The Successful Temper Tantrum of the "right"

[NumberTwentySix]

- 5% cut of total government spending this year and an additional 2% each year over the next 4 years

- Cut military spending an additional 5%

- Raise medicare/social security benefits to age 70 and in 8 years to 72

- Freeze all welfare & social security inflation raises for the next 2 years

Finance 100% of the federal budget for 2011 with debt or inflation (we're already so far in the hole it won't make that much difference).

Keep 100% of the 2010 tax receipts and use those for the 2012 budget.
Allow no new federal debt. Make a plan to pay the debt. Prioritize other govt spending as needed. When the 2010 taxes are gone, they're gone until you get 2011 taxes. No money to be spent in the interim.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

In other words, fill up the debt with virtual money that has no guarantee of ever materializing, don't spend anymore and hope that someone comes up with a plan to pay it. Wow!

I'm going to be brutally honest here... I never understood why ANYONE would want to try and financially profit off of the prospect of someone paying a debt. Logically, it makes no sense especially since these same people are taught that if they have too much debt they can essentially file for bankruptcy and be exonerated from paying altogether. You just wind up passing the buck to someone else in hopes that they pay it over and over again until it becomes so large it becomes impossible to avoid. It's like a twisted game of Hot Potato and Russian Roulette all rolled into one.

IMO, that is the worse way to address any financial situation. If that became our plan to fix the economy, we'd be more than screwed.

 

[Speculator]

In other words, fill up the debt with virtual money that has no guarantee of ever materializing, don't spend anymore and hope that someone comes up with a plan to pay it. Wow!

I'm going to be brutally honest here... I never understood why ANYONE would want to try and financially profit off of the prospect of someone paying a debt. Logically, it makes no sense especially since these same people are taught that if they have too much debt they can essentially file for bankruptcy and be exonerated from paying altogether. You just wind up passing the buck to someone else in hopes that they pay it over and over again until it becomes so large it becomes impossible to avoid. It's like a twisted game of Hot Potato and Russian Roulette all rolled into one.

IMO, that is the worse way to address any financial situation. If that became our plan to fix the economy, we'd be more than screwed.

Money and debt are two sides of the same coin, so what you're saying is you don't understand why anyone would want to have a positive bank balance.

The bigger risk is with having no money rather than a claim on money with the potential to not get it back.

 

[NumberTwentySix]

Well first, financing the budget with debt for one more year won't do that much damage in the long run. Some 60% of it will be debt this year anyway, so I'm just adding another 5 months worth of debt to make it 100%.

Then after that (assuming people pay their taxes) we will have a general fund full of the actual tax receipts from the previous year, not estimates, which is what they base budgets on now. You take that amount and divide it between the debt and the government departments. When it's gone, it's gone, and rather than issuing more debt, we wait for the next year's tax receipts to come in, rinse and repeat.

It's not perfect, but I think it beats bankruptcy.

Second, money can be treated like any other commodity, with the rate of interest being the price of money on the open market.

You are right in that it doesn't make a lot of sense to try to profit off of debt incurred in non-capital expenditures, the money isn't being put to work, so how can it make a return? But debt taken on to be used to make more money is a different matter. That has value and therefore a price - interest on the loan.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Money and debt are two sides of the same coin, so what you're saying is you don't understand why anyone would want to have a positive bank balance.

That's a stretch, considering that the whole concept of being in debt (or in the hole) has nothing to do with being in the positive (or in the clear). The whole thing is too risky of a gamble, even worse than the stock market. You "collect" people's economic hardships in the hopes that either people who can't settle their bills to begin with or the government breaks down and pays it.

