DescentBB

callmeslick wrote:and, please, stop insulting everyone's intelligence with cut and paste definitions from your dictionary. I know, and understand fully, what default consists of.

Obviously you dont because you keep spreading the wrong definition.

ummm, default is by any real definition, failure to pay the notes off on schedule. We did it in 1979, and technically raised the debt ceiling 'in time'. Of course, that predated a lot of modern technology which moves money through the pipelines faster. By the way, we paid 60 basis points for a decade or more for that little snafu. Want to risk that costly little blunder again?
Oh, and the old canard about WWI borrowing might in some theoretical way be true, since we never have zeroed out the debt completely between then and now, but by 1930, and certainly today, the portion still being financed is microscopic, so no real practical point is made by briinging it up.

callmeslick wrote:Oh, and the old canard about WWI borrowing might in some theoretical way be true, since we never have zeroed out the debt completely between then and now, but by 1930, and certainly today, the portion still being financed is microscopic, so no real practical point is made by briinging it up.

the point is what you just made. we NEVER pay off our debts, we borrow and borrow, instead of being fiscally responsible and paying off what by your standards is microscopic debt. yet we/you are willing to pay interest on something that there is really no reason to continue pay interest on if we just paid it off. and as our debt continues to grow, our interest payments consume more and more of our economic power and thus limits our abilities to provide for our citizens properly and responsibly.

woodchip wrote:Letsd wait until the real polliing comes out after a year or 2 of this act when it turns out to be a bloated waste driven monstrosity.

WOW! That runs counter to what those kill Obamacare tea partiers want in Congress. They want it gone like YESTERDAY. Are you softening your stance a little woody?

CUDA wrote:the point is what you just made. we NEVER pay off our debts, we borrow and borrow, instead of being fiscally responsible and paying off what by your standards is microscopic debt. yet we/you are willing to pay interest on something that there is really no reason to continue pay interest on if we just paid it off. and as our debt continues to grow, our interest payments consume more and more of our economic power and thus limits our abilities to provide for our citizens properly and responsibly.

You and every Republican out there should've griped when Bush CUT taxes then deficit SPENT on 2 HUGE wars, which started us down the road to this whole mess. Republicans are unprincipled sniping about it NOW.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3849

pretty much analogous to any major corporation, CUDA. Hell, the DuPont company has been floating bonds for close to 150 years or more. Do they strike you as unsound, unsolvent or irresponsible? I know they sure pay a ton of dividends to me, so I'd sure hate to be overlooking something.....


to be fair to CUDA, TC, I seem to remember him stating elsewhere that the Bush admin overspent, although I can't recall specifics.

Yeah, I know. It's old. I just like to not disappoint him by slacking off and not mentioning Bush at times like this.

I'd like to ask CUDA his opinion about this guy, Oregon's Tea Party founder, since the tea party always espouses personal and fiscal responsibility.

http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-2 ... anich.html

typical, sadly. What amazes me is that he could appear on local TV a couple weeks back, and no one can locate him to serve papers?


Could someone please search CUDA's tool-shed??

speaking of Oregon, this seems to be good news to me:
http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index. ... those.html

tunnelcat wrote:

woodchip wrote:Letsd wait until the real polliing comes out after a year or 2 of this act when it turns out to be a bloated waste driven monstrosity.

WOW! That runs counter to what those kill Obamacare tea partiers want in Congress. They want it gone like YESTERDAY. Are you softening your stance a little woody?

CUDA wrote:the point is what you just made. we NEVER pay off our debts, we borrow and borrow, instead of being fiscally responsible and paying off what by your standards is microscopic debt. yet we/you are willing to pay interest on something that there is really no reason to continue pay interest on if we just paid it off. and as our debt continues to grow, our interest payments consume more and more of our economic power and thus limits our abilities to provide for our citizens properly and responsibly.

