Investors lose a trillion dollars in one day

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Losing 10-15% would be far better than losing 100% though, no?

We haven't lost anything. We've paid 100% of our social security debt on time, always, and always will. Social Security is fully solvent through 2037, and everyone knows it.

Wall Street has always had lobbyists complaining about Social Security, in an attempt to get it out of the governments hands, and into private hands so they can steal what they can from those billions. Screaming that there isn't a pile of actual physical cash sitting there - and that somehow that is wrong?! - is an old, old scam from the Reagan years.

Peoples private retirement funds have been decimated on Wall Street in the past 10 years. Thank god for Social Security as the government fail safe fallback for them. That's exactly what it's there for.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

We haven't lost anything. We've paid 100% of our social security debt on time, always, and always will. Social Security is fully solvent through 2037, and everyone knows it.

That's today. Wait until our creditors do cut us off and then there is no way to pay the "unfunded mandates" (what an oxymoron).

That's apparently what the liberal Democrats want since they won't agree to cut spending - and taxes are already way too high.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

That's today. Wait until our creditors do cut us off and then there is no way to pay the "unfunded mandates" (what an oxymoron).

Baloney. You are not entitled to make up crap out of thin air. Facts matter.

First: we have no trouble paying our bills, We have no anticipation of trouble paying our bills in the future.

Plenty of countries have a worse debt to GDP ratio than we do (and have retained their AAA rating - oh, and all remaining current AAA rated countries have national health care, btw)

The only reason our creditors would cut us off is if the Tea Party got it's way, and we agreed to not pay our bills by not raising the debt ceiling. That nonsensical temper tantrum by the Tea Party is what caused S & P to downgrade us. It's not the financial facts (S & P was off by $2 trillion on our debt! Treasury correct them and they still downrated us, which is bs) - S & P downrated us because the Republican party is acting like irresponsible idiots.

That's apparently what the liberal Democrats want since they won't agree to cut spending - and taxes are already way too high.

More baloney.

Facts: the Democrats cut spending in every single deal on the table during the debt negotiations, it is the GOP Tea Party faction that refused the deals for $4 trillion, making us take the lesser deal for $2 trillion.

And your taxes have literally never been lower, and Obama has helped lower them.

Stop repeating the false right-wing lies. It's beyond absurd.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Baloney. You are not entitled to make up crap out of thin air. Facts matter.

First: we have no trouble paying our bills, We have no anticipation of trouble paying our bills in the future.

Plenty of countries have a worse debt to GDP ratio than we do (and have retained their AAA rating - oh, and all remaining current AAA rated countries have national health care, btw)

The only reason our creditors would cut us off is if the Tea Party got it's way, and we agreed to not pay our bills by not raising the debt ceiling. That nonsensical temper tantrum by the Tea Party is what caused S & P to downgrade us. It's not the financial facts (S & P was off by $2 trillion on our debt! Treasury correct them and they still downrated us, which is bs) - S & P downrated us because the Republican party is acting like irresponsible idiots.



More baloney.

Facts: the Democrats cut spending in every single deal on the table during the debt negotiations, it is the GOP Tea Party faction that refused the deals for $4 trillion, making us take the lesser deal for $2 trillion.

And your taxes have literally never been lower, and Obama has helped lower them.

Stop repeating the false right-wing lies. It's beyond absurd.

Bull Riot. I am not one of the 47% of people in the country who don't pay income taxes. I'm getting creamed.

We can currently pay the interest on the loans. Is that what you mean by "no trouble paying our bills"? When is the principal going to be reduced? It has not been reduced in 51 years! THAT is why the rating went down. And I have news for you - we don't deserve AA+ either.

We have to SPEND LESS THAN WE TAKE IN. Literally, not rhetorically: do the math!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Bull Riot. I am not one of the 47% of people in the country who don't pay income taxes. I'm getting creamed.

What is your tax bracket? The facts are, your taxes have never been lower.

If you want to pay zero, and are angry you think other people are getting something you are not, I suggest you move to another country. This is a society where we all contribute to our common good through income tax.

Alot of that 47% btw, as opposed to the Faux News screaming about welfare queens (left over from the Reagan years) are very, very wealthy people, who pay far less a percentage than you.

Why are you not mad at them? It makes no sense to me.

