nobody seems to care (present company excepted) as long as they can watch their stories and get to McDonald's.
In response to TAD's comment that I need to do something about the issues, I want to point out that I do. I am a member of the Libertarian Party, I write my congressman and senator about important issues, I contribute to causes I think are of the utmost importance like the JPFO (http://www.JPFO.org) and MCRGO (http://www.mcrgo.org). Also, I share my views on this forum in the hopes of persuading an individual or two to consider my viewpoints. I don't think that is intellectually lazy.
Coming from a business that is very metric and performance oriented it's strange to see the government not held accountable for their overspending and underperformance. But TAD is right, it's the people's job to hold them accountable and I'm doing and plan to continue to do my part. I challenge everyone reading this to do the same and quit being complacent.
-
A perfect example is Detroit's mayor, Kwame Kilpatrick. He is a neoptist, liar, and an adulterer. Not attributes that make a good leader, but people still voted for him.
How does being an adulterer affect a guys ability to be a mayor?? Honestly does anyone give a rat's ass if the CEO of a major company has a girlfriend on the side?
I contribute to causes I think are of the utmost importance like the JPFO and MCRGO.
Groups of importance. I only give to little unimportant groups like UNICEF and Doctors Without Borders.
-
A perfect example is Detroit's mayor, Kwame Kilpatrick. He is a neoptist, liar, and an adulterer. Not attributes that make a good leader, but people still voted for him.
How does being an adulterer affect a guys ability to be a mayor?? Honestly does anyone give a rat's ass if the CEO of a major company has a girlfriend on the side?
I personally thought the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky affair was the non-issue of the decade and a waste of everybody's time.
-
A perfect example is Detroit's mayor, Kwame Kilpatrick. He is a neoptist, liar, and an adulterer. Not attributes that make a good leader, but people still voted for him.
How does being an adulterer affect a guys ability to be a mayor?? Honestly does anyone give a rat's ass if the CEO of a major company has a girlfriend on the side?
Again, it's not that he did it, it's that he lied about it. And then a few thousand SMS messages were found and... Kilpatrick perjured himself, and that's why he needs to get out of office. It wouldn't be that big of a deal if he'd admitted it upfront and it didn't bring into view some base hypocrisy (Spitzer). But he lied, and he lied on the stand, and he kept lying, so his ability to be seen as trustworthy disintegrated. Plus, he's under felony charges for perjury, misconduct in office and obstruction of justice, which never look good on a mayor.
-
How does being an adulterer affect a guys ability to be a mayor?? Honestly does anyone give a rat's ass if the CEO of a major company has a girlfriend on the side?
I personally thought the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky affair was the non-issue of the decade and a waste of everybody's time.
I think it is a reflection of someone's character and moral, two things that important to me. I don't think it represents very good jugement because it is a selfish act that does not take into consideration the feelings or reprocussions of their actions. That is something that reflects on one's ability to be a mayor. Plus you neglected the fact that he LIED about it several times and perjered himself.
I contribute to causes I think are of the utmost importance like the JPFO and MCRGO.
Groups of importance. I only give to little unimportant groups like UNICEF and Doctors Without Borders.
Why do you call them unimportant? I certainly didn't say that in my post. I think those are fantastic groups to give money to. I simply think the JPFO and MCRGO are also important groups. They teach courses on firearms safety and hand out gun locks.
-
I think he was being sarcastic and meant something to the effect that yours suck and mine are so much better... I could be wrong about that though
-
I did some serious thinking about this thread yesterday to determine the real, true, root cause of the problems I see in government. I came to the following conclusion: government isn't the problem, it's the people that put them in place.
A perfect example is Detroit's mayor, Kwame Kilpatrick. He is a neoptist, liar, and an adulterer. Not attributes that make a good leader, but people still voted for him. THAT is my problem. People put these terrible leaders in positions of power and as long as they are fat, dumb, and happy they're okay with negligent leaders. The United States, as a whole, is complacent. More people need to be activists for their causes, and need to strive to be well-informed. Nobody seems to care (present company excepted) as long as they can watch their stories and get to McDonald's.
Who was his opponent? Was it yet another case of voting between the lesser of two evils? What's the voter to do when faced with that increasingly prevalent problem? I think it's oversimplified to say it's the governments fault or it's the people's fault.
How does being an adulterer affect a guys ability to be a mayor?? Honestly does anyone give a rat's ass if the CEO of a major company has a girlfriend on the side?
I personally thought the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky affair was the non-issue of the decade and a waste of everybody's time.
I think it is a reflection of someone's character and moral, two things that important to me. I don't think it represents very good jugement because it is a selfish act that does not take into consideration the feelings or reprocussions of their actions. That is something that reflects on one's ability to be a mayor. Plus you neglected the fact that he LIED about it several times and perjered himself.
I totally agree, Chodon. Be it President, Mayor or CEO, it reflects on their character, and dammit, you can't underrate that in the leader of our nation!
-
I personally thought the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky affair was the non-issue of the decade and a waste of everybody's time.
I think it is a reflection of someone's character and moral, two things that important to me. I don't think it represents very good jugement because it is a selfish act that does not take into consideration the feelings or reprocussions of their actions. That is something that reflects on one's ability to be a mayor. Plus you neglected the fact that he LIED about it several times and perjered himself.
Lying about it was the wrong move. I've always maintained that he should have answered any questions on the subject with "I don't recognize your right to ask me that question." Or more succinctly, "none of your goddamn business."
For the record, I never was a Clinton "supporter", and if GWB is diddling interns I still don't care. I have serious issues with how his administration is running things, but I don't give two shits about his personal business.
-
How does being an adulterer affect a guys ability to be a mayor?? Honestly does anyone give a rat's ass if the CEO of a major company has a girlfriend on the side?
I personally thought the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky affair was the non-issue of the decade and a waste of everybody's time.
I think it is a reflection of someone's character and moral, two things that important to me. I don't think it represents very good jugement because it is a selfish act that does not take into consideration the feelings or reprocussions of their actions. That is something that reflects on one's ability to be a mayor. Plus you neglected the fact that he LIED about it several times and perjered himself.