You and every Republican out there should've griped when Bush CUT taxes then deficit SPENT on 2 HUGE wars, which started us down the road to this whole mess. Republicans are unprincipled sniping about it NOW.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3849

You forget TC Bush was a compassionate conservative and not a fiscal conservative. Just thought I'd set your compass straight


As to softening my stance the only reason there is no softening is Blue Cross in MI handles the switch over for you. No going thru the useless website (which is now reported to be losing/switching information you entered), no handling the subsidies...in short pretty easy. If I had to deal with the website I'd drink hemlock first

callmeslick wrote:pretty much analogous to any major corporation, CUDA. Hell, the DuPont company has been floating bonds for close to 150 years or more. Do they strike you as unsound, unsolvent or irresponsible? I know they sure pay a ton of dividends to me, so I'd sure hate to be overlooking something.....

Do you understand what a Bond is??

Hell if I was DuPont I would float Bonds for that long too. a consistent indefinite income source, (the way Our government works)

CUDA wrote:[Do you understand what a Bond is??

yup. Do you understand there is utterly no difference between a corporate bond and a government bond?

Hell if I was DuPont I would float Bonds for that long too. a consistent indefinite income source, (the way Our government works)

ok, now I get it. YOU don't have a clue what a bond is. A bond is a promissary note for a debt to be repaid over a fixed time period. Our government does NOT, nor does any entity floating bonds, use it as an income source. By definition, one loses the interest, but the credit serves to even out ebbs and flows in cash stream and allow for deficit spending for longterm projects. In government the only income source is tax revenues.

that might be true, I am not an expert in that field so I will acknowledge you have more experience in that then I.

However you are straying from the point.

One thing that gets on my nerves with all of this talk about how the shutdown and a possible default can/did hurt the economy…but nobody on the left…errr center ever mentions the fact that the current massive debt is ALREADY a drain on our economy.

And if you think that little political fiasco hurt, wait till the big one hits. (the time all those debt chickens come home to roost for good)

callmeslick wrote:In government the only income source is tax revenues.

HUH!

Yea right, tell that to the city of Philadelphia, who now gets a large percentage of its revenue in fines.

Spidey wrote:One thing that gets on my nerves with all of this talk about how the shutdown and a possible default can/did hurt the economy…but nobody on the left…errr center ever mentions the fact that the current massive debt is ALREADY a drain on our economy.

that's the point I was making. but when you have unlimited credit why would you care??

Spidey wrote:One thing that gets on my nerves with all of this talk about how the shutdown and a possible default can/did hurt the economy…but nobody on the left…errr center ever mentions the fact that the current massive debt is ALREADY a drain on our economy.

In what way? No, seriously, in what tangible sense does the size of the US debt impact the functioning of the economy?

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:[Do you understand what a Bond is??

yup. Do you understand there is utterly no difference between a corporate bond and a government bond?

Do you understand a private bond is paid off by the profits a company makes. A govt. bond gets paid off by the taxpayers.

A private bond cannot say the people who paid for it can get tax free interest. The Govt. can.

Top Gun wrote:

Spidey wrote:One thing that gets on my nerves with all of this talk about how the shutdown and a possible default can/did hurt the economy…but nobody on the left…errr center ever mentions the fact that the current massive debt is ALREADY a drain on our economy.

In what way? No, seriously, in what tangible sense does the size of the US debt impact the functioning of the economy?

Just try searching the last 8 words of your post.

Spidey wrote:

callmeslick wrote:In government the only income source is tax revenues.

HUH!

Yea right, tell that to the city of Philadelphia, who now gets a large percentage of its revenue in fines.

Top Gun wrote:

Spidey wrote:One thing that gets on my nerves with all of this talk about how the shutdown and a possible default can/did hurt the economy…but nobody on the left…errr center ever mentions the fact that the current massive debt is ALREADY a drain on our economy.

In what way? No, seriously, in what tangible sense does the size of the US debt impact the functioning of the economy?

it doesn't, pure and simple. Our debt to GDP ratio is nowhere near that of many European nations. And that is after two unfunded wars on the credit card and a huge outlay due to a deep recession. What you see now, or should, is the low side of an ebb and flow. Look where we were under Clinton: we were running a slight surplus and paying down debt. It can happen easily enough again, if we just allow for economic recovery to proceed, without starting 'crises' every couple of months which need not be started. Also, we have to figure out how(I would prefer a larger than most wish for revenue increase)to pump big money into the nation's infrastructure and basic research, so we maintain a strong economic engine over the longer term. Too many folks focus on the here and now, and lose all sight of the long term gameplan.