We can currently pay the interest on the loans. Is that what you mean by "no trouble paying our bills"? When is the principal going to be reduced? It has not been reduced in 51 years!

Yes, Joey, we have no trouble paying our bills. Yes, we have to curb spending.

But this has been two months of false, ginned-up Republican electoral rage about nothing. It's pure political theatre, meant to harm Obama.

We should have raised the debt ceiling routinely as we always do - as we have 79 times before - two months ago, then congress could have spent all the time they wanted on cutting things out of future spending. Congress didn't do that. The Republicans chose political theatre over helping this country. They are toast.

THAT is why the rating went down. And I have news for you - we don't deserve AA+ either.

Our rating went down because the Republicans spent two months in Kabuki theatre, and that's exactly what S & P said in their press release announcing it.

We have to SPEND LESS THAN WE TAKE IN. Literally, not rhetorically: do the math!

Then I suggest we raise our revenues back up to where they were before Bush gave it away. Because that's when we could spend less than what we took in. Bush decimated our income - that's the fact of it, and that alone with his wars s responsible for 1/2 our current debt.

You do the math - we cannot "cut" our way to prosperity. The math doesn't work. It's impossible. We need to have the income we had before Bush gave it away. Only a small portion of that is due to the recession.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

What is your tax bracket? The facts are, your taxes have never been lower.

If you want to pay zero, and are angry you think other people are getting something you are not, I suggest you move to another country. This is a society where we all contribute to our common good through income tax.

Alot of that 47% btw, as opposed to the Faux News screaming about welfare queens (left over from the Reagan years) are very, very wealthy people, who pay far less a percentage than you.

Why are you not mad at them? It makes no sense to me.



Yes, Joey, we have no trouble paying our bills. Yes, we have to curb spending.

But this has been two months of false, ginned-up Republican electoral rage about nothing. It's pure political theatre, meant to harm Obama.

We should have raised the debt ceiling routinely as we always do - as we have 79 times before - two months ago, then congress could have spent all the time they wanted on cutting things out of future spending. Congress didn't do that. The Republicans chose political theatre over helping this country. They are toast.



Our rating went down because the Republicans spent two months in Kabuki theatre, and that's exactly what S & P said in their press release announcing it.



Then I suggest we raise our revenues back up to where they were before Bush gave it away. Because that's when we could spend less than what we took in. Bush decimated our income - that's the fact of it, and that alone with his wars s responsible for 1/2 our current debt.

You do the math - we cannot "cut" our way to prosperity. The math doesn't work. It's impossible. We need to have the income we had before Bush gave it away. Only a small portion of that is due to the recession.

No that's the point - we don't ALL contribute. Half do nothing. The other half pays twice as much as it should. That's absurd - and it wasn't the conservatives that brought that situation into existence.

So you admit that "no trouble paying our bills" amounts to interest-only payments on a $14.5T debt. And those interest payments have and will continue to increase as a proportion of GDP. That is the mechanism for real default, real bankruptcy and ruin. Case closed.

Again with the talking points. Why can't you just say "taxes" instead of "revenues" and cease referring to the tax cuts as "giving away revenue"? It's as if you think the government has the right to all of everyone's money, and whatever pittance we're left with is due to their good graces. Your selection of words, how you use revenue, income, and give aways indicates that you are for government first and citizens a distant second.

[Antitrust32]

If Riot would have been around in the 1700's I believe she would have sided with the Brits.

tax tax tax tax

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

No that's the point - we don't ALL contribute. Half do nothing. The other half pays twice as much as it should.

No, they don't pay "twice as much as they should", they pay the regular amount, their taxes have not gone up, they have gone down.
But our income has gone down because some people pay less than others.

And I am not worried about poverty-line people paying taxes. They should not. I am worried if you are in the 28% bracket, and Warren Buffet only pays 16% (as he has said he does) due to loopholes.

That's absurd - and it wasn't the conservatives that brought that situation into existence.

Actually yes, it was.

So you admit that "no trouble paying our bills" amounts to interest-only payments on a $14.5T debt. And those interest payments have and will continue to increase as a proportion of GDP. That is the mechanism for real default, real bankruptcy and ruin. Case closed.

