Debt Fight Meaning

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by JCricket

thought you folks might find this interesting. You probably know this, but just in case.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infographics/us-national-debt

MArk

He also needs someone that knows more about the effective display of quantitative information. Oh, perhaps that was the point the administration sought with that graphic.

[flacaltenn]

I'M confused???


WTF does this mean??

you are way confused dude

can you ansewer a quick question?

Are the poor lazy bums who don't deserve healthcare?

I'll ansewer your question if you can roto-router it out correctly...

[d-ray657]

Larry,

You are confused if you think I am advocating that social security contributions be turned into a tax. IT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED! One part of the reason it happened is the enormous tax break the higher tax brackets received, not only with lower marginal rates, but also lower rates on capital gains. The biggest culprit was the political culture that told everyone that we could have it all without paying for it - there are plenty to share the blame on both sides of the aisle. One way they maintained the spending without returning taxes back to more effective levels was using the money that had been contributed toward social security. Now it is going to be some of those who can afford it least who suffer the consequences.

Regards,

D-Ray

[JCricket]

Originally Posted by bhunter

He also needs someone that knows more about the effective display of quantitative information. Oh, perhaps that was the point the administration sought with that graphic.

what are you saying? ??

You did not agree with or disagree with the graph, simply that it was a poor display. So what are you saying? Your point?

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by JCricket

what are you saying? ??

You did not agree with or disagree with the graph, simply that it was a poor display. So what are you saying? Your point?

I'm saying that the design of that graph required too much deciphering and it wasn't clear at a glance what they were attempting to convey. Graphs ought be clear and easily interpreted. I assume that the numbers are correct and I'm not refuting them here. It looks like they depicted the growth of the debt with a graph that summed negative numbers downward. I think that growths, even negative aggregates, ought be depicted as increasing. The fact that these are negative is part of the graphic being titled debt. IMHO, the graph would be easier to understand if it was inverted.

[JCricket]

hey, we agree on something.

Yeah, a better graph would be nice, but get past that and the info is interesting.

A couple fo questions that came to my mind:
Okay, bush increase the debt by 7 Trillion, obama by 1.4 trillion(IIRC), the rest is due to poor economy downgrade. The graph appears to show this in a timeline as well. So, the question, did some of Bush's debt come from a poor economy as well? The graph does not depict this. (I hate bush so I don't care ).

ANother thing, these debts are depicted as Bushs's responsibility/fault. Were they? Or, did he inherit them from previous administations? I am sure the Afgahnastan/Irag war fall under him, but what about the rest.

I am not trying to defend Bush, but I am trying to point out the fallacy of blaming a president for out financial woes. These bills had to be approved by our elected clowns.

[flacaltenn]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Larry,

You are confused if you think I am advocating that social security contributions be turned into a tax. IT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED! One part of the reason it happened is the enormous tax break the higher tax brackets received, not only with lower marginal rates, but also lower rates on capital gains. The biggest culprit was the political culture that told everyone that we could have it all without paying for it - there are plenty to share the blame on both sides of the aisle. One way they maintained the spending without returning taxes back to more effective levels was using the money that had been contributed toward social security. Now it is going to be some of those who can afford it least who suffer the consequences.

Regards,

D-Ray

D-Ray:

They've been stealing the surplus ever since FICA was adjusted in the mid-80's. Soc Sec went "off-budget" even before then. It was fraud and it hurt the working poor.. BUT -- The working poor and middle class are SUPPOSED to be engaged in the support of Soc Sec and Medicare. That 14% (7% is a fiction also since folks like me pay the ENTIRE freight and in reality so does every worker) is supposed to represent the actual cost of the program. If you walk away from the actuarial and fiscal management of the programs (like you obviously think we've committed to doing) --- all you are doing is condoning the fraud of overcharging 1/2 the people for these programs. You become complicit in the act. I will not support USING SS/MEDICARE taxes as an EXCUSE to further Fed spending on other items.. The SPENDING has to be controlled.

Go ahead and have your class war skimishes on jet taxes, and income taxes and cap gains taxes. (Although Dems are apparently so functionally economically illiterate as to call for increases in the upper income brackets as a punishment to the rich when the CORRECT tool to punish them would be Cap gains and Death Tax). But for f746jk sake, don't dismantle the structure of Soc Sec and Medicare by lumping it all into one big entitlement bin..

And that's really non-negotiable.. Because everyone will know that SS/Medicare FAILED to even survive 70 years as conceived by FDR and Congress and they will NEVER again trust the Feds to institute such lofty sweeping "reforms". We will have blatant historical evidence that:

1) Congress couldn't keep their paws off of income assigned to these programs.

2) The lied and continued to lie about a "trust fund" when no such animal ever existed.

3) That their projections of economic cost for these programs and the management of these programs sucked.

4) That the FEDs will NOT take the responsibility to repair these programs or make the neccessary adjustments to the Fed fiscal debt to help coast these programs thru hard times.

And we will oppose you anytime in the future that you plan to do this to us again... And CERTAINLY you will be pressed to renege on shit like the ObamaCare plan if you really didn't MEAN to cut $500Bill from Medicare to pay for it...

[finnbow]

Here's another interesting take from the ever snarky Maureen Dowd. She pretty much nails it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/op...tea-party.html

[flacaltenn]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Here's another interesting take from the ever snarky Maureen Dowd. She pretty much nails it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/op...tea-party.html

You don't need Maureen Dowd.. You can take comfort in the fact that the Professional politicians loitering around the Capitol managed to completely snooker those milk-faced tea party freshman at their first skirmish..

Remember the 1st budget negotiation showdown where the Repubs THOUGHT they won a $60Bill budget concession? Turns out that what they REALLY won was only worth about 0.8Bill.. Complete route.. Complete saps..

Power to the people!!!

[BlueStreak]

It means that the Tea Party has made the GOP its bitch.

Unfortunately, the Tea Party is deluded.

Dave