Declination of credit to Congress <g>

mantakos said:
That seems to assume a particular outcome for WWII, in which the US funded its participation with borrowed money.
-harry
Click to expand...
They borrowed the money from the American people Via E bonds.

That's not the case any more
 
Tom-D said:
They borrowed the money from the American people Via E bonds.

That's not the case any more
Click to expand...
The federal government doesn't borrow money from Americans any more?

The biggest holder of federal debt is currently the Social Security trust fund.
-harry
 
mantakos said:
The federal government doesn't borrow money from Americans any more?

The biggest holder of federal debt is currently the Social Security trust fund.
-harry
Click to expand...
that is a huge problem.
 
mantakos said:
If you know of a better place to invest the Social Security trust fund, please recommend it.
-harry
Click to expand...
You call any investment that there is no, or very little chance to get a return a good investment?

You could have bought Canada for that amount of money :)
 
Hilter declined credit to the Jews.
 
flyersfan31 said:
Hilter declined credit to the Jews.
Click to expand...

Sigh. I've tried to keep this fairly factual. Notice the original post had a <g> after it, but I said it was generally reflective of how I felt about extending more credit to Uncle. I later posted quite a few facts to stimulate discussion.

If we can't stay reasonably on point, this will go to Spin Zone, and I don't participate in that section.

Best,

Dave
 
Tom-D said:
Look at the pay stubs of any working Canadian, you'll see it ain't free.

check the assessed tax on a worker who makes 110,000 per year. see who pays for the health care, plus they have a sales tax too.


and still

http://www.debtclock.ca/
Click to expand...

That does not even account for the unfunded portion of the Canada Pension Plan (Canadian version of social security).
 
mantakos said:
I understand that, but if WWII had gone a different way, there wouldn't be a Queen Elizabeth today.
-harry
Click to expand...

Not so fast...

There are stories the Edward VIII was in line to be restored to the throne by Germany, to whom he was quite sympathetic. Edward had no children, so on his death, his brother having predeceased him, Elizabeth would still have been next in line.
 
JeffDG said:
Not so fast...

There are stories the Edward VIII was in line to be restored to the throne by Germany, to whom he was quite sympathetic. Edward had no children, so on his death, his brother having predeceased him, Elizabeth would still have been next in line.
Click to expand...

...in line to what, is what I think he's getting at. There would be no Monarchy. Well, maybe in exile.
 
alaskaflyer said:
...in line to what, is what I think he's getting at. There would be no Monarchy. Well, maybe in exile.
Click to expand...

I wish I could source this, but there is a line of reasoning that if they had taken over Britain, the plan was to place Edward VIII back on the throne...kind of like the Vichy in France. He made a lot of sympathetic statements about Germany in the lead-up to and during the War.

Had that occurred, Elizabeth would still have succeeded upon Edward's death...albeit about two decades later than she did.
 
mantakos said:
I'd be happy to point out the many untruths and fallacies posted here, but I don't know how to respond to partisan political discussion in a forum that doesn't allow partisan political discussion.
-harry
Click to expand...

I re-read the OP and didn't locate anything resembling partisan in any of the words. Political yes, partisan no, in jest yes.
 
End Game, by John Mauldin and Jonathon Tapper is non-political, reasonably easy to read (at least 80% of our congress critters could understand it) and does a great job of explaining where we are and what the choices are to get out of where we are.

My personal bet is that it will be just like Argentina and others and inflate away the debt, and the middle class's life savings.

Ernie

Great OP BTW

EDIT: But, hey all our airplanes will be "worth" more than we paid:goofy:
 
pilot_dude said:
I re-read the OP and didn't locate anything resembling partisan in any of the words. Political yes, partisan no, in jest yes.
Click to expand...
You don't associate that "jest" with a particular stance on a current political issue pertaining to the raising of the debt ceiling?

Beyond that, why focus solely on the OP and not the posts that followed?

If you'd like me to retract the word "partisan" I'd be happy to do that, not because the discussion wasn't partisan, it clearly was, but because "partisan" is not relevant to the discussion of SZ vs non-SZ. There's a marked tendency toward posting political discussions outside the SZ rationalized with something like "oh, well, it's a political discussion, but we'll make it a 'nice' one, unlike those mean people in the SZ".