I didn't leave anything out, because I know nothing of the case.
I think these "charactor" issues are a big bag of BS. I posted about a year ago about a show I saw on PBS in the pre-internet days. Basically every US President had an affair while in office except for Carter and it looks like Bush II. Carter was totally ineffectual and Bush has been an absolute disaster. FDR is considered one of the absolute greats and his secretary lived with him and Eleanor was down the hall. Churchill was a drunkard and adulterer. Hitler only drank the ocassional beer and was completely monogamous.
If you didn't buy from a company, because the CEO had an affair; you basically wouldn't be able to live as a resident of the first world.
I contribute to causes I think are of the utmost importance like the JPFO and MCRGO.
Groups of importance. I only give to little unimportant groups like UNICEF and Doctors Without Borders.
Why do you call them unimportant? I certainly didn't say that in my post. I think those are fantastic groups to give money to. I simply think the JPFO and MCRGO are also important groups. They teach courses on firearms safety and hand out gun locks.
Poorly worded I admit. I have a serious problem with gun rights groups. They act like they're some grassroots movement, but they're essentially corporate lobbying entities. Chodon complains constantly about how this country doesn't work and how stupid decisions are made all of the time. Many of those stupid decisions come from corporate lobbying pressure. If he didn't give money to these lobbyists, Colt or Smith & Wesson would. They do not worry about their budgets.
If you want to be really rich, found one of these organizations. Once you start making a good amount of noise, you can give yourself a massive salary and just watch the money flow in.
The funny ass thing about this is I'm not anti-gun.
-
I contribute to causes I think are of the utmost importance like the JPFO and MCRGO.
Groups of importance. I only give to little unimportant groups like UNICEF and Doctors Without Borders.
Why do you call them unimportant? I certainly didn't say that in my post. I think those are fantastic groups to give money to. I simply think the JPFO and MCRGO are also important groups. They teach courses on firearms safety and hand out gun locks.
I think the point is that by describing them as being "of the utmost importance", you're implicitly stating that all other causes (UNICEF, DWB, Amnesty International, The Innocence Project, your local childrens' hospital, or the Rosie O'Donnell Retirement Fund) are of lesser importance. Had you left out that one word, I doubt Mr Nash would have felt compelled to comment.
-
Chiming in with Russell here, but the NRA goes too far with what they do. I was on the rifle team in High School, and though I won't hunt (against my belief system), I don't want to ban all guns. But gun control is proper and necessary, especially in cities. Out in the country and in earlier times it was a lot more logical for people to be armed, but in city life it's insane. There's room for discussion about self-defense, but DC's handgun ban is a good idea implemented badly due to the availability of guns from out of the city. But the intent of getting the number of guns down in the city is a good idea that is necessary for the general welfare.
A handgun can be used for protection. But if it's ten times more likely that a given gun is used in a crime instead of self-defense, well, something has to change.
-
Lying about it was the wrong move. I've always maintained that he should have answered any questions on the subject with "I don't recognize your right to ask me that question." Or more succinctly, "none of your goddamn business."
For the record, I never was a Clinton "supporter", and if GWB is diddling interns I still don't care. I have serious issues with how his administration is running things, but I don't give two shits about his personal business.
Well, respecting the leader isn't, I guess, absolutely necessary, but I would prefer to be able to respect the leader of my country, and it's hard for me to respect someone who puts their own selfish desires above the love of his family. Of course, we all do that from time to time in smaller ways, and I'm not talking about a moment of weakness; I'm talking about calculated, persistent, premeditated cheating on your spouse.
I think these "charactor" issues are a big bag of BS. I posted about a year ago about a show I saw on PBS in the pre-internet days. Basically every US President had an affair while in office except for Carter and it looks like Bush II. Carter was totally ineffectual and Bush has been an absolute disaster. FDR is considered one of the absolute greats and his secretary lived with him and Eleanor was down the hall. Churchill was a drunkard and adulterer. Hitler only drank the ocassional beer and was completely monogamous.
This show on PBS, did they really state some hard sources for these claims or was it some deftly manipulated revisionist history? Yeah, I know, we've had some good presidents who made some bad judgments in their personal lives, but to state that all but two have had affairs seems a little sensationalistic, to me. No offense, Nash, it's just hard for me to buy that, ya know? :-\
-
I contribute to causes I think are of the utmost importance like the JPFO and MCRGO.
Groups of importance. I only give to little unimportant groups like UNICEF and Doctors Without Borders.
Why do you call them unimportant? I certainly didn't say that in my post. I think those are fantastic groups to give money to. I simply think the JPFO and MCRGO are also important groups. They teach courses on firearms safety and hand out gun locks.
I think the point is that by describing them as being "of the utmost importance", you're implicitly stating that all other causes (UNICEF, DWB, Amnesty International, The Innocence Project, your local childrens' hospital, or the Rosie O'Donnell Retirement Fund) are of lesser importance. Had you left out that one word, I doubt Mr Nash would have felt compelled to comment.
I should have stated "of the utmost importance to me". My views on firearms are a matter of public record (http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=1241.0). I don't want to turn this into a debate about guns again. We had that debate already. I just wanted to say I think people need to get more involved and take politics more seriously. If they really took the time to get educated they would see through all the BS that is out there on both sides. I don't support JPFO and MCRGO for their lobbying purposes, I support them because they also do good in the community.
I'm all for people supporting whatever organizations they want. It's their own money and they can do what they damn well please with it.
As far as leaders having affairs, I'm always going to have an issue with it. If someone is willing to lie to their spouse, the person they supposedly love more than anyone in the world, why wouldn't they lie to you or me?
I do NOT consider FDR an absolute great. And with the comparison of Hitler, I think Godwin's Law (http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=1511.0) is in effect. I think that one's dedication to their family is ONE of many indicators of their skill as a leader. For example, I haven't cheated on my wife, but I would be a shitty president. Not as bad as Hitler, but probably worse than Bush 2.