Nope. Case closed only if one is simplistic and ignoring more than half the truth. We have no trouble paying our debt. Even yesterday, American treasuries were considered the safest haven in the world. The world is throwing money at us, at marginal low interest rates, begging us to borrow, as we are so reliable and safe.

Half the AAA rated countries by S & P have greater debt to GDP ratios than us. That is not the problem. The current problem resulting in the credit rating downgrade is due to the obstructive politicians in Washington - which is the Tea Party and the GOP who refuses to raise revenue (specifically outlined by S & P in their press release).

Bush cut our income markedly. We need that back.

If you want your taxes lowered, then I suggest you support removing loopholes from the wealthy, so everyone pays a relatively equal percentage, and the tax base is expanded.

Again with the talking points. Why can't you just say "taxes" instead of "revenues" and cease referring to the tax cuts as "giving away revenue"?

Adults, in the financial world use the word "revenue" to describe income. We get our income, as a country, from taxes. It's not a talking point, it's just the correct word to use.

You can increase revenue without raising the tax rates, but by closing loopholes. That's only a tax increase to the dogmatic narrow-minded Grover adherants. Which is primarily 2/3 of the Republican party.

It's as if you think the government has the right to all of everyone's money, and whatever pittance we're left with is due to their good graces.

Baloney. That is no where near what I think. What I think is that we live in a cooperative society, and our Constitution said our government has the power to tax for the common good. And we do, to make all our lives better.

Your selection of words, how you use revenue, income, and give aways indicates that you are for government first and citizens a distant second

No. It means you stick to the strict talking points you've been told to use.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

We haven't lost anything. We've paid 100% of our social security debt on time, always, and always will. Social Security is fully solvent through 2037, and everyone knows it.

Wall Street has always had lobbyists complaining about Social Security, in an attempt to get it out of the governments hands, and into private hands so they can steal what they can from those billions. Screaming that there isn't a pile of actual physical cash sitting there - and that somehow that is wrong?! - is an old, old scam from the Reagan years.

Peoples private retirement funds have been decimated on Wall Street in the past 10 years. Thank god for Social Security as the government fail safe fallback for them.

I am 36, have paid over 100K in my 20 years of working and paying taxes. Do you think that solvent through 2037 means anything at all to me?
It means I get to continue paying for another 26 years (est 150K) and get nothing for it.
Stop with the 2037 already. Find a new rationale.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

I am 36, have paid over 100K in my 20 years of working and paying taxes. Do you think that solvent through 2037 means anything at all to me?
It means I get to continue paying for another 26 years (est 150K) and get nothing for it.
Stop with the 2037 already. Find a new rationale.

This is what liberals consider to be fairness. You work your ass off, and instead of getting principal plus interest, you get a modest payment per month until you croak, assuming it's solvent. However, the good news is that someone else who didn't work as long, as hard, or earn as much gets supplemented from your funds. In fact, if they're illegal aliens or a lifelong welfare recipient, they get infinite yield since they invested nothing.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by joeydb

This is what liberals consider to be fairness. You work your ass off, and instead of getting principal plus interest, you get a modest payment per month until you croak, assuming it's solvent. However, the good news is that someone else who didn't work as long, as hard, or earn as much gets supplemented from your funds. In fact, if they're illegal aliens or a lifelong welfare recipient, they get infinite yield since they invested nothing.

Yes, that.

[Riot]

[quote=joeydb;798537]This is what liberals consider to be fairness. You work your ass off, and instead of getting principal plus interest, you get a modest payment per month until you croak, assuming it's solvent.[/QUOTE

If only you bothered with facts. The truth is, that most people get more out of Social Security and Medicare than they put in.

You know, that's why you have been told to scream it's broke?

You can't have it both ways

[Clip-Clop]

[quote=Riot;798575]

Originally Posted by joeydb

This is what liberals consider to be fairness. You work your ass off, and instead of getting principal plus interest, you get a modest payment per month until you croak, assuming it's solvent.[/QUOTE

If only you bothered with facts. The truth is, that most people get more out of Social Security and Medicare than they put in.

You know, that's why you have been told to scream it's broke?

You can't have it both ways

And THAT is exactly the problem. Well put.

[Riot]

[quote=Clip-Clop;798579]

Originally Posted by Riot

And THAT is exactly the problem. Well put.

And that just started next year. And all it needs is a little tweek, as we've done all the other times it was needed. Solvent for decades.