In the meantime, people with economic hardship are bombarded with information about bankruptcy. According to a story in USA Today, the amount of bankruptcy claims reached up to 6020 a day. That's over 2 million people each year who are either so economically strapped that they cannot pay their bills, or those who made shifty investments that didn't pay out and they're looking for a quick way out. You purchase this debt, thinking that once someone pays it you'll be riding down Easy Street. But what makes you think these people either have the ability to do so or even plan to do it in the first place? Even if some people are lucky enough to get paid through these measures, I'm sure the majority of people will tire trying to collect and pass the buck to the next person, and then the next person, etc... Everyone taking turns holding this empty money bag of IOUs hoping that someone will cast a spell and turn it into cash. And this is how we're supposed to take care of our debt problem in America?

Like I said before... it makes no sense.

The bigger risk is with having no money rather than a claim on money with the potential to not get it back.

Not necessarily. Someone with a good work ethic and creative prowess can generate income where there is none. I can grab a piece of paper, design an ad that provides a skill in demand, place that in areas where people flock to find that kind of labor and get work. If they're good enough, the word spreads among that community and you get more of it. Sometimes it eventually leads to a full time job or a career... perhaps a fulfilling small business. That's generating something from nothing and people do this everyday. You think that's more of a risk than laying a claim, which is on par with placing a bear trap in the woods in hopes that you catch something? It's rather ironic that I get to use the same rhetoric other misguided conservatives and libertarians throw at people like me when I take stances that defend the poor, but it certainly applies here... that's just plain laziness.

This is another one of the main reasons why our country is such a mess right now.

 

[Speculator]

Well first, financing the budget with debt for one more year won't do that much damage in the long run. Some 60% of it will be debt this year anyway, so I'm just adding another 5 months worth of debt to make it 100%.

Then after that (assuming people pay their taxes) we will have a general fund full of the actual tax receipts from the previous year, not estimates, which is what they base budgets on now. You take that amount and divide it between the debt and the government departments. When it's gone, it's gone, and rather than issuing more debt, we wait for the next year's tax receipts to come in, rinse and repeat.

It's not perfect, but I think it beats bankruptcy.

Second, money can be treated like any other commodity, with the rate of interest being the price of money on the open market.

You are right in that it doesn't make a lot of sense to try to profit off of debt incurred in non-capital expenditures, the money isn't being put to work, so how can it make a return? But debt taken on to be used to make more money is a different matter. That has value and therefore a price - interest on the loan.

If we need to stimulate the economy then I'd prefer to expand the demand of the people rather than the government. Individuals allocate money efficiently and democratically because they know what they want, governments have to guess and end up wasting squillions on projects that nobody needs. It's like buying a present, sometimes you're better off just giving them the money rather than make assumptions and buying the wrong thing.

 

[Speculator]

That's a stretch, considering that the whole concept of being in debt (or in the hole) has nothing to do with being in the positive (or in the clear). The whole thing is too risky of a gamble, even worse than the stock market. You "collect" people's economic hardships in the hopes that either people who can't settle their bills to begin with or the government breaks down and pays it.

In the meantime, people with economic hardship are bombarded with information about bankruptcy. According to a story in USA Today, the amount of bankruptcy claims reached up to 6020 a day. That's over 2 million people each year who are either so economically strapped that they cannot pay their bills, or those who made shifty investments that didn't pay out and they're looking for a quick way out. You purchase this debt, thinking that once someone pays it you'll be riding down Easy Street. But what makes you think these people either have the ability to do so or even plan to do it in the first place? Even if some people are lucky enough to get paid through these measures, I'm sure the majority of people will tire trying to collect and pass the buck to the next person, and then the next person, etc... Everyone taking turns holding this empty money bag of IOUs hoping that someone will cast a spell and turn it into cash. And this is how we're supposed to take care of our debt problem in America?

Like I said before... it makes no sense.



Not necessarily. Someone with a good work ethic and creative prowess can generate income where there is none. I can grab a piece of paper, design an ad that provides a skill in demand, place that in areas where people flock to find that kind of labor and get work. If they're good enough, the word spreads among that community and you get more of it. Sometimes it eventually leads to a full time job or a career... perhaps a fulfilling small business. That's generating something from nothing and people do this everyday. You think that's more of a risk than laying a claim, which is on par with placing a bear trap in the woods in hopes that you catch something? It's rather ironic that I get to use the same rhetoric other misguided conservatives and libertarians throw at people like me when I take stances that defend the poor, but it certainly applies here... that's just plain laziness.