-
A couple of (I hope) brief thoughts:
1) Chodon, my comments about "if you think X sucks, then you should do something about it" were NOT directed at you personally. I violated one of my own logical pet peeves by switching between the "individual you" in part of the post, and the "collective/hypothetical you" in other parts. You're one of the Junior Achievement volunteers also, aren't you? It's not you that my anger and frustration are directed at... it's the whiny slob who works French hours (say, less than 35 a week), plays WoW (or an equivalent) every other waking hour, and complains that he doesn't have time to get involved that ticks me off. Fortunately, I don't have to be around people like that very often.
2) I think "character" and "morals" in a politician are both unlikely and undesirable. At least in the sense that you guys are talking about. Someone's fidelity to their wife has less than zero impact on how they do their job; in fact, if they are seeking a job like POTUS, they've already established that family is not coming first. If you're casting your vote based on who is more "moral" (and good luck defining that in a measurable way) you end up with... um... my boss*. (To be continued 1-20-2009. :( )
3) Why I am not a Libertarian: there is more to government than gun control and getting rid of taxes. I used to think it was great to hear Libertarian thinkers talk about what a wonderful world it would be if that nasty old government would stop reaching into our pockets and just leave us alone. "We're responsible adults! We can take care of ourselves!" But that's not the end of the story. We need a government; therefore, we have one. Like a gun, it is dangerous when it is not handled properly. You can ignore it (sometimes at your peril), but you don't dare ban it. And you hope you don't have to use it on someone else. But, sometimes, despite your best intentions, that isn't up to you. (and to follow the analogy, we have just spent seven years witnessing what happens when the drunken teenagers find the key to dad's gun safe... but again, I shouldn't really elaborate ;) )
*Very, VERY indirectly... but close enough to wait a year.
-
I don't have time to deal with all this right now, but I need clairification on a couple points.
Okay, this is something very interesting to me. I don't understand how bureaucracy (one of the few things government does well) can make something more efficient.
I'm unclear what you mean by "bureaucracy." In the sense of having a large group of people in a series of heirarchical relationships and governed by formal rules, that's just about the only way we've discovered to get large groups of unrelated people to work together and apply a variety of specialized skills to large-scale problems and processes. Every couple years, some wisacre comes along and wants to be "unbureacratic" and tears down the structure of departments, staff, etc. Which just re-emerges, now labeled as "teams," "squads," "production units," "pods" (I am not making that last one up), or what have you, but basically the same pattern because nobody's really got a better one. So in that sense, "bureaucracy" -- with all its attendent problems -- seems to be an unavoidable consequence of dealing with large problems and processes. (Small organizations find their own ways to be eccentric and dysfunctional.)
Since I assume you're smart enough to know all that, what do you mean by bureacracy?
There are some things government does BETTER than the private sector, or things the private sector can't do at all. Examples include roads, police, national defense. They do not do it more efficiently though.
And now we come to our second problematic term: efficiency. By efficient, I mean using fewer units of input (usually standardized to a monetary cost) to produce the same out put (ditto) than competing solutions. I don't understand how you're using the term in this context.
-
A couple of (I hope) brief thoughts:
1) Chodon, my comments about "if you think X sucks, then you should do something about it" were NOT directed at you personally. I violated one of my own logical pet peeves by switching between the "individual you" in part of the post, and the "collective/hypothetical you" in other parts. You're one of the Junior Achievement volunteers also, aren't you? It's not you that my anger and frustration are directed at... it's the whiny slob who works French hours (say, less than 35 a week), plays WoW (or an equivalent) every other waking hour, and complains that he doesn't have time to get involved that ticks me off. Fortunately, I don't have to be around people like that very often.
Thanks for the clarification. Makes sense to me, and I agree. In fact, I start a new JA class this week! Woo-hoo! It's my first time teaching 7th grade though...we'll see how it goes. :-\
2) I think "character" and "morals" in a politician are both unlikely and undesirable. At least in the sense that you guys are talking about. Someone's fidelity to their wife has less than zero impact on how they do their job; in fact, if they are seeking a job like POTUS, they've already established that family is not coming first. If you're casting your vote based on who is more "moral" (and good luck defining that in a measurable way) you end up with... um... my boss*. (To be continued 1-20-2009. :( )
I guess that is one where we both articulated our points well, but are going to have to agree to disagree. Again, I wouldn't use morality as my only criterion for voting, but it would be an additional factor. I think it reflects on one's ability to maintain promises, but if their policies are shit I would rather they didn't follow through on them.
3) Why I am not a Libertarian: there is more to government than gun control and getting rid of taxes. I used to think it was great to hear Libertarian thinkers talk about what a wonderful world it would be if that nasty old government would stop reaching into our pockets and just leave us alone. "We're responsible adults! We can take care of ourselves!" But that's not the end of the story. We need a government; therefore, we have one. Like a gun, it is dangerous when it is not handled properly. You can ignore it (sometimes at your peril), but you don't dare ban it. And you hope you don't have to use it on someone else. But, sometimes, despite your best intentions, that isn't up to you. (and to follow the analogy, we have just spent seven years witnessing what happens when the drunken teenagers find the key to dad's gun safe... but again, I shouldn't really elaborate ;) )
I have been seriously reconsidering my Libertarian party membership lately. The realization I had earlier this week that government isn't really the problem, it's the people that put them in place made me realize minimizing government isn't going to fix the problem. Unfortunately, I haven't figured out what will, so I know I sound like a whiney do-nothing. I'll admit: I don't have an answer right now, and probably will never have THE answer. I'm just not content with the status quo.
-
Okay, this is something very interesting to me. I don't understand how bureaucracy (one of the few things government does well) can make something more efficient.
I'm unclear what you mean by "bureaucracy." In the sense of having a large group of people in a series of heirarchical relationships and governed by formal rules, that's just about the only way we've discovered to get large groups of unrelated people to work together and apply a variety of specialized skills to large-scale problems and processes. Every couple years, some wisacre comes along and wants to be "unbureacratic" and tears down the structure of departments, staff, etc. Which just re-emerges, now labeled as "teams," "squads," "production units," "pods" (I am not making that last one up), or what have you, but basically the same pattern because nobody's really got a better one. So in that sense, "bureaucracy" -- with all its attendent problems -- seems to be an unavoidable consequence of dealing with large problems and processes. (Small organizations find their own ways to be eccentric and dysfunctional.)
