cadenas
Posts: 517
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Archer
quote:
ORIGINAL: cadenas
quote:
ORIGINAL: Archer
Lets see
Yes, let's
quote:
ORIGINAL: Archer
Social security going broke date has shifted to 2 years earlier than previously predicted.
You mean, it has moved from 75 years in the future to 73 years? Is that 50 year or 60 years longer than any other government program? Social Security going broke is plain a myth. If you extend it out by enough years, everything will go broke.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Archer
Social Security will start paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes in 2016, a year sooner than projected last year, and the giant trust fund will be depleted by 2037, four years sooner, trustees reported. SO that's 7 years from now and then 28 years for broke.
So you are saying that when today's college kids retire, Social Security might be at a point where the Federal Government has already been since Ronald Reagan? Boo-Hoo, scary.
The Federal government paid more than it collected in taxes since Roland Reagan, with the exception of the Clinton Surplus - and it doesn't have another huge savings account to draw on.
Incidentally, the CBO (whom you quote further down yourself) expects the trust fund to last until 2052, and even after that Social Security will be able to continue to be solvent until your 110th birthday, around 2075.
What you are also conveniently forgetting is that these are extremely long-term guesstimates. NO budget, projections more than five years into the future are no more tha vague ballpark numbers. The only thing reliable about it is: this will be many decades in the future. A change of a year one way or the other is just a mathematical gimmick with no real meaning. Can you tell me, to the day, when you will outlive your 401(k)? It's no different on the big picture.
Maybe before we get too concerned about Social Security, we should worry about military spending (which is where the lion's share of the Federal dollars go).
quote:
ORIGINAL: Archer
The tax cut for 95% of the people is seriously been negated as being doable anymore, so more than a few folks who were promised a tax cut will see that tax cut end after one or two years and then the increase will be set to try to make up the difference.
Probably because of Republican obstructionism and objections to taxing higher incomes.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Archer
What a laugh at least have a factoid or two to back you.
Many economists, including some who voted for Obama, do not believe that he can indefinitely avoid imposing tax increases much further down the income scale — on the middle class.
“You just simply can’t tax the rich enough to make this all up,” said Martin A. Sullivan, a former economic aide in the Reagan administration who said he backed Obama last fall.
“Especially just for getting the budget to a sustainable level, there needs to be a broad-based tax increase,” said Sullivan, now a contributing editor at Tax Analysts publications. “If you want to do healthcare on top of that, almost certainly, it just makes [a middle-class tax increase] all the more certain.”
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obamas-tax-reckoning-2009-04-14.html
... believe... ... indefinitely... said a former economic aide in the Reagan administration ...
Forgive me for not taking this very seriously. Even when he "claims" to have supported Obama. Probably for about two days of his career.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Archer
The Budget ballancing has been put on hold in favor of a first term that will break every record for spending
Every record? Even Bush's? I find that hard to believe. Bush singlehandedly turned a surplus into the largest deficit in US history.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Archer
An annual deficit between $1.67 trillion and $1.85 trillion would mark a record in dollar terms and the highest as a share of gross domestic product since World War II. It would represent between 11.9% and 13.1% of GDP.
"According to CBO, the president's budget would double publicly held debt in five years and nearly triple it in ten years," Gregg said. "I strongly urge the Democratic majority to show the fiscal restraint needed to control spending, maintain a fair tax policy and cut the deficit, so that we can head off the avalanche of debt that is poised to crush the economy."
a) Don't forget that Bush routinely excluded the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars from the budget to make the numbers look better. If he had been honest and included those expenses, his deficit would have dwarfed those numbers.
b) It might help to mention that the "Gregg" this opinion is from is Judd Gregg, R-NH. I wish he had told that Bush Jr. - who DID double the national debt.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Archer
Multiple trillions of deficit spending which has had minimal effect in creating any new jobs
Still better than multiple trillions that led to major job losses in the previous administration.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Archer
Spanish government report that tells us that for every green job it creates two old tech jobs are lost. Wonder how close our own results will match.