This is another one of the main reasons why our country is such a mess right now.

You've missed my point, I wasn't making a moral argument I was pointing out a banking technicality. Money and debt are one of the same, if there was no money in the world they'd be no debt. Therefore when you say something like "I don't understand why people like to profit from debt" by definition you're also saying "I don't know why people like money". I expect you do in fact like money.

There are other reasons why the financial system has failed imo, it's not because they're bad or immoral in themselves.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

You've missed my point, I wasn't making a moral argument I was pointing out a banking technicality.

I did more than make a moral argument. That was just the icing on the cake. I went into much detail as to why I think investing in debt is a horrible business practice. Re-read my statement because I will not repeat it.

Money and debt are one of the same, if there was no money in the world they'd be no debt.

Bullshit! Money and debt are not related in any shape or form. Hypothetically speaking, to be in debt means that you don't have any enough money or assets to take care of your own means. The two words are not synonymous in ANY dictionary. Once again, the facts do not equate to your rhetoric.

Therefore when you say something like "I don't understand why people like to profit from debt" by definition you're also saying "I don't know why people like money". I expect you do in fact like money.

Are you high?
Just because I'm not a lazy shyster like those who will sit on their gluttonous asses, purchasing debt and making harassing phone calls to people in hopes that they will scrounge up enough pennies to give them money on your investment doesn't mean that I don't "like money". I just have a different work ethic. One that I personally think is far more respectable.

My God... "I don't know why people like money". When did boxes of Fruit Loops started offering diplomas? Or were you a cast member in the movie Idiocracy? LOL!!!!!

There are other reasons why the financial system has failed imo, it's not because they're bad or immoral in themselves.

You're right... it's not just because they're bad or immoral. It's because they're bad, LAZY, GREEDY and immoral. And that's just me being nice.

 

[NumberTwentySix]

"Bullshit! Money and debt are not related..."

While it is true that debts can be held in other ways - you can owe your boyfriend a blowjob, or you can owe your sister an afternoon helping her move, or whatever. Debt held by banks, companies, governments, and most debt held by people is held in terms of money. If you can't acknowledge that simple fact, I don't know what to say...

 

[B_stanmarsh14]

Come to think of it, the Tea Party reminds me of that disgusting old cunt, Margaret Thatcher.

Yes, and I live not far from the cunts birthplace, Grantham, Linconshire

I wished she would just hurry up and die, as I am gagging for a piss :bukkake:

 

[Speculator]

I did more than make a moral argument. That was just the icing on the cake. I went into much detail as to why I think investing in debt is a horrible business practice. Re-read my statement because I will not repeat it.

Well all I read was conjecture, perhaps your genius is to subtle for me. I was trying to get you to understand that although you think you're against all that capitalistic banker stuff it's as integral to your life as food is, but you choose to ignore it.

The entire monetary system has been created and is maintained by financiers, you'd soon be begging for them to come back if they decided to down tools and no longer provide you that service. Modern life as we know it would be impossible.

Bullshit! Money and debt are not related in any shape or form. Hypothetically speaking, to be in debt means that you don't have any enough money or assets to take care of your own means. The two words are not synonymous in ANY dictionary. Once again, the facts do not equate to your rhetoric.

Well if "the facts" are the things that you make up in your head then you're correct, the facts don't equate to my rhetoric. But if we take the standard meaning then you're just demonstrating your ignorance once again. It's a debt based money system, your own central bank has just decided to inject $600bn into the system by buying up government bonds (debt) and you're unable to see the link?!

I think it's time you went away and educated yourself.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

"Bullshit! Money and debt are not related..."