Since I assume you're smart enough to know all that, what do you mean by bureacracy?
I meant the hassle one has to go through to get the government to perform, and how the rules are sometimes followed to the letter to the exclusion of the intent. An example is Act Two (http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1236) of This American Life from a few weeks ago. I consider it to be synonymous with waste, laziness, and a disregard for one's fellows. It also whittle's away at people's liberties, making them jump through hoops to receive things such as permits (many of which are for rights which are constitutionally granted). I realize a certain amount of bureaucracy is required in business and government, but I think it should be minimized in order to reduce administrative overhead expedite results.
There are some things government does BETTER than the private sector, or things the private sector can't do at all. Examples include roads, police, national defense. They do not do it more efficiently though.
And now we come to our second problematic term: efficiency. By efficient, I mean using fewer units of input (usually standardized to a monetary cost) to produce the same out put (ditto) than competing solutions. I don't understand how you're using the term in this context.
I don't know what the hell I was saying there. That didn't even make sense to me now that I re-read it. If there is only one way of doing something the efficiency is undefined (because, as you said, it is a comparison). ???
I guess I was trying to make the point that those major programs were very expensive, but the business sector never would have attempted them, so there is no way of telling how much money was wasted (or saved).
-
There are some things government does BETTER than the private sector, or things the private sector can't do at all. Examples include roads, police, national defense. They do not do it more efficiently though.
And now we come to our second problematic term: efficiency. By efficient, I mean using fewer units of input (usually standardized to a monetary cost) to produce the same out put (ditto) than competing solutions. I don't understand how you're using the term in this context.
I don't know what the hell I was saying there. That didn't even make sense to me now that I re-read it. If there is only one way of doing something the efficiency is undefined (because, as you said, it is a comparison). ???
I guess I was trying to make the point that those major programs were very expensive, but the business sector never would have attempted them, so there is no way of telling how much money was wasted (or saved).
All of the things you listed could be done by private industry.
The earliest roads were built by car manufacturers, in the same way that railway operators pay for train tracks; had roads and railways ether both been publicly funded, or both been privately funded, America's model of mass transportation may have been very different.
Private police forces are not unknown, but I think most citizens are understandably cautious about giving police powers to non-governmental organisations.
The founding father's preferred model for national defence was to have no standing army, and rely on militias of private citizens when a defence was needed. The idea was that, without a standing army, America would not be able to start a war of aggression or oppress the population. Of course, expecting private individuals to own military equipment works fine when the height of technology is a barrel-loaded musket, but falls down when you need air support.
Things private industry cannot do tend to be in the field of long-term blue-sky research. The US government sank tens (hundreds?) of billions of dollars into developing computers over a period of decades, before industry had the slightest interest in using the now-proven, mature technology. Without NASA spending billions on working out how to get satellites into orbit, CNN certainly wouldn't have wanted to do the basic research. I can only hope that government research into space travel gets back on track, so that it reaches the point where private industry can see a suitable return on investment.
The thing that government can do far, far better than private business is to to throw money at researchers without caring if they get it back in time for the next shareholder's meeting.
-
<snip> Since I assume you're smart enough to know all that, what do you mean by bureacracy?
I meant the hassle one has to go through to get the government to perform, and how the rules are sometimes followed to the letter to the exclusion of the intent. An example is Act Two (http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1236) of This American Life from a few weeks ago. I consider it to be synonymous with waste, laziness, and a disregard for one's fellows. It also whittle's away at people's liberties, making them jump through hoops to receive things such as permits (many of which are for rights which are constitutionally granted). I realize a certain amount of bureaucracy is required in business and government, but I think it should be minimized in order to reduce administrative overhead expedite results.
Ah. OK, so it's not bureacracy that bugs you, it's a badly-run bureacracy that bugs you.
Sadly, the government has no monopoly on this, as anyone who's tried to re-book an airline seat after having their flight cancelled or pry a payment out of an insurance company lately probably knows. Or, for extra bonus points, have a mutual fund company explain why you're paying a 12b-1 fee (a marketing fee they justify charging because it will "increase assets and lead to lower costs" and to "compensate marketing service providers) on a closed fund that being purchased directly from the fund family. The real answer: "Because we can." The answer you get: <<insert almost any string of words that is not the real answer>> Though I guess that's technically not bureacracy, more like simple extortion.
There are some things government does BETTER than the private sector, or things the private sector can't do at all. Examples include roads, police, national defense. They do not do it more efficiently though.
And now we come to our second problematic term: efficiency. By efficient, I mean using fewer units of input (usually standardized to a monetary cost) to produce the same out put (ditto) than competing solutions. I don't understand how you're using the term in this context.
I don't know what the hell I was saying there. That didn't even make sense to me now that I re-read it. If there is only one way of doing something the efficiency is undefined (because, as you said, it is a comparison). ???
OK, just so long as we're all operating at the same general level of confusion. ;D
-
Cha-ching. Got my "W" money deposited in to the checking account yesterday (April 30th). Debt retired today. Mission Accomplished!
-
Cha-ching. Got my "W" money deposited in to the checking account yesterday (April 30th). Debt retired today. Mission Accomplished!
At least somebody's mission got accomplished (you hear me, George?)
-
Heh... don't know if this is y'all's cup of tea, but Serj Tankian made a cute reference to having a "Mishun akomplishd" in his "Empty Walls" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZSKvSz1roQ) video. (Currently, my wife's favorite song.)
Speaking of said lovely wife, she told me she found out that this W money is basically coming out of any refunds we would have received on our 2008 returns... which sounds like a "pre-bate" to me. Has anyone else got a sense of the fine print behind this deal? If it's something we're basically going to have to pay back next tax cycle, I'd rather not spend it like a foolish grasshopper now. I'd rather keep believing that the Congress is fiscally irresponsible, frankly. ;)
-
Heh... don't know if this is y'all's cup of tea, but Serj Tankian made a cute reference to having a "Mishun akomplishd" in his "Empty Walls" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZSKvSz1roQ) video. (Currently, my wife's favorite song.)
