Discussion:
Student activists should be protesting the crushing national debt
(too old to reply)
me
2018-03-10 18:50:51 UTC
Permalink
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/student-activists-should-be-protesting-the-crushing-national-debt/article/2651089
GLOBALIST
2018-03-10 19:04:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by me
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/student-activists-should-be-protesting-the-crushing-national-debt/article/2651089
Could be none of them have a crushing debt. Someone else, some agency
is paying for their education and why they can be so careless and
arrogant with their silly protests.
D***@teikyopost.edu
2018-03-11 14:34:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by me
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/student-activists-should-be-protesting-the-crushing-national-debt/article/2651089
Our "crushing national debt" is an enduring masterpiece of the
pseudo-conservative borrow-and-spend Republicans. George W Bush's
Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, shortly before he was fired,
confronted Dick Cheney about the administration's proposal to cut
taxes by another six hundred and seventy-four billion dollars over
ten years, pointing out that the country was "moving toward a
fiscal crisis."

Cheney stopped him and said: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter.
We won the midterms. This is our due."
me
2018-03-11 16:51:03 UTC
Permalink
In the US the House writes tax and spend laws. The House has been controlled by Democrats for most of the past 100 years including the Reagan years but not the Clinton or second Obama years. If you have a tax and or spend problem try to remember this.
Loading Image...

You should also spend some time researching state and municipal debts by political party and compare/contrast. Report back.
D***@teikyopost.edu
2018-03-12 01:57:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by me
In the US the House writes tax and spend laws. The House has been controlled by Democrats for most of the past 100 years including the Reagan years but not the Clinton or second Obama years. If you have a tax and or spend problem try to remember this.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives.PNG
You should also spend some time researching state and municipal debts by political party and compare/contrast. Report back.
The Reagan and W. Cabals are directly responsible for our "crushing
national debt." It is about time that you recognize this fact.
me
2018-03-12 02:11:21 UTC
Permalink
In the US the House writes tax and spend laws. The House has been controlled by Democrats for most of the past 100 years including the Reagan years but not the Clinton or second Obama years. If you have a tax and or spend problem try to remember this.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives.PNG

You should also spend some time researching state and municipal debts by political party and compare/contrast. Report back.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-03-11 17:49:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by D***@teikyopost.edu
Post by me
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/student-activists-should-be-protesting-the-crushing-national-debt/article/2651089
Our "crushing national debt" is an enduring masterpiece of the
pseudo-conservative borrow-and-spend Republicans. George W Bush's
Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, shortly before he was fired,
confronted Dick Cheney about the administration's proposal to cut
taxes by another six hundred and seventy-four billion dollars over
ten years, pointing out that the country was "moving toward a
fiscal crisis."
Cheney stopped him and said: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter.
We won the midterms. This is our due."
If deficits don't matter, why is the "conservatives" now
starting to say that the Middle Class (but not the oligarchs
to whom they recently gave huge gifts) will have to pay to
support the underclass or we're headed for crippling
National Debt? This only came up after the gifts to the
oligarchs were in place, of course. Don't worry, the
benefits will all trickle down: we can believe them - again.
D***@teikyopost.edu
2018-03-12 02:02:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by D***@teikyopost.edu
Post by me
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/student-activists-should-be-protesting-the-crushing-national-debt/article/2651089
Our "crushing national debt" is an enduring masterpiece of the
pseudo-conservative borrow-and-spend Republicans. George W Bush's
Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, shortly before he was fired,
confronted Dick Cheney about the administration's proposal to cut
taxes by another six hundred and seventy-four billion dollars over
ten years, pointing out that the country was "moving toward a
fiscal crisis."
Cheney stopped him and said: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter.
We won the midterms. This is our due."
If deficits don't matter, why is the "conservatives" now
starting to say that the Middle Class (but not the oligarchs
to whom they recently gave huge gifts) will have to pay to
support the underclass or we're headed for crippling
National Debt? This only came up after the gifts to the
oligarchs were in place, of course. Don't worry, the
benefits will all trickle down: we can believe them - again.
Trumpster may outdo the Reagan and W. Cabals.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-03-12 07:34:37 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 19:02:00 -0700 (PDT), ***@teikyopost.edu wrote:
<snip>
Post by D***@teikyopost.edu
Trumpster may outdo the Reagan and W. Cabals.
That seems a certainty, unless he confiscates the money
that the peasants paid to fund SS, and reduces Medicare
enough that far more people will die, both of which he and
many conservatives are pushing for.
El Castor
2018-03-12 08:17:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by D***@teikyopost.edu
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by D***@teikyopost.edu
Post by me
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/student-activists-should-be-protesting-the-crushing-national-debt/article/2651089
Our "crushing national debt" is an enduring masterpiece of the
pseudo-conservative borrow-and-spend Republicans. George W Bush's
Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, shortly before he was fired,
confronted Dick Cheney about the administration's proposal to cut
taxes by another six hundred and seventy-four billion dollars over
ten years, pointing out that the country was "moving toward a
fiscal crisis."
Cheney stopped him and said: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter.
We won the midterms. This is our due."
If deficits don't matter, why is the "conservatives" now
starting to say that the Middle Class (but not the oligarchs
to whom they recently gave huge gifts) will have to pay to
support the underclass or we're headed for crippling
National Debt? This only came up after the gifts to the
oligarchs were in place, of course. Don't worry, the
benefits will all trickle down: we can believe them - again.
Trumpster may outdo the Reagan and W. Cabals.
But Obama does not figure into your picture? Right?