This attack on Social Security is nothing but ginned-up Republican attempts to destroy it and give Wall Street the funds. They've been trying to do it since Reagan created the fiction of the "welfare queen driving a Cadillac".

How did Wall Street do in 2008 with your retirement fund?
did they do Friday with your retirement fund?

Thank goodness all our citizens have the safety net of Social Security. It was a good idea started for widows and orphans, and it's good for all of us.

Anybody that doesn't like that should move to another country. The trouble is, all first-world countries, with better lifestyles than us - more vacation time, earlier retirement, better health care, better quality of living, less expensive housing and food, and better perceived happiness - tax more than us. You can be taxed less - move to a second or third world country.

A good society, a good country, isn't created in a vacuum of selfishness and independence from society.

[Danzig]

[quote=Riot;798587]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

And that just started next year. And all it needs is a little tweek, as we've done all the other times it was needed. Solvent for decades.

This attack on Social Security is nothing but ginned-up Republican attempts to destroy it and give Wall Street the funds. They've been trying to do it since Reagan created the fiction of the "welfare queen driving a Cadillac".

How did Wall Street do in 2008 with your retirement fund?
did they do Friday with your retirement fund?

Thank goodness all our citizens have the safety net of Social Security. It was a good idea started for widows and orphans, and it's good for all of us.

Anybody that doesn't like that should move to another country. The trouble is, all first-world countries, with better lifestyles than us - more vacation time, earlier retirement, better health care, better quality of living, less expensive housing and food, and better perceived happiness - tax more than us. You can be taxed less - move to a second or third world country.

A good society, a good country, isn't created in a vacuum of selfishness and independence from society.

it makes me laugh every time you say ss needs just a tweak-the whole budget needs an overhaul. everyone recognizes that entitlements are growing astronomically, and are becoming an ever larger drain on the fed. ss might only need a tweak, but the overall picture needs far, far more than that.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

If only you bothered with facts. The truth is, that most people get more out of Social Security and Medicare than they put in.

Uhhh... isn't that where debt comes from?

So much for it being successful. It's a sinkhole. It's a loser. It needs to go.

[Riot]

[Uhhh... isn't that where debt comes from?

No, Joey. Social Security is not where our debt comes from.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

No, Joey. Social Security is not where our debt comes from.

Not the total debt. Doesn't that mean that it is always a drain and cannot carry it's own burden as a program? If most people get out more than they put in, that seems to be the case.

[Danzig]

[quote=Riot;798575]

Originally Posted by joeydb

This is what liberals consider to be fairness. You work your ass off, and instead of getting principal plus interest, you get a modest payment per month until you croak, assuming it's solvent.[/QUOTE

If only you bothered with facts. The truth is, that most people get more out of Social Security and Medicare than they put in.
You know, that's why you have been told to scream it's broke?

You can't have it both ways

which is exactly why there needs to be real reform of ss, medicare, and medicaid. it's a continuing increase in spending-something has to be done with those programs, which take-what, half or more of the federal budget? that percentage continues to increase, which is one of the reasons we're having to rethink our budgeting, including tax increases.
it's not a matter of paying the money out-it's the fact that we can't continue to borrow to pay our bills, with us only paying down interest. sooner or later it becomes too big of a bill, much like all the people who treated their home equity lines of credit as an atm-and then couldn't believe the fallout.

our 'entitlement' programs (which shouldn't be called that, we pay for them) are becoming an ever-increasing part of the budget, and it's not going to get better unless there are changes made.
had the govt not borrowed those funds, they wouldn't have to borrow, with interest, to pay that money back out now-but that is water under the bridge.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

I am 36, have paid over 100K in my 20 years of working and paying taxes. Do you think that solvent through 2037 means anything at all to me?
It means I get to continue paying for another 26 years (est 150K) and get nothing for it.
Stop with the 2037 already. Find a new rationale.

Facts matter : Social security is solvent at 100% of payouts to 2037, and after that can pay out of 78% of current benefits if we do nothing at all.

If you are worried, then why are you supporting the political party that is tearing Social Security apart? Why don't you support the political party that wants to do the usual tweeks we do every few years to Social Security, to keep it the reliable, 100% successful retirement safety net it has always been? One of the most successful programs in the world.