Speaking of said lovely wife, she told me she found out that this W money is basically coming out of any refunds we would have received on our 2008 returns... which sounds like a "pre-bate" to me. Has anyone else got a sense of the fine print behind this deal? If it's something we're basically going to have to pay back next tax cycle, I'd rather not spend it like a foolish grasshopper now. I'd rather keep believing that the Congress is fiscally irresponsible, frankly. ;)
Dunno about Congress, but my guess is that the Chinese will want their money back, eventually...
-
Heh... don't know if this is y'all's cup of tea, but Serj Tankian made a cute reference to having a "Mishun akomplishd" in his "Empty Walls" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZSKvSz1roQ) video. (Currently, my wife's favorite song.)
Speaking of said lovely wife, she told me she found out that this W money is basically coming out of any refunds we would have received on our 2008 returns... which sounds like a "pre-bate" to me. Has anyone else got a sense of the fine print behind this deal? If it's something we're basically going to have to pay back next tax cycle, I'd rather not spend it like a foolish grasshopper now. I'd rather keep believing that the Congress is fiscally irresponsible, frankly. ;)
Dunno about Congress, but my guess is that the Chinese will want their money back, eventually...
They tend to take the loooong view, though.... I wouldn't be surprised to find out that all of this is going according to Mao's plans.
-
Heh... don't know if this is y'all's cup of tea, but Serj Tankian made a cute reference to having a "Mishun akomplishd" in his "Empty Walls" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZSKvSz1roQ) video. (Currently, my wife's favorite song.)
Speaking of said lovely wife, she told me she found out that this W money is basically coming out of any refunds we would have received on our 2008 returns... which sounds like a "pre-bate" to me. Has anyone else got a sense of the fine print behind this deal? If it's something we're basically going to have to pay back next tax cycle, I'd rather not spend it like a foolish grasshopper now. I'd rather keep believing that the Congress is fiscally irresponsible, frankly. ;)
Dunno about Congress, but my guess is that the Chinese will want their money back, eventually...
They tend to take the loooong view, though.... I wouldn't be surprised to find out that all of this is going according to Mao's plans.
I posted a pie chart back on page 1 of this thread that shows who owns the US national debt. China (or foreign countries in general) do not own a significant portion of the US debt. I was really surprised, considering how everyone says China owns everything in the US. Most of it is owned by the gov't itself (which is just as fishy as far as I am concerned), and the US population in the form of bonds.
-
Heh... don't know if this is y'all's cup of tea, but Serj Tankian made a cute reference to having a "Mishun akomplishd" in his "Empty Walls" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZSKvSz1roQ) video. (Currently, my wife's favorite song.)
Speaking of said lovely wife, she told me she found out that this W money is basically coming out of any refunds we would have received on our 2008 returns... which sounds like a "pre-bate" to me. Has anyone else got a sense of the fine print behind this deal? If it's something we're basically going to have to pay back next tax cycle, I'd rather not spend it like a foolish grasshopper now. I'd rather keep believing that the Congress is fiscally irresponsible, frankly. ;)
Dunno about Congress, but my guess is that the Chinese will want their money back, eventually...
They tend to take the loooong view, though.... I wouldn't be surprised to find out that all of this is going according to Mao's plans.
I posted a pie chart back on page 1 of this thread that shows who owns the US national debt. China (or foreign countries in general) do not own a significant portion of the US debt. I was really surprised, considering how everyone says China owns everything in the US. Most of it is owned by the gov't itself (which is just as fishy as far as I am concerned), and the US population in the form of bonds.
Government of the money, by the money, and for the money. So, I guess we literally owe it to ourselves?
I remember a lot of the same sentiments we are hearing about China now, being said about Japan 20 years ago. Japanese companies started outperforming us, and started buying up our famous landmarks (like Rockefeller Center) and companies... and look how that turned out.
(Wakela want to weigh in with a ground's eye view?)
-
I posted a pie chart back on page 1 of this thread that shows who owns the US national debt. China (or foreign countries in general) do not own a significant portion of the US debt. I was really surprised, considering how everyone says China owns everything in the US. Most of it is owned by the gov't itself (which is just as fishy as far as I am concerned), and the US population in the form of bonds.
What you're seeing there with government ownership is the Social Security Trust Fund. As the difference between collections from Social Security taxes and payouts in Social Security benefits -- currently a large positive number -- shrinks over time, the fund will buy fewer and fewer bonds, and eventually start selling them.
For some reason, people wierd out about this. Often people whose personal portfolios contain large numbers of -- wait for it -- government bonds. Of course, sometimes it's because they have help wierding out. I recall one of the pro-privatization trustees declaring dramatically in his Congressional testimony, "As a Trustee of Social Security, I'm here to tell you that the Trust Fund consists of nothing but IOU's!"
Well, I'm the owner of a private retirement account, and guess what? IT CONSISTS OF NOTHING BUT IOU'S, EITHER!!! That's because being an IOU is the definition of a financial asset. A bond is an IOU for a series of future payments; a stock is an IOU for the current assets and future profits of a corporation, and so on.
When people smart enough to know what they're saying is dumb go ahead and say it anyway -- especially with an air of gravitis -- I find THAT really fishy...
As for the Chinese, no, the absolute amount they hold is not large, but they've been large buyers over the past decade, while demand from within the US has remained largely stagnant. So they're contributing a lot of the "new money" (a.k.a. "marginal demand") important for setting currrent long-term rates (a.k.a. "price"). Though the current fear among the Captains of Investment Banking of anything that isn't government-guaranteed may have changed who the big, current buyers are.
-
I posted a pie chart back on page 1 of this thread that shows who owns the US national debt. China (or foreign countries in general) do not own a significant portion of the US debt. I was really surprised, considering how everyone says China owns everything in the US. Most of it is owned by the gov't itself (which is just as fishy as far as I am concerned), and the US population in the form of bonds.