Everything after your blatant denial, is irrelevant.

Top Gun wrote:

Spidey wrote:One thing that gets on my nerves with all of this talk about how the shutdown and a possible default can/did hurt the economy…but nobody on the left…errr center ever mentions the fact that the current massive debt is ALREADY a drain on our economy.

In what way? No, seriously, in what tangible sense does the size of the US debt impact the functioning of the economy?

(Reuters) - The United States lost its top-tier AAA credit rating from Standard & Poor's on Friday in an unprecedented blow to the world's largest economy in the wake of a political battle that took the country to the brink of default.

S&P cut the long-term U.S. credit rating by one notch to AA-plus on concerns about the government's budget deficit and rising debt burden. The action is likely to eventually raise borrowing costs for the American government, companies and consumers.

OH nothing. it will not effect you at all

Cuda, no big deal....Moody's already cut it a year or so ago.

Will Robinson wrote:Ferno, the federal government can give the IRS the power I described. They did so long before ACA was anyone's idea. Late 1700's in fact.
The IRS authority to seize property, impose fines, etc is the law. Their agents can enforce any law that falls under their authority as described by the federal government. It will likely be your local Sheriff's officers that delivers the notice to you but it is because the IRS agents instructions to them that causes the seizure. Although I've heard of many cases where no notice was given until long after the seizure took place. You go to take some money out of your account and the bank tells you all your accounts are frozen by the IRS.

you do understand that what you're talking about is a repossession that can be enacted if you don't pay your taxes, and not a felony... right? Even the passage you quoted says that. Try to understand the difference.

Government enforces the laws. The police are just an arm of that enforcement

No. *insert facepalm here*. Governments create the laws. Courts interpret the laws. Police enforce the laws. You have no excuse not to know the difference CUDA.. This is a basic fact taught in elementary school.

Ferno wrote:

Government enforces the laws. The police are just an arm of that enforcement

No. *insert facepalm here*. Governments create the laws. Courts interpret the laws. Police enforce the laws. You have no excuse not to know the difference CUDA.. This is a basic fact taught in elementary school.

you cannot be that stupid...you just made my argument for me.

the police department is a GOVERNMENT agency.
the courts are a GOVERNMENT agency
congress is part of the GOVERNMENT.
who do you think funds them. They are funded by tax dollars. And they are answerable to politically elected officials. (The people)
But it is the government as an entity that enforces the laws.
and agencies like the IRS and EPA have enforcement powers. Look it up. The IRS is part of the department of treasury and has code enforcement powers. Any "elementary" school kid knows that

callmeslick wrote:p... . Hell, the DuPont company has been floating bonds for close to 150 years or more. Do they strike you as unsound, unsolvent or irresponsible? I know they sure pay a ton of dividends to me, so I'd sure hate to be overlooking something..... ..

Depends on your perspective. A rich guy getting richer off Du Pont's dividend payments and rising stock prices seems to think they are responsible.

The citizens of Mexico have serious heath issues from chemicals Du Pont creates in its factories there that don't get disposed of properly. It seems they are supposed to take the toxic waste back to America but it ends up in the ditches in Mexico. And no matter how hard the 'responsible' company tries they just can't seem to solve the problem!

So are you overlooking something? Or just not looking too close at what you profit from?

I suspect slickster doesn't pay much attention to how the dividends are generated, be it pollution in the streets or child labor used. Funny how the left after something like Sandyhook ran around saying how we should stop investing in gun companies but not a peep about more egregious matters. Swept under the carpet as usual.