And in the 1980s, for every IT job created, we lost two jobs for secretaries and accounting clerks using pen and ink to keep books balanced. Maybe we should shut down Quickbooks, too?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Archer
The point being Obama promised to grow the job market with "green jobs" the problem is the job market hasn't been shown to grow in reality when you go green. it in fact shrinks by 1/3. I'm not against going green I'm against the fact that Obama claimed he could create more jobs by doing it, even though the reports on it said it shrinks the job market.
Um... It seems to me that there is no point.
- Your statement isn't even backed up by a source. Not even an opinion by some Republican politician reported in some media outlet. Just some reference to some obscure Spanish papers.
- Over which time frame? A year?
- What happened to the jobs that were neither "green" nor "tech"? What about jobs that were both?
- How did they define "green" and "tech" jobs in the first place?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Archer
All three closing dealerships equals a huge job loss in the blue collar level, except that they ignored the rule of law and sidelined the secured interests of investers and surplanted them by making the union contract a secured holding ahead of the investers. So the jobs are lost but not the cost of the employee to the companies teatering on bankrupcy.
Um.... investor's interests are UNSECURED. That's the point of investment. It's called risk. If you want it secured, get a savings account.
By law, in a bankruptcy, salaries and wages always come first. Then secured loans (such as mortgages), then unsecured loans (such as credit cards, or in this case bonds). If there still is anything left, investors get the rest.
NOT wiping out investors would have broken the law.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Archer
WRONG stock holders were placed behind the union when it came to repayment should they company shut down and sell off assets. Stock holders have a legal place in line when a company goes bankrupt.
Obama chnaged the order of the line cutting the union in ahead of the stockholders in that line.
http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2009/05/04/chrysler-an-anti-union-backlash-in-financings/
Yep. Stockholders do have a legal place - at the very end of the line, after EVERYBODY else.
And incidentally, the OPINION piece that you cite as evidence doesn't even touch on stockholders.
Incidentally, you may also want to mention that unions also took over huge liabilities for healthcare and retirees - which is why they got what they did in the first place.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Archer
Porkulus package that has created no real number of jobs
You mean, like the Bridge to Nowhere? Oh wait. That was for Palin. Inserted by a Republican Senator in the middle of the night. On Bush's watch.
Or do you mean Tom Coburn's (Republican Senator) adding of the gun-in-national-parks to the credit card bill?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Archer
Are you really that poor a reader/ thinker? The Porkulus (stimulus package) has created no real jobs as yet.
http://wire.factcheck.org/2009/05/01/fantasy-jobs/
You may want to re-read your own factcheck reference, because it basically confirms Obama's claim about the package. He said "saved or created". Without it, we would have lost even more jobs.
And the data is supporting that; the job losses - which started before he ever became President - are leveling off.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Archer
New mileage standards that will no doubt result in further slipping of the 3 big american manufacturers market share in favor of Japanesse manufacturers.
Yep. It's called free market. If they can't deliver what the American people have resoundingly said they want (in the car dealership and on the ballot box both), these 3 big manufacturers have no businesses being in business. Isn't that how capitalism is supposed to work?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Archer
LOLLLLLLL you have to be kidding the new mileage standards represent a free market???????????
Just a reflection of what the market already wanted and for the longest time couldn't buy at all. That is, until the Prius and Insight came along. Mileage standards a decade ago would have forced GM and Chrysler to invest and actuallly sell such cars instead of Hummers could have saved them now from "further slipping behind the Japanese" as you put it.
Are you aware of the EV-1? GM built it in the 1990s. It flew off store shelves like crazy. People wanted them, and there was a huge waiting list. Then GM simply pulled the plug on it. Because GM had refused to sell the car, only lease it, three years later GM scrapped all of the lease returns.
|
RE: Steele says GOP comeback has started - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread