Ãütómatic Cuts Poll

[djAdvocate]

Nov 22, 2011 2:25:00 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Neither approach is "better"—at least at a glance—since Pres. Clinton's approach avoids interest surcharges on a mounting public debt but loses a commensurate amount of interest by underfunding the endowment, and the Pres. Bush approach vice versa. If you combine the two (public deficit plus SS funding shortfall), you wind up with a curve that looks pretty much exponential, going back even as far as 1985.

no it doesn't. it looks asymptotic.

[wyouser]

Nov 22, 2011 11:31:31 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Nov 22, 2011 2:25:00 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Pres. Clinton "borrowed" heavily from the endowment (diverted funds that would ordinarily have been invested into SS)

SS has never been a "trust". ever. it is a pay-as-you-go system. stop making it sound like something unusual happened here. it didn't.

I had thought it was under Johnson ,Trying to do a guns AND butter agenda, that startedSS funds being used and re[placed with IOUs? Do I have that incorrect?

[Virgil Showlion]

no it doesn't. it looks asymptotic.

Unfortunately all I can find is 101 charts showing the US net public debt rising exponentially, none that plot yearly net deficits.

However, the net public debt data from 1985 to present can be tightly fit to an exponential curve. The first derivative of an exponential curve is itself exponential. Hence I stand by my assessment.

SS has never been a "trust". ever. it is a pay-as-you-go system. stop making it sound like something unusual happened here. it didn't.

Educate yourself, sir.

You'll note, of course, that these are the CBO's honey-sweet projections from 2005. Social security outlays since 2008 have provably fallen above the top decile (shown in lighter blue), while revenues have dropped. Integrate that over 19 years, one comes up with $15.3 trillion, which is precisely the number reported by the US Debt Clock.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 22, 2011 12:47:10 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

no it doesn't. it looks asymptotic.

Unfortunately all I can find is 101 charts showing the US net public debt rising exponentially, none that plot yearly net deficits.

However, the net public debt data from 1985 to present can be tightly fit to an exponential curve. The first derivative of an exponential curve is itself exponential. Hence I stand by my assessment.

you must be defining public debt differently than i am. the first derivative of my curve was negative all through the 90's.

[Virgil Showlion]

you must be defining public debt differently than i am. the first derivative of my curve was negative all through the 90's.

net public debt = public debt - funds set aside in trust for scheduled future SS payouts ~= 15 trillion - 4 trillion = 11 trillion as of now.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 22, 2011 13:05:54 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

you must be defining public debt differently than i am. the first derivative of my curve was negative all through the 90's.

net public debt = public debt - funds set aside in trust for scheduled future SS payouts ~= 15 trillion - 4 trillion = 11 trillion as of now.

yeah, it is different. i am going on the basis of what is actually owed, not what might be owed. after all, every person over 65 might die tomorrow.

[Virgil Showlion]

after all, every person over 65 might die tomorrow.

*lol*

A karma for your buoyant optimism, sir. ;D

[djAdvocate]

HAHAHAHAHAHA

ok, Virgil. i am starting to feel like a nitpicker, now. i had better get some work done....

[inhouston]

Fluffy has pointed out
- The problem was entirely with - the committee

Now here is a committee that gets things done



Agreement all around.
Put them in charge.

[Virgil Showlion]

I'm at the point where I'd advise Pres. Obama to propose a one-for-a-million deal. Appoint a new committee of 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats and offer to pay them a personal bonus of $1 for every $1 million they cut from the budget or levy in new taxes. (This of course means they get a cool $1M for every $1 trillion in cuts/taxes they can agree on.)

For the low, low cost of $10 million, you'd have a bipartisan agreement on how to slash spending by $10 trillion, and you'd have it inside of 48 hours.

[Deleted]

Nov 22, 2011 13:48:53 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I'm at the point where I'd advise Pres. Obama to propose a one-for-a-million deal. Appoint a new committee of 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats and offer to pay them a personal bonus of $1 for every $1 million they cut from the budget or levy in new taxes. (This of course means they get a cool $1M for every $1 trillion in cuts/taxes they can agree on.)

For the low, low cost of $10 million, you'd have a bipartisan agreement on how to slash spending by $10 trillion, and you'd have it inside of 48 hours.

Virgil, you are just like Congress. See how easy it is to spend other people's money!

[Virgil Showlion]

As pathetic and desperate as the proposal sounds—spending money to bribe politicians into not spending even greater amounts of money—I'd still prefer it to watching the US melt down into an insolvent puddle of goo.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Nov 22, 2011 13:48:53 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I'm at the point where I'd advise Pres. Obama to propose a one-for-a-million deal. Appoint a new committee of 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats and offer to pay them a personal bonus of $1 for every $1 million they cut from the budget or levy in new taxes. (This of course means they get a cool $1M for every $1 trillion in cuts/taxes they can agree on.)

For the low, low cost of $10 million, you'd have a bipartisan agreement on how to slash spending by $10 trillion, and you'd have it inside of 48 hours.

Sounds a lot like my $523 million plan-- you pay each Congressman a million dollars to do nothing. Go home. Go on vacation. Get the hell out of here.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Nov 22, 2011 14:26:37 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

As pathetic and desperate as the proposal sounds—spending money to bribe politicians into not spending even greater amounts of money—I'd still prefer it to watching the US melt down into an insolvent puddle of goo.

Well, we're pretty close now- thanks to the left in BOTH parties.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Nov 22, 2011 8:53:55 GMT -5 Bluerobin said:

Good to know the tp hates them too. Although from my perspective, the tp is why most americans hate congress. I would like to know who the 13% are! How can people be that dumb?

Well, when you add up Barney Frank, Christ Dodd, Shiela Jackson Lee, Chuckie Schumer, Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, et al- that and a handful of fans of the other giver or take 500 or so it adds up to 13%. Remember, the margin of error- could be as low as 8% or as high as 18%-- my guess is it's probably closer to the former...

[Driftr]

Nov 22, 2011 8:53:55 GMT -5 Bluerobin said:

Good to know the tp hates them too. Although from my perspective, the tp is why most americans hate congress.

From my perspective anyone in congress not in the tp is why I hate congress. I am personally sick and tired of those jokers spending money they do not and will never have.

[Virgil Showlion]

FloridaYankee, as an addendum to our earlier discussion: it turns out the vote to hike the debt ceiling again (in mid-January) requires only a senate vote, which of course is controlled by the Democrats. Hence we're not expecting any major drama at that point.

[dumdeedoe]

SS info from 2000:
iea-macro-economics.org/ssbudg-fe.html

And taken from the ss web site on Clintons era:

Four months later, President Clinton directly addressed the long-term financing problems that were facing the Social Security program in his 1998 State of the Union address and laid out a process to achieve meaningful reform. At the time of his State of the Union address, surpluses ($1 trillion over the next 10 years) were projected in the unified budget, but, he said, the surpluses shouldn’t be used until we “Save Social Security First.” He said we must educate Americans so that they understand the Social Security program and the issues facing it. President Clinton invited all Americans to join in the discussion. He called for a series of non-partisan, town hall forums throughout the country to engage the citizenry in an informed public debate. On February 9, 1998, he delivered a major address on Social Security at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. as the unofficial launch of the year-long process of discussing the future of Social Security.