This "only nice people agreeing with each other" proposition holds together as long as the discussion is one-sided, which it is as long as those who disagree restrain themselves from commenting due to the location of the discussion.
-harry
 
mantakos said:
You don't associate that "jest" with a particular stance on a current political issue pertaining to the raising of the debt ceiling?
Click to expand...
It can be perceived as such or it can be perceived as congress as a unit and not partitioned out along party lines.

mantakos said:
Beyond that, why focus solely on the OP and not the posts that followed?
Click to expand...
Due to the OP being the basis for the discussion.

mantakos said:
If you'd like me to retract the word "partisan" I'd be happy to do that, not because the discussion wasn't partisan, it clearly was, but because "partisan" is not relevant to the discussion of SZ vs non-SZ. There's a marked tendency toward posting political discussions outside the SZ rationalized with something like "oh, well, it's a political discussion, but we'll make it a 'nice' one, unlike those mean people in the SZ".
Click to expand...
I understand and appreciate your thoughts. We just have varying opinions which is ok too.

mantakos said:
This "only nice people agreeing with each other" proposition holds together as long as the discussion is one-sided, which it is as long as those who disagree restrain themselves from commenting due to the location of the discussion.
-harry
Click to expand...
Again, I understand and appreciate your position and can agree that presenting an opposing view may relegate the thread to SZ but I am not a moderator.
 
I have absolutely no idea what <g> means. Looked like a typo to me.

Is that like this? ;)

Or this? :sad:

Or this? :rolleyes2:

Or maybe this? :hairraise:

Political stuff - this is political - goes in spin zone. Wanna talk politics? Go to spin zone. I'm with Harry 100%.
 
flyersfan31 said:
I have absolutely no idea what <g> means. Looked like a typo to me.

Is that like this? ;)

Or this? :sad:

Or this? :rolleyes2:

Or maybe this? :hairraise:

Political stuff - this is political - goes in spin zone. Wanna talk politics? Go to spin zone. I'm with Harry 100%.
Click to expand...

why should "what's wrong with our country's credit" be political? It's not which party did it, because both parties have had a hand in getting here, You can't blame one president for the problem because it started way back 50 + years ago.

What we should be talking about is the cure. and I'm sure that won't settled by one party.

What we need is a larger tax base, or a big tax increase, and tax increases in an election year are verboten.

I see nothing coming that will increase the employment enough to do any good in paying down the debt.

don't be political, simply tell us what will solve the problem.
 
And maybe start by defining the problem? Social security, is it: a demographic problem; a design problem; an income problem; all of the above; something else? Budget? Tax structure?

How can you fix a problem you haven't defined? The political class, either persuasion, believes obfuscation and pandering to emotions is the way to reelection -- and so far they are right.

Ernie
 
ebetancourt said:
And maybe start by defining the problem? Social security, is it: a demographic problem; a design problem; an income problem; all of the above; something else? Budget? Tax structure?

How can you fix a problem you haven't defined? The political class, either persuasion, believes obfuscation and pandering to emotions is the way to reelection -- and so far they are right.

Ernie
Click to expand...

Vary good point, What is the problem.

Is it too much spending?
Is it too little taxes?

I believe it's a little of both.

there are too many tax loop holes, Plus the Congress must stop with the pork.
 
ebetancourt said:
And maybe start by defining the problem? Social security, is it: a demographic problem; a design problem; an income problem; all of the above; something else? Budget? Tax structure?
Click to expand...

Social security is easy to fix, we know what the problem is, the 'cost' side of the equation outside of SSI-DI is simple actuarial science. The income side is simply one of setting the mill-rate and the cap. Tweak on both ends (decrease benefits, increase revenue) and the system will be sustainable.
 
Tom-D said:
It was a statement/request, not a condemnation.
Click to expand...

What's fascinating to me about this conversation, and the fact that it's been allowed to progress in the Hangar Talk forum, is that this represents a tacit admission that the national debt situation is so critical that it is no longer political in the traditional sense.

We have crossed a line here, people. A good line, IMHO. As a group we have moved beyond the name calling and finger pointing, and can discuss the situation in the calm, grave, adult terms a problem of this magnitude merits.

Or...the moderators are just on vacation... :goofy: :lol:
 
I'm against raising the debt ceiling until a definitive solution is reached.
It seems, the more money we give political leaders, the more they spend. They are spending on things that clearly won't get better if not addressed. An income increase alone will not remediate this problem.

If some combination of increased taxes and spending cuts will solve the problem, let's get them on the table. Just delaying things and leaving them in the lap of the next group of leaders isn't what's needed.

The government doesn't produce anything that creates income. It's income is primarily from taxes. That means, after providing the basics, they think they are better at spending OUR money than WE are. They haven't demonstrated that to me. I see them start program after program funding it with OUR money administered by a bureaucracy that is not as effective as it could be. Almost daily, there is an article in the press about mismanagement/taking of funds/or inefficiency in public programs.

