Conquer Club

What is the anger about this time? People are angry their children are going to be buried by the debt, and that the interest on our debt will cost more than our defense budget in 2019. Remember though, our defense budget is larger than all defense budgets around the world combined. Getting a grasp on how big a problem the debt is yet?

I thought you were opposed to sensationalist journalism PS?

Lootifer wrote:I thought you were opposed to sensationalist journalism PS?

what is being sensationalized?

Haha; man the confirmational bias is strong in this one.

Obama wrote:"There are others who are saying, ‘Well, this is just a gimmick. Just taxing millionaires and billionaires, just imposing the Buffett Rule, won’t do enough to close the deficit, well, I agree.”

Now, take a look at the effect the Buffet Rule would have if it were implemented-




So, now I can see why Obama admitted that the Buffet Rule is a gimmick. The chart says it all.....

Lootifer wrote:Haha; man the confirmational bias is strong in this one.

maybe he is angry

Phatscotty wrote:

Lootifer wrote:Haha; man the confirmational bias is strong in this one.

maybe he is angry

Or maybe he needs to admit that some rant largely filled with meaningless emotive dribble is in fact sensationalist journalism?

Lootifer wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Lootifer wrote:Haha; man the confirmational bias is strong in this one.

maybe he is angry

Or maybe he needs to admit that some rant largely filled with meaningless emotive dribble is in fact sensationalist journalism?

Meaningless? The March 2012 monthly deficit was $200 billion. The highest monthly deficit ever in any particular month was $232 billion (which was February 2012 if I'm not mistaken). It's important to at least attempt to conceptualize these vast amounts of money.

Without a doubt even you should be able to admit the US has a serious deficit problem. A problem that will require not only increasing revenue but also doing something about the spending as well. Any intellectually honest person should be able to at least admit this I would hope.

So going on the road and campaigning about the need to enact the buffet rule and all the while ignoring the spending aspect, amounts nothing more than a gimmick. Alone the Buffet rule will not even make a dent in our problems, evidenced by the fact that even under the most favorable of circumstances the Buffet Rule at the most would only fund but a single month of deficits over the course of a year.

The chart I posted shows the realistic outlook of the effects of the Buffet rule as forecast by the Joint Committee on Taxation (You know, the Congressional Committee who's job it is to oversee the operation of income tax collection).

Yeah, sensationalist journalism and meaningless emotive dribble that demonstrates the actual facts in the matter. How can you just dismiss facts like that?

patches70 wrote:Yeah, sensationalist journalism and meaningless emotive dribble that demonstrates the actual facts in the matter. How can you just dismiss facts like that?

It's a necessary component of being a liberal.

Lootifer wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Lootifer wrote:Haha; man the confirmational bias is strong in this one.

maybe he is angry

Or maybe he needs to admit that some rant largely filled with meaningless emotive dribble is in fact sensationalist journalism?

What problem do you have with the numbers?

Sorry I apologise my mistake (Patches you are entirely correct).

Here I'll rephrase:

Or maybe he needs to admit that some rant largely filled with emotive dribble is in fact sensationalist journalism?

Lootifer wrote:Sorry I apologise my mistake (Patches you are entirely correct).

Here I'll rephrase:

Or maybe he needs to admit that some rant largely filled with emotive dribble is in fact sensationalist journalism?

That's better I suppose, now that you've commented on the messenger, would you care to comment on the actual substance of the message itself?

Lootifer wrote:Sorry I apologise my mistake (Patches you are entirely correct).

Here I'll rephrase:

Or maybe he needs to admit that some rant largely filled with emotive dribble is in fact sensationalist journalism?

You want a rant filled with emotive dribble? You need to start listening to Obama's speeches.

Night Strike wrote:

Lootifer wrote:Sorry I apologise my mistake (Patches you are entirely correct).

Here I'll rephrase:

Or maybe he needs to admit that some rant largely filled with emotive dribble is in fact sensationalist journalism?

You want a rant filled with emotive dribble? You need to start listening to Obama's speeches.

I expect it (even if i dont like it) in politics; for me doing it in the field of journalism is a huge no-no.

Lootifer wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Lootifer wrote:Sorry I apologise my mistake (Patches you are entirely correct).

Here I'll rephrase:

Or maybe he needs to admit that some rant largely filled with emotive dribble is in fact sensationalist journalism?

You want a rant filled with emotive dribble? You need to start listening to Obama's speeches.

I expect it (even if i dont like it) in politics; for me doing it in the field of journalism is a huge no-no.

Aren't journalists supposed to give us the facts? Aren't they supposed to challenge the claims by any group in power in order to get to the truth?

Lootifer, I notice you have not commented or even acknowledged... in fact, it looks like you go out of your way to ignore...any context, information, or details about what the person was saying.

Any comments there?

patches70 wrote:

Lootifer wrote:Sorry I apologise my mistake (Patches you are entirely correct).

Here I'll rephrase:

Or maybe he needs to admit that some rant largely filled with emotive dribble is in fact sensationalist journalism?

That's better I suppose, now that you've commented on the messenger, would you care to comment on the actual substance of the message itself?

Oh americas fucked; they need to stop spending and increase revenue.

How they do it doesnt really bother me since New Zealand just takes whatever China/US do and has no real say in the matter; so I havent put much thought into it.

But articles that Scotty comes up with are always emotive polorised rants that 9 times out of 10 carry a political agenda. So rather than bothering to instigate a serious discussion (which is rather meaningless anyway since Im some backwater kiwi liberal arguing with an american freedom fighter on the internet: doesnt actually get much more pointless) I tend to chuckle away at how very fucked up american political journalism is.