What you're seeing there with government ownership is the Social Security Trust Fund. As the difference between collections from Social Security taxes and payouts in Social Security benefits -- currently a large positive number -- shrinks over time, the fund will buy fewer and fewer bonds, and eventually start selling them.
Isn't it a little concerning to you that the government can issue itself bonds like this though? That's the part I find concerning. This whole thread started talking about the "W" money, which I see as one major threat to the value of US currency (which the international market tends to agree with at the moment). Businesses can't issue bonds to themselves. Individuals can't do that. Why can the government? Where are they getting the assets to buy the bonds? Issuance of more bonds? ???
For some reason, people wierd out about this. Often people whose personal portfolios contain large numbers of -- wait for it -- government bonds. Of course, sometimes it's because they have help wierding out. I recall one of the pro-privatization trustees declaring dramatically in his Congressional testimony, "As a Trustee of Social Security, I'm here to tell you that the Trust Fund consists of nothing but IOU's!"
Well, I'm the owner of a private retirement account, and guess what? IT CONSISTS OF NOTHING BUT IOU'S, EITHER!!! That's because being an IOU is the definition of a financial asset. A bond is an IOU for a series of future payments; a stock is an IOU for the current assets and future profits of a corporation, and so on.
That isn't entirely true. If a corporation goes bankrupt (chapter 7, not 11) bondholders are entitled to a share of the assets proportional to their bond value. Stockholders, well, not so much. Bonds come first. Government bonds however are backed up by the government's word. It has worked fantastic in the past, and probably will in the future. However, if the government somehow went bankrupt it's not like they are going to mail you a landing gear from an old F-4 to repay the bond commitments in the way you might get some cash from sale of a business' assets at auction. Of course, the government can't go bankrupt because they can print their own cash. What does that mean? The cash would be de-valued (inflation).
When people smart enough to know what they're saying is dumb go ahead and say it anyway -- especially with an air of gravitis -- I find THAT really fishy...
I'm not sure it that one was meant as a dig at me or not...I just stated that I don't like the government buying their own bonds. It is essentially creating cash out of nothing, which is what I find fishy. If I said anything dumb (which I do often) I would make sure to retract it, not go ahead and say it anyway.
As for the Chinese, no, the absolute amount they hold is not large, but they've been large buyers over the past decade, while demand from within the US has remained largely stagnant. So they're contributing a lot of the "new money" (a.k.a. "marginal demand") important for setting currrent long-term rates (a.k.a. "price"). Though the current fear among the Captains of Investment Banking of anything that isn't government-guaranteed may have changed who the big, current buyers are.
People blame the Chinese for everything lately, and it's really getting old. Lead in paint (which was specified by toy manufacturers, not the Chinese). Mattel is the manufacturer of these toys, not the People's Republic of China! Now it's the fact they are buying US government securities. It's like there is some sort of smear campaign against China. Yes, China's human rights record is terrible. They have most favored nation trade status though. The consequences of boycotting them would be enormous. Consumer products pricing would be through the roof.
One thing I don't understand (Windup, maybe you could clear this up for me) is if the Chinese ownership of US bonds is personal ownership (Chinese citizens buying bonds) or governmental. I would be a lot more concerned about the latter.
-
I posted a pie chart back on page 1 of this thread that shows who owns the US national debt. China (or foreign countries in general) do not own a significant portion of the US debt. I was really surprised, considering how everyone says China owns everything in the US. Most of it is owned by the gov't itself (which is just as fishy as far as I am concerned), and the US population in the form of bonds.
What you're seeing there with government ownership is the Social Security Trust Fund. As the difference between collections from Social Security taxes and payouts in Social Security benefits -- currently a large positive number -- shrinks over time, the fund will buy fewer and fewer bonds, and eventually start selling them.
Isn't it a little concerning to you that the government can issue itself bonds like this though? That's the part I find concerning. This whole thread started talking about the "W" money, which I see as one major threat to the value of US currency (which the international market tends to agree with at the moment). Businesses can't issue bonds to themselves. Individuals can't do that. Why can the government? Where are they getting the assets to buy the bonds? Issuance of more bonds? ???
Bear in mind that we have essentially two entities here -- the SS Trust Fund and the General Fund. Reality is far more complicated, but for purposes of illustration, it makes sense to divide the bookkeeping world into "SS Trust Fund" and "The General Fund" (a.k.a. "everything else").
Currently, the General Fund is issuing bonds and spending the proceeds, while the Trust Fund keeps buying them. Essentially, the Trust Fund gives the General Fund its current cash (from Social Security taxes) in exchange for a promise by the General Fund to give back more cash (principle + interest) at a future date. The same thing happens if the bond is purchased by a bank, a corporation, or me. At the moment, as the bonds fall due, the Trust fund uses the proceeds to buy more bonds. Eventually, the Trust will stop buying bonds and start taking the payments and paying the cash out to beneficiaries. When that happens, the General Fund must either borrow funds from another source, raise additional tax revenue, or cut spending on other programs -- the exact same set of choices it faces if those bonds were held by anyone else.
To the extent that there's a problem here, it's that for accounting purposes, the surplus (spending lower than tax receipts) being accumuated by the Trust Fund offsets the deficit (spending higher than tax receipts) being racked up by the General Fund. While that doesn't endanger Social Security, it means the problems in the General Fund are worse than most people realize.
[/quote]
For some reason, people wierd out about this. Often people whose personal portfolios contain large numbers of -- wait for it -- government bonds. Of course, sometimes it's because they have help wierding out. I recall one of the pro-privatization trustees declaring dramatically in his Congressional testimony, "As a Trustee of Social Security, I'm here to tell you that the Trust Fund consists of nothing but IOU's!"
Well, I'm the owner of a private retirement account, and guess what? IT CONSISTS OF NOTHING BUT IOU'S, EITHER!!! That's because being an IOU is the definition of a financial asset. A bond is an IOU for a series of future payments; a stock is an IOU for the current assets and future profits of a corporation, and so on.