One borrows to spend money for something today with the intent of paying the money back later. Except for national emergencies that are not foreseeable, why does a government need to borrow? One can see it to smooth something out where income will rise later if some expenditure is made today for things like necessary infrastructure, but borrowing to fund programs that redistribute income in amounts that will only increase in the future is not what this country is about.

We're all tired of leadership blaming the folks before them for the problem or leaving the problem for subsequent leaders. Let's get some proposed solutions on the table.

This divisiveness the current administration is creating between what if calls the rich and others is not good for this country. These are our most productive folks: job creators and business owners for the most part. Yes, some have clearly taken advantage of our system and they should be punished, but like everywhere else, we shouldn't let 5 of 10% of the bad actors condemn the entire business. We all need to pull together as a team to solve this problem. Picking on one group or another for political gain is not what is needed.

On the job creation front, I can point to one thing after another that is creating uncertainty in the business community which isn't good for job growth in addition to several direct things the current administration has done to hurt job growth like unnecessary moratoriums, governmental restrictions or regulatory agencies gone wild. Let's get this under control.

Best,

Dave
 
Amen Dave.

One big problem:

We all need to pull together as a team to solve this problem. Picking on one group or another for political gain is not what is needed.
Click to expand...

The problem is, if you can't get elected in the first place, or get re-elected thereafter, it's awfully difficult to get your solutions implemented. So you get the pandering and the "rich people are bad" and all of that.

Right now, the economy is still somewhat of a national state of urgency, and unfortunately government spending is probably necessary to keep us going in a positive direction, so the credit limit increase is probably a necessary evil. What I would like to see is for the increase to happen, but with some major strings attached, including limiting spending on things that are likely to be perpetual to the amount we take in.

The other problem is that when things are bad, we want the government to spend our way out of it, but when things are good, we don't want the government to pay off the bill or save any money - We get things like tax refund checks, we bemoan "overtaxing" and the bill doesn't get paid.

Overspending tends to be more of a "blue" problem, the undersaving, underpaying, undertaxing or whatever you want to call it is more of a "red" problem. But both sides got us here, and everyone will need to work together to get us out.
 
What you really need is a whole lot more people working and paying taxes.

plus all the advice given so far
 
I don't suppose there is any way to do this but wouldn't it be nice if congress critters were automatically ineligible for reelection if, for a certain percentage of the time they were in office, the GNP failed to exceed a certain level or inflation exceeded a certain level or some such mechanism that basically ties the economy to their performance. Toss in the national debt as another factor in eligibility for reelection.
 
Gmaper said:
I don't suppose there is any way to do this but wouldn't it be nice if congress critters were automatically ineligible for reelection if, for a certain percentage of the time they were in office, the GNP failed to exceed a certain level or inflation exceeded a certain level or some such mechanism that basically ties the economy to their performance. Toss in the national debt as another factor in eligibility for reelection.
Click to expand...

Ask any CC and they will tell you every thing they did was a good thing.

And we vote for the one who lies to us the best.,
 
Gmaper said:
I don't suppose there is any way to do this but wouldn't it be nice if congress critters were automatically ineligible for reelection if, for a certain percentage of the time they were in office, the GNP failed to exceed a certain level or inflation exceeded a certain level or some such mechanism that basically ties the economy to their performance. Toss in the national debt as another factor in eligibility for reelection.
Click to expand...
See Article V of the US Constitution on how to make that a possibility.
 
Last edited:
I hope I didn't sound as if I was just directing this at the current administration. I certainly disagree with a lot of their policies and the bashing the "rich" divisiveness.

But, each party has it's strengths and weaknesses and each has erred enough in the past to have a lot of blame laid at their feet. However, the blame game won't solve our current issues. Like too kids in a fight, we need an adult in the room to moderate. Who did what to whom and the damage it caused in the past needs to be put behind us. We now need to work together on the fix.

Excellent comments Kent! I'm not for raising the debt ceiling, I'm just not for raising it without a comprehensive solution before us. I don't think Congress should implement any new policy without a third party review of the financial implications and periodic reviews that are publicly available. This trend where the Administration or Congress has the budget office report results where all the assumptions are given to them are nuts. The assumptions can make projections go almost anywhere: they need to be reasonably opined on by a third party. Kind of like an actuary or auditor would do.

Hey, any way we could get our board moderators to watch over Congress <g>? They seem to do an excellent job on here!

Sorry, just a thought!

Best,

Dave
 
Dave Siciliano said:
I
Hey, any way we could get our board moderators to watch over Congress <g>? They seem to do an excellent job on here!

Sorry, just a thought!

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...

Oh Hell no, they would simply send then into the SZ and most of us would never see them again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top