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Ferno, the federal government can give the IRS the power I described. They did so long before ACA was anyone's idea. Late 1700's in fact.
The IRS authority to seize property, impose fines, etc is the law. Their agents can enforce any law that falls under their authority as described by the federal government. It will likely be your local Sheriff's officers that delivers the notice to you but it is because the IRS agents instructions to them that causes the seizure. Although I've heard of many cases where no notice was given until long after the seizure took place. You go to take some money out of your account and the bank tells you all your accounts are frozen by the IRS.

you do understand that what you're talking about is a repossession that can be enacted if you don't pay your taxes, and not a felony... right? Even the passage you quoted says that. Try to understand the difference.

Government enforces the laws. The police are just an arm of that enforcement

No. *insert facepalm here*. Governments create the laws. Courts interpret the laws. Police enforce the laws. You have no excuse not to know the difference CUDA.. This is a basic fact taught in elementary school.

Ferno, the taxes and fees the IRS is the authority over are for income from wages and other sources of wealth acquisition...gift, capital gains, etc. etc.
Internal Revenue Service, a federal agency that has nation wide authority. That is federal tax. The punishment is carried out by a federal authority.

The FBI is a federal agency with the authority to enforce laws.
The Postal Inspectors office is a federal agency with the authority to enforce laws.
The Treasury Department is a federal agency with the authority to enforce laws....etc. etc. etc. The list is long and they all have armed agents and they all can arrest you.

And, the IRS is a federal agency with the authority to enforce laws.

But stop dancing away from the points I raised.
Straight up, three main points:

*Do you believe, as I stated, the IRS can seize American citizens assets or property if they fail to pay their tax...federal tax...and the IRS has the authority to make that seizure without first prevailing in a court of law where the citizens have a chance to defend themselves?

*Do you believe, as I stated, that the IRS is now the authority, as dictated in the ACA, to enforce the law and deliver the punishment if a citizen fails to comply with the federal governments rules as outlined in the ACA?

*Do you believe, as I stated, that the Supreme Court of the US has ruled that the penalty for not buying health care coverage as mandated by the ACA is a "tax, not a fine"?

Because those three things are the truth. They are written into the US federal law.
They are easy for you to check for yourself if you don't want to believe me.
They are not, however, disproved by your confusing a repossession at a state court level with the enforcement of a federal tax by the IRS. Or are you grasping at straws because you just simply are in denial?

By the way, what is taught in elementary school is that the Attorney General is the top policeman in the US. He works at the pleasure of the President and he is a political appointee. He is a member of the Presidents cabinet. He is very much the Federal "government" and he enforces the law every bit as much as a local policeman. In fact he often tells the local police they have enforced it incorrectly and to stop doing it the way he doesn't like or else they risk his enforcing his authority over them!

woodchip wrote:You forget TC Bush was a compassionate conservative and not a fiscal conservative. Just thought I'd set your compass straight :wink

Must be an oxymoron. He certainly wasn't compassionate by any stretch of the definition. So maybe, "cough, cough", compassionate conservatives should start a new party so that we don't get them mixed up with fiscal conservatives in the future.

tunnelcat wrote:

woodchip wrote:You forget TC Bush was a compassionate conservative and not a fiscal conservative. Just thought I'd set your compass straight :wink

Must be an oxymoron. He certainly wasn't compassionate by any stretch of the definition. So maybe, "cough, cough", compassionate conservatives should start a new party so that we don't get them mixed up with fiscal conservatives in the future.

Well TC you could say the Rhino's are the compassionate ones and the Tea Party are the fiscal ones.

No, the tea party is so far to the right, they're waaaaaaaaaay out in right field in the la la land of fanatics, radicals and crazies. They call themselves "fiscal conservatives", but they don't no how to do anything but throw the whole baby out with the bathwater and let it die, consequences be damned. Plus they're deluded enough to think that they can get rid of the oligarchs in Washington, but don't understand that the next worst people running our government, the plutocrats, are funding them. They're being played.

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

woodchip wrote:You forget TC Bush was a compassionate conservative and not a fiscal conservative. Just thought I'd set your compass straight :wink

Must be an oxymoron. He certainly wasn't compassionate by any stretch of the definition. So maybe, "cough, cough", compassionate conservatives should start a new party so that we don't get them mixed up with fiscal conservatives in the future.