That isn't entirely true. If a corporation goes bankrupt (chapter 7, not 11) bondholders are entitled to a share of the assets proportional to their bond value. Stockholders, well, not so much. Bonds come first. Government bonds however are backed up by the government's word. It has worked fantastic in the past, and probably will in the future. However, if the government somehow went bankrupt it's not like they are going to mail you a landing gear from an old F-4 to repay the bond commitments in the way you might get some cash from sale of a business' assets at auction. Of course, the government can't go bankrupt because they can print their own cash. What does that mean? The cash would be de-valued (inflation).
My point is that anything we call a financial asset is an IOU of some sort. An IOU is no better or worse than the entity that issues it, and comes down to the reliability and adequacy of the entity's future cash flows. (An elementary fact that seems to have eluded many of those "well-disciplined" private bankers pulling down six and seven figure salaries, but that's a different discussion.) Trying to get people upset about the fact the trust fund "contains nothing but IOU's" is intellectually dishonest. It's going to contain IOU's from somebody -- whose would you rather it was holding right now -- the US Government's, or say, Bear Sterns?
And no, the "saying thing you know to be dumb with a tone of gravitis" comment was certainly not directed at you. You seem to be making a perfectly honest attempt to get your head around the situation. The comment was directed at people like the trustee I mentioned, and worthies of places such as the Heritage Foundation, who assume the tones of vastly superior wisdom and experience, and the proceed to make blatantly dishonest statements, like the one about IOU's. Or the web "calculator" that a pro-privatization site put up that would tell you things like "your monthly payments would be $302.68 higher with private accounts than with standard Social Security." Anyone who has done even a modicum of serious retirement planning knows that any predictions about the ultimate outcome of an investment program are wildly speculative, especially more than a few years out. Alas, it will probably work, because the share of the population that's done realistic retirement planning is very small.
-
Bear in mind that we have essentially two entities here -- the SS Trust Fund and the General Fund. Reality is far more complicated, but for purposes of illustration, it makes sense to divide the bookkeeping world into "SS Trust Fund" and "The General Fund" (a.k.a. "everything else").
Currently, the General Fund is issuing bonds and spending the proceeds, while the Trust Fund keeps buying them. Essentially, the Trust Fund gives the General Fund its current cash (from Social Security taxes) in exchange for a promise by the General Fund to give back more cash (principle + interest) at a future date. The same thing happens if the bond is purchased by a bank, a corporation, or me. At the moment, as the bonds fall due, the Trust fund uses the proceeds to buy more bonds. Eventually, the Trust will stop buying bonds and start taking the payments and paying the cash out to beneficiaries. When that happens, the General Fund must either borrow funds from another source, raise additional tax revenue, or cut spending on other programs -- the exact same set of choices it faces if those bonds were held by anyone else.
To the extent that there's a problem here, it's that for accounting purposes, the surplus (spending lower than tax receipts) being accumuated by the Trust Fund offsets the deficit (spending higher than tax receipts) being racked up by the General Fund. While that doesn't endanger Social Security, it means the problems in the General Fund are worse than most people realize.
It seems pretty clear that you have a better understanding of the cogs behind the system than I, so maybe you could answer some questions for me.
Where does the trust fund get the cash from which to buy the bonds? It just seems at some point there is money being pulled out of some magic hat, which to me screams 'inflation'. The government is running without a balanced budget, that much we know. Are they issuing enough bonds to generate the cash to cover the shortfall in tax revenue? If not, how are they making up the difference?
On a side note, why is inflation so stinking high right now? Everyone (including the media) is complaining about high prices for food, fuel, raw materials, etc. To me it just looks like the dollar is devaluing. I remember when 1 British Pound was $1.50, now it's over $2. What is the root cause?
Thanks for the clarification on this stuff, Windup! ;D
-
Where does the trust fund get the cash from which to buy the bonds? It just seems at some point there is money being pulled out of some magic hat, which to me screams 'inflation'.
The Social Security Trust Fund's main source of income is payroll taxes on workers and employers. This shows up as the FICA line on your pay stub; your employer contributes an equal amount. If you're self-employed, you pay the equivalent of both the "worker" and "employer" portions.
Throughout most of the system's history, there was a rough parity between the taxes collected and the benefits paid out on a yearly basis. The purpose of the Trust Funds was to serve as a "buffer" to ensure that benefit checks could be issued monthly in an orderly manner, even if payroll tax collections fluctuated over time. Following reforms during the Reagan administration, the system began to collect more in taxes than it paid out in benefits on an ongoing basis, with the intention of accumulating a large surplus -- invested exclusively in government-issued securities for safety -- that would be drawn down to pay for the retirement of the baby boomers.
As a result of some additional reforms passed later, the SS trust funds get some additional income from a tax on the Social Security benefits of high-income recipients. However, this is fairly small compared to the payroll tax.
The government is running without a balanced budget, that much we know. Are they issuing enough bonds to generate the cash to cover the shortfall in tax revenue? If not, how are they making up the difference?
Meanwhile, over at the General Fund, expenditures are higher than tax collections. To make up the difference, the Federal government issues bonds -- meaning that someone gives them money up front, in exchange for a series of payments.
On a side note, why is inflation so stinking high right now? Everyone (including the media) is complaining about high prices for food, fuel, raw materials, etc. To me it just looks like the dollar is devaluing. I remember when 1 British Pound was $1.50, now it's over $2. What is the root cause?
Don't get me started on the whole screwed-up way we talk about inflation.
The rising price of any good or service or group of goods or services doesn't prove squat about inflation one way or another. In an economy of any complexity at all, some prices will be rising and some will be falling. What the inflation number tries to get at is the change in the general level of prices in the economy. For example, if the increase in the cost of oil were precisely offset by a fall in the price of steel (or whatever), there would be no change at all in the general price level, even though the price of oil rose. If the price of everything in the economy were to rise at the same time, that would definitely constitute a rise in general price level. However, except in very extreme situations -- like Zimbabwe -- that never happens.