While it is true that debts can be held in other ways - you can owe your boyfriend a blowjob, or you can owe your sister an afternoon helping her move, or whatever. Debt held by banks, companies, governments, and most debt held by people is held in terms of money. If you can't acknowledge that simple fact, I don't know what to say...

It's not a question of acknowledging it... it's all about whether or not this is a viable solution for fixing out economy and getting our nation out of debt. You're the one that put the suggestion out there in the first place... remember?

"Finance 100% of the federal budget for 2011 with debt or inflation (we're already so far in the hole it won't make that much difference)."

And right now I'm challenging it with specifics and details. Meanwhile, instead of coming back with your own figures, you and Speculator would rather try to twist my statement out of context in an attempt to make it look as if I don't understand how the economy works. Seriously, I'm still laughing my ass off over that "I don't understand why people like money" comment. Where the hell did THAT come from?

And after several more posts, this is the only line of defense either one of you could muster: The bigger risk is with having no money rather than a claim on money with the potential to not get it back.

Very simple premise here. Debt is not money. Just like any product or service that doesn't generate revenue, If it's not paid by the person who owes (who probably already filed for bankruptcy to escape from paying it) or sold to someone else who is dumb enough to buy it on the same hoop dreams as the previous owner, it doesn't amount to jack shit. Ever try to go to your landlord with some IOUs to pay for rent? How about using a big sack of IOUs to pay your light & utility bills? Want to take a vacation? Gee, I don't have any actual money... but I got a suitcase full of IOUs I can give ya!

How pathetic of a premise, especially from those who spout out pages of rhetoric about fiscal conservatism & responsibility. The irony in here is so thick it challenges the girth of Mandingo.

 

[NumberTwentySix]

Vinyl, you have just made me so happy. No snark, no bullshit.

Everything you said in that last post proves our entire point. Dollars are little IOUs.

Dollars used to be documents effectively saying "the government owes the bearer of this document X dollars worth of gold or silver".

Now they are documents saying "the government owes the bearer of this document X dollars worth of dollars," which, as you correctly point out, doesn't make any sense.

Is it any wonder that people are worried about the "suitcase full of IOUs" that their government has created?

 

[Speculator]

Very simple premise here. Debt is not money. Just like any product or service that doesn't generate revenue, If it's not paid by the person who owes (who probably already filed for bankruptcy to escape from paying it) or sold to someone else who is dumb enough to buy it on the same hoop dreams as the previous owner, it doesn't amount to jack shit. Ever try to go to your landlord with some IOUs to pay for rent? How about using a big sack of IOUs to pay your light & utility bills? Want to take a vacation? Gee, I don't have any actual money... but I got a suitcase full of IOUs I can give ya!

Actually you've sort of hit the nail on the head, the entire money system is debt based. So you do go to your landlord and hand him a bunch of IOUs, but they're special IOUs that have been created either by the central bank or private commercial banks.

The central bank swaps banknotes (IOUs) for government and commercial debt (IOUs), and then those IOUs are loaned into the economy to create even more debt money. A lot of people believe that this amounts to a giant pyramid scheme just waiting for collapse, but I'm not so sure

So when you niavely say "I don't know why people want to profit from debt" you're inadvertantly dismissing the importance of the entire money supply.

Next you'll be dismissing our dependence on oxygen with equal vigour and lash out when somebody disagrees.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Well all I read was conjecture, perhaps your genius is to subtle for me.

So common sense evades you?
What I'm saying isn't rocket science. I'm trying to make this easy for you.

I was trying to get you to understand that although you think you're against all that capitalistic banker stuff it's as integral to your life as food is, but you choose to ignore it.

Fool, our financial system is not 100% Capitalist and if you believe that then you're a moron. It is a hybrid of various financial structures running side by side, with each faction providing checks and balances to make sure one doesn't completely overshadow the other. And here's your biggest clue to back that theory, McFly... we have government entitlement programs such as Welfare, Medicare and Unemployment Insurance (just to name a few). You know, those things the GOP love to label as Socialism to make their minions think they are "un-American and unconstitutional"? In a truly Capitalistic society, these things wouldn't exist. Everything would be private, and everyone would have to fend for themselves.

Besides, I never once said that I was against Capitalism so shut up. However, I did say that investing in debt is a stupid idea. How you think that's an indicator of being against Capitalism is beyond the realm of sanity.

Well if "the facts" are the things that you make up in your head then you're correct, the facts don't equate to my rhetoric.

You should talk. You haven't provided one link to back any of the bullshit that spewed out of your mouth in this thread. Apparently, you expect everyone to just assume you know what the hell you're talking about. Like that's gonna happen.

But if we take the standard meaning then you're just demonstrating your ignorance once again. It's a debt based money system, your own central bank has just decided to inject $600bn into the system by buying up government bonds (debt) and you're unable to see the link?!

So what if they did? I still think financing the federal budget on debt it's a bad idea and I've given my reasons for that twice. We can disagree about it and that's all we can do. Obviously you think living a life on debt and waiting for someone to fill the void is great. I tend to rely on my own skills and make my own money. Perhaps if America actually invested into their own resources and created the products & services the rest of the world wanted (besides pills to make a person's dick hard), we could start creating the funds necessary to fix our economy? Of course, that would mean the government would have to be proactive and do something about it and a staunch ideological bafoon like you would NEVER want your government to do that. That would mean our government would actually have to do something like invest in education, technology, medicine, energy and our own infrastructure... you know, the things the stimulus does and has shown successes despite all of the naysayers who listen to their favorite politicians trash the measure on camera and hypocritically take money from it while you're not looking? Alas, you want your government to "leave you alone because they can't do anything right", even though they protect your right to be safe at home, on the internet, on this board and expressing your convoluted ideological bullshit. Nah, you just want corporations to be free of government control to ship even more jobs overseas to China & India, making our Unemployment Rate go higher and in the process making it harder for everyone here to make ends meet... all because it saves them money. That creates more debt since they can't pay their bills and mortgages, and fools like you will fall for the bullshit and grab all the IOUs you can in hopes for the debt fairy to come around and turn them all into to a pile of Benjamins.

You have no idea what you're talking about. If this is the best you can do then please shut the fuck up.

I think it's time you went away and educated yourself.

Saying that "you think" is an oxymoron. Don't flatter yourself, son.

Dollars are little IOUs.

Seriously, just how far you had to stretch and bend facts to come up with what has to be the silliest line of the entire thread? This isn't even worth debating... but it is worth pointing out to illustrate just how desperate you've become to have a point (which ironically isn't worth anywhere near the dollar you're sourcing). Try again.

 

[HazelGod]

Pearls before swine, my friend. :wink:

 

[NumberTwentySix]

Seriously, just how far you had to stretch and bend facts to come up with what has to be the silliest line of the entire thread? This isn't even worth debating... but it is worth pointing out to illustrate just how desperate you've become to have a point (which ironically isn't worth anywhere near the dollar you're sourcing).

How about you try to come up with a real response rather than just dismissing facts out of hand? I would forgive your ignorance if you weren't so nasty about it.

If you don't understand what money is, there is no point in continuing this debate. A dollar is a debt instrument of the federal reserve, and thus of the U.S. government. That's why it says Federal Reserve Note on each and every one.

United States Code: Title 12,411. Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption | LII / Legal Information Institute

The relevant passage - "The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank. "

--United States Code, Title 12, Chapter 3, Subchapter XII, § 411

In other words; A dollar is a little I O fucking U.

Got a reply that isn't vitriol or wishful thinking?

 

[B_VinylBoy]

How about you try to come up with a real response rather than just dismissing facts out of hand? I would forgive your ignorance if you weren't so nasty about it.