Well TC you could say the Rhino's are the compassionate ones and the Tea Party are the fiscal ones.

you could, but you would be delusional. No entity that wishes to shut down government, do away with the Federal Reserve, or fail to provide revenue to build national infrastructure can be considered anything but fiscally reckless.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

woodchip wrote:You forget TC Bush was a compassionate conservative and not a fiscal conservative. Just thought I'd set your compass straight :wink

Must be an oxymoron. He certainly wasn't compassionate by any stretch of the definition. So maybe, "cough, cough", compassionate conservatives should start a new party so that we don't get them mixed up with fiscal conservatives in the future.

Well TC you could say the Rhino's are the compassionate ones and the Tea Party are the fiscal ones.

you could, but you would be delusional. No entity that wishes to shut down government, do away with the Federal Reserve, or fail to provide revenue to build national infrastructure can be considered anything but fiscally reckless.

I think you are misrepresenting the goals of the Tea Party. What a surprise.

They haven't had shutting the government down as a part of any plan. The recent temporary shut down was just that....temporary by design... and everyone knew that was the case. They aren't an entity with a desire to shut it down.
Same with building infrastructure, they will want to trim the budget and cut out lots of pork and build only the neccessary portions. But that isn't the same as 'failing to provide the revenue' for infrastructure.

I have no clue what their goal for the Federal Reserve is but I won't be taking your word for it considering how you have misrepresented their intentions so far!

Goals schmoals. Their platform even says that they want to get rid of the oligarchs in Washington because they've lost touch with the people, which by the way, is a laudable goal.

http://www.teapartypatriots.org/2013/10 ... nate-deal/

Yet, how they are achieving and funding that goal is questionable at best. Being funded by 2 of the richest, scheming plutocrats in our country, the Koch Brothers, via their front group, Americans for Prosperity is tantamount to sleeping with the enemy. Bend over for your plutocrat masters tea partiers, for their real agenda is not in your best interests. I'm going to start calling tea partiers Koch Heads, for they're just as delusional as Rush Limbaugh's Ditto Heads.

tunnelcat wrote:

Yet, how they are achieving and funding that goal is questionable at best. Being funded by 2 of the richest, scheming plutocrats in our country, the Koch Brothers, via their front group, Americans for Prosperity is tantamount to sleeping with the enemy. Bend over for your plutocrat masters tea partiers, for their real agenda is not in your best interests. I'm going to start calling tea partiers Koch Heads, for they're just as delusional as Rush Limbaugh's Ditto Heads.

And who is George Soros funding? If you think the Koch bros are paying those millions of tea party demonstrators bus fare and lodging I have some land I'd like to sell you.

I always love the Soros bugaboo.......the guy really doesn't have that sort of reach, if one looks into it, and, at the very least, he isn't interested in destroying the economy nor dumping an entire system of social safety nets.

callmeslick wrote:I always love the Soros bugaboo.......the guy really doesn't have that sort of reach, if one looks into it, and, at the very least, he isn't interested in destroying the economy nor dumping an entire system of social safety nets.

And Tea Party people are interested?

the Koch family(going back to daddy) have clearly stated the desire to do away with Social Security and Medicare(one can but assume they feel the same about the ACA), and look with disdain on both food stamps and unemployment insurance. This record goes back decades.

callmeslick wrote:I always love the Soros bugaboo.......the guy really doesn't have that sort of reach, if one looks into it, and, at the very least, he isn't interested in destroying the economy nor dumping an entire system of social safety nets.

But we could say he is just like you say the Tea Party is. There is no more substance to your accusation than there would be to attributing similar destructive motives to Soros.

Your trying to stand upon a puff of smoke to hold yourself on high.

actually, my position on the Tea Party is that they hit a high watermark about two or three years back and have been sinking ever since. Tragically, as I abhor the idea of one-party rule, they seem hell-bent on taking the whole Republican party down the tubes with them.