At the simplest level, inflation means there is too much money chasing too few goods and services -- the money supply has been allowed to grow faster than the "real" economy. Unfortunately, figuring out both the "size" of the real economy and the effective size of the money supply are both fraught with statistical uncertainty. To make matters worse, there also appears to be a psychological "expectations" component that's even harder to quantify.
So, somewhere in the system, we're creating dollars faster than we're creating things to buy with dollars, but it's darn difficult to figure out where the problem actually lies. Much of the bad economic news -- bankruptcies, defaults, reduction in lending, reduction in the rate at which money changes hands, etc. tend to reduce the effective money supply. The Fed has been trying to offset this by buying special securities and paying for them with dollars it creates in an effort to increase the money supply and lower interest rates.
But the bottom line is, nobody knows for sure. One of the big undereported stories of the last twenty years is that many of the tools we used to rely on to figure out say, the money supply have become useless. M1, once considered the most definitive measure of total dollars, became so unstable sometime in the late 80's that the Fed quit using it. Ditto a number of other important metrics.
I remember when 1 British Pound was $1.50, now it's over $2. What is the root cause?
Exchange rates are a somewhat-seperate deal.
The main reason you'll accept that little electronic blip representing some number of "dollars" that your employer gives you for a week's work are that you have confidence that when you go to the grocery store or gas station and propose to exchange the electronic blips for goods and services, you'll be able to do so. The merchants accept the dollars from you because they believe the same thing -- they'll be able to acquire things they want by offering dollars for them. And so on.
So, the ultimate value of any medium of exchange -- dollars, gold, dinar, francs, pretty shells, etc. -- lies in people's belief that they can use it to get what they want. In one sense, a nation's currency is an IOU for the output of the entire economy.
For years, what we've been getting more stuff from other economies than we've been giving in return -- imports have been larger than exports. The net effect is that we push a steadily-growing amount of dollars to other countries, whose citizens assume that at some time in the future, they'll be able to use them to get something they want. (These are often held in the form of Treasury securities held by central banks of other countries.) Remember, those dollars represent a claim on the future output of the American economy.
At some point in this process, enough people decide that maybe the American economy won't be able to produce enough "stuff" to cover all those dollars, (or that inflation may require them to pay more dollars for what they want than they expected) so they start demanding more dollars in exchange for their "stuff," or to be paid in another currency. This makes Americans less likely to buy imported products -- because they cost more -- and since American producers pay most of their expenses in dollars, it lowers the cost of American goods in other currencies and makes it easier to export. So the imbalance straightens itself out over time.
Of course, this is a hugely simplified explanation on a subject that thousands of people have expended their careers on, and the real world is riddled with exceptions to all this, but at least it's a start.
-
Hm....Okay, did anyone who was supposed to get their $$ today *not* get it? It hasn't hit my bank yet, and I am kinda wondering what the heck? 'Munths got his on time.
-
Hm....Okay, did anyone who was supposed to get their $$ today *not* get it? It hasn't hit my bank yet, and I am kinda wondering what the heck? Proph got his on time.
We got the notice that said (translating from govt-e-gobble) "You should get it today, but if you don't, wait six weeks before bugging us about it."
-
Thanks TAD.
Weird. I haven't even gotten a notice. I filed taxes and had the return direct deposited. *sigh* Great.
-
The plot thickens. A friend who was supposed to get his $$ on Friday (same date I should have) also never got a notice, and only got $300 (he makes about $45K/year, has no kids, etc. so there should be no weirdness). I am wondering if anyone else who should have gotten in Friday is having similar issues. Seems like possilby there's a fairly large screw-up some where.
Ah, well. I suppose I should get ready to play lots of phone tag and listen to many podcasts while on hold.
-
The plot thickens. A friend who was supposed to get his $$ on Friday (same date I should have) also never got a notice, and only got $300 (he makes about $45K/year, has no kids, etc. so there should be no weirdness). I am wondering if anyone else who should have gotten in Friday is having similar issues. Seems like possilby there's a fairly large screw-up some where.
Ah, well. I suppose I should get ready to play lots of phone tag and listen to many podcasts while on hold.
A screw-up? By the Government? Never!! :P
-
It turns out that a lot of people are using there checks to further the internets oldest profession Online Porn.
NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92241289)
-
It turns out that a lot of people are using there checks to further the internets oldest profession Online Porn.
NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92241289)
At least the money is stimulating something.
-
I did exactly what the government wanted: 2/3 to savings, 1/3 to bills.
Stimulus fail.
-
And, of course, brothels are trying to get in on the action (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/29/brothels.fuel.ap/).
Under a promotion under way at the Moonlite BunnyRanch near Carson City, the first 100 customers who arrive with government stimulus checks receive twice the services for the same regular price.
"We're calling it double your stimulus," said BunnyRanch owner Dennis Hof. "The brothel industry is having to get more creative just like all consumer products in America. Everybody has got to deal, and we're doing the same thing."
-
It turns out that a lot of people are using there checks to further the internets oldest profession Online Porn.
NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92241289)
At least the money is stimulating something.
More proof that this forum needs a rimshot sound effect.
-
Not to revive the dead, but those Stimulus checks really did a good job, didn't they?
This American Life continues to make a scary situation scarier by explaining things (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=365).
-
I never did get mine. I guess that's because I haven't paid American taxes in seven years.
-
I never did get mine. I guess that's because I haven't paid American taxes in seven years.
I never got mine, even though I did pay American taxes for the past five years. I guess that's because I'm not a US citizen.
It seems to me that at least one of us should be entitled for it, though I guess it makes more sense for the government to limit entitlement any way they can.
-
I never did get mine. I guess that's because I haven't paid American taxes in seven years.
I never got mine, even though I did pay American taxes for the past five years. I guess that's because I'm not a US citizen.
It seems to me that at least one of us should be entitled for it, though I guess it makes more sense for the government to limit entitlement any way they can.
I'm not rich enough to just get given money.
-
I'm not making enough money to get it.
But the DOW just broke 10,000 (going downward), so... it'll be interesting to teach the kids about barter economies. .