I've already came up with a real response. You just chose to ignore it. And I don't need your forgiveness. Considering that we're still at words with one another and you still demonstrate an obvious lack of comprehension, I won't be so broken hearted if you don't forgive me.

If you don't understand what money is, there is no point in continuing this debate. A dollar is a debt instrument of the federal reserve, and thus of the U.S. government. That's why it says Federal Reserve Note on each and every one.

United States Code: Title 12,411. Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption | LII / Legal Information Institute

The relevant passage - "The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank. "

--United States Code, Title 12, Chapter 3, Subchapter XII, § 411

In other words; A dollar is a little I O fucking U.

Got a reply that isn't vitriol or wishful thinking?

Of course not. You've said some REALLY stupid shit and I'm gonna call you on it because you're so sure that you know something. And this takes the cake. LOL!!

For this next trick, I'm going to make it BEYOND simple for you. Now pay attention, there won't be a quiz. But if you respond with more ignorance I'm going to let you have it.

First... LET'S LOOK AT THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF MONEY.
Money | Define Money at Dictionary.com

That's funny... the dictionary doesn't make one mention of "money" being related to debt in any way. And contrary to belief, the dictionary IS the official source for all definitions of English words. Even the source you tried to use from Cornell Law is not exempted from this rule, unless you want to assume that standard English doesn't apply in college-level interpretation (and I'm sure you wouldn't be so ignorant to imply THAT). The definition you provided is purely analogous in nature, as it draws similarities between the use of money and the concept of a debt. Money is a placeholder (and simpler means) for reflecting monetary denominations. Otherwise, we'd all have to carry sacks of gold and a scale in order to properly do monetary exchanges between people (and that would just take too damn long if you were in a line at Starbucks trying to buy an Iced Latte). However, the definition never comes right out and says money is debt because even a Law Professor wouldn't be that stupid to ignore the English language. But apparently you will in a desperate attempt to have a point. No surprise there.

Besides, if you went to the Federal Reserve Bank or The United States Bullion Depository and tried to exchange your dollars for some gold, would they do it? Don't think too hard on that one, OK?

Seriously, why copy/paste advanced elucidations of words and act like you know something if you can't even use common sense to help you look past obvious symbolism and place things in a realistic context? You are severely intellectually deficient and should consider refraining from discussing anything related to finance, the economy, or even how to tie a shoe. Get out of my face.

 

[Speculator]

verbose cock waffle

The Gold Standard ended in 1971 because Nixon went on a printing spree to fund the Vietnam war, so you can turn up at a Federal Reserve Bank to try and claim you $x worth of gold but they'll just laugh in your ignorant face.

As 26 has already explained, on a banknote it says "I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of £x". In other words it's a central bank liability, and it's written down on their balance sheet as such. It's "money" they owe the holder. But of course they don't actually own any physical assets like gold so the best you're going to get out of a CB if you hand your note in is an identical note back.

The system itself is debt backed, and only works when people are prepared to take out loans. Once they do (by taking out a mortgage for example) they amount they pledge to pay back forms a bond, which is otherwise known as MONEY. Banking works by arbitrating between debtors and savers and skimming off a bit for themselves, this is the spread between savings and loan rates.

As I suggested before perhaps you could either read up on this or stop blowing your lid when you're corrected. At the moment you're coming across like a bit of a fool.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Ridiculous ideological bullshit.

Two can play that game, son... and I will always do it better.
Regardless of your references to statements of random equivalence between two terms, the fact still remains that money does not equal debt. They are not synonymous and using the words interchangeably is ignorant. The English dictionary does not take a second seat to ideological bigotry just because you want to be right about something. So I don't care if you believe that a dollar bill is an IOU. You can believe in unicorns as well. That doesn't change the basic definition of two blatantly obvious words. If you tried this shit on an episode of "Millionaire", you'd be sent home with the box of Rice-A-Roni already.

Now, stop talking out of your credo-infested ass and refer to an actual fact once in a while.