If you want to start a decent discussion then my first request would be some information on NET balance of payments (both public and private) since I suspect there is a significant public to private transfer of wealth (domestically) which takes the edge off the numbers. That is theres a significant surplus on the private side of the equation which serves to counter balance the deficit. Just a suspicion of course

Night Strike wrote:

Lootifer wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Lootifer wrote:Sorry I apologise my mistake (Patches you are entirely correct).

Here I'll rephrase:

Or maybe he needs to admit that some rant largely filled with emotive dribble is in fact sensationalist journalism?

You want a rant filled with emotive dribble? You need to start listening to Obama's speeches.

I expect it (even if i dont like it) in politics; for me doing it in the field of journalism is a huge no-no.

Aren't journalists supposed to give us the facts? Aren't they supposed to challenge the claims by any group in power in order to get to the truth?

Haha, so you dont think there is any political agenda associated with the aforementioned rant?

Lootifer wrote:Haha, so you dont think there is any political agenda associated with the aforementioned rant?

Does any political agenda presence twist the facts into something that is not true? If the facts are still true, then discuss the political implications of those facts. The assertion has been made that the interest on our debt will be greater than military spending in 2019. So if our military spending is so bloated yet interest payments will be even worse how do we cut the spending to fix it?

Lootifer wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Lootifer wrote:

Night Strike wrote:
You want a rant filled with emotive dribble? You need to start listening to Obama's speeches.

I expect it (even if i dont like it) in politics; for me doing it in the field of journalism is a huge no-no.

Aren't journalists supposed to give us the facts? Aren't they supposed to challenge the claims by any group in power in order to get to the truth?

Haha, so you dont think there is any political agenda associated with the aforementioned rant?

Why don't you point out what the problem is? They are numbers. Is his math flawed? Do you have a different total for out debt amount? Did he only go with both the biggest and smallest examples? What is the agenda?

To make a point that raising those taxes, even if Obama gets more than he wants, won't even pay for our government spending for 1 month?

Lootifer wrote:Oh americas fucked; they need to stop spending and increase revenue.

they are not going to stop spending, especially not if we give them more....

We have to stop providing them with the money to spend.

Nothing is wrong with his numbers (that I could tell - im not going to waste my time digging thru data to find out if he is right or wrong).

But the numbers dont paint anywhere near a comprehensive picture regarding the situation, hell some of it isnt even relevant (the first half about filers or whatever hes talking about; maybe im being dumb or not understanding the accent but I didnt get what the point was - the second part about debt was better). It was terrible emotive journalism; simple as that.

For example in NZ articles that kind of angry rant would be found not in the main article which would usually be a critical analysis of the debt situation; but in the comments section where all the crazies live (crazies often get it right, doesnt make them any less crazy though).

Lootifer wrote:Nothing is wrong with his numbers (that I could tell - im not going to waste my time digging thru data to find out if he is right or wrong).

But the numbers dont paint anywhere near a comprehensive picture regarding the situation, hell some of it isnt even relevant (the first half about filers or whatever hes talking about; maybe im being dumb or not understanding the accent but I didnt get what the point was - the second part about debt was better). It was terrible emotive journalism; simple as that.

For example in NZ articles that kind of angry rant would be found not in the main article which would usually be a critical analysis of the debt situation; but in the comments section where all the crazies live (crazies often get it right, doesnt make them any less crazy though).

The bottom line is the US government takes in about $200 billion a month in revenue and spends around $400 billion a month.

$200 billion a month is more than any other nation's total spending in the world. If you were to drop the #2 and #3 budgets of nations in the world (Japan and Germany respectively) and add up the total budgets of any two other nations, would not equal what we collect. The US should be able to make ends meet with what we collect without having to go into bottomless pits of debt and without taking even more from our citizenry.

The real problem is the way our currency comes into existence in the first place. It is too easy for politicians to merely roll over debt. In essence the US is on an interest only mortgage. We only pay on the interest and ignore the principle. But interest is rising at an alarming rate and at the moment our interest rate is at generational lows. Even a mere 1 or 2% increase translates into hundreds of billions. If we were paying the same interest on our debt today as we had been paying a decade ago, our interest payment would be $1 trillion a year.

You are right that America is screwed. And the politicians either don't see it, don't comprehend it or don't care. It's a sad state of affairs but soon enough it will effect enough people that it will be solved one way or another.....

Yes but the actual amount of debt stays the same in terms of debt/gdp ratio then while the government is still setting fire to 200 bil, its doing so in a sustainable manner.

IE: If the $200 bil the government is spending over and above its income is resulting in GDP growth of equal or larger amounts then there is no economy theatening problem*

* thats not to say theres no issues with this way of doing things, there certainly are (insert BBS rant); there's just no "AMAGAH OUR CHILDREN ARE GOING TO BE CRUSHED BY DEBT" kind of apocolypse.

Lootifer wrote:Yes but the actual amount of debt stays the same in terms of debt/gdp ratio then while the government is still setting fire to 200 bil, its doing so in a sustainable manner.

What? You have to clarify what you mean here. Debt to GDP is over 100% now in the US. Never has it been that high except during WWII. This chart shows the growing debt to GDP during the United States entire history and it comes from the government's own numbers-

Lootifer wrote:IE: If the $200 bil the government is spending over and above its income is resulting in GDP growth of equal or larger amounts then there is no economy theatening problem*

* thats not to say theres no issues with this way of doing things, there certainly are (insert BBS rant); there's just no "AMAGAH OUR CHILDREN ARE GOING TO BE CRUSHED BY DEBT" kind of apocolypse.

But that's not the case. Our GDP contracted during the worst of the meltdown while we piled on more debt. Since our "recovery"* our debt has outpaced our GPP by any and all measures.

*There is no recovery but that's a topic for another thread