"Based on quarterly data released by the US Treasury, the debt at the
end of 2008 — just before Obama took office — stood at roughly
$10,699,805,000,000. As of the third quarter of 2016, the most recent
data available, the debt as Obama is set to leave office stood at
$19,573,445,000,000. Based on the website USdebtclock.com, which
extrapolates the US national debt in real time based on committed
government spending, the debt will be roughly $19.97 trillion when
President-elect Donald Trump takes office on Friday."
http://www.businessinsider.com/national-debt-deficit-added-under-president-barack-obama-2017-1

Your answer explaining why Obama is a guiltless innocent victim of
evil Republicans goes here ...
D***@teikyopost.edu
2018-03-12 11:29:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by D***@teikyopost.edu
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by D***@teikyopost.edu
Post by me
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/student-activists-should-be-protesting-the-crushing-national-debt/article/2651089
Our "crushing national debt" is an enduring masterpiece of the
pseudo-conservative borrow-and-spend Republicans. George W Bush's
Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, shortly before he was fired,
confronted Dick Cheney about the administration's proposal to cut
taxes by another six hundred and seventy-four billion dollars over
ten years, pointing out that the country was "moving toward a
fiscal crisis."
Cheney stopped him and said: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter.
We won the midterms. This is our due."
If deficits don't matter, why is the "conservatives" now
starting to say that the Middle Class (but not the oligarchs
to whom they recently gave huge gifts) will have to pay to
support the underclass or we're headed for crippling
National Debt? This only came up after the gifts to the
oligarchs were in place, of course. Don't worry, the
benefits will all trickle down: we can believe them - again.
Trumpster may outdo the Reagan and W. Cabals.
But Obama does not figure into your picture? Right?
"Based on quarterly data released by the US Treasury, the debt at the
end of 2008 — just before Obama took office — stood at roughly
$10,699,805,000,000. As of the third quarter of 2016, the most recent
data available, the debt as Obama is set to leave office stood at
$19,573,445,000,000. Based on the website USdebtclock.com, which
extrapolates the US national debt in real time based on committed
government spending, the debt will be roughly $19.97 trillion when
President-elect Donald Trump takes office on Friday."
http://www.businessinsider.com/national-debt-deficit-added-under-president-barack-obama-2017-1
Your answer explaining why Obama is a guiltless innocent victim of
evil Republicans goes here ...
The increase in the national debt under President Obama was a
direct result of the 2008 economic collapse.
El Castor
2018-03-12 19:10:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by D***@teikyopost.edu
Post by El Castor
Post by D***@teikyopost.edu
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by D***@teikyopost.edu
Post by me
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/student-activists-should-be-protesting-the-crushing-national-debt/article/2651089
Our "crushing national debt" is an enduring masterpiece of the
pseudo-conservative borrow-and-spend Republicans. George W Bush's
Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, shortly before he was fired,
confronted Dick Cheney about the administration's proposal to cut
taxes by another six hundred and seventy-four billion dollars over
ten years, pointing out that the country was "moving toward a
fiscal crisis."
Cheney stopped him and said: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter.
We won the midterms. This is our due."
If deficits don't matter, why is the "conservatives" now
starting to say that the Middle Class (but not the oligarchs
to whom they recently gave huge gifts) will have to pay to
support the underclass or we're headed for crippling
National Debt? This only came up after the gifts to the
oligarchs were in place, of course. Don't worry, the
benefits will all trickle down: we can believe them - again.
Trumpster may outdo the Reagan and W. Cabals.
But Obama does not figure into your picture? Right?
"Based on quarterly data released by the US Treasury, the debt at the
end of 2008 — just before Obama took office — stood at roughly
$10,699,805,000,000. As of the third quarter of 2016, the most recent
data available, the debt as Obama is set to leave office stood at
$19,573,445,000,000. Based on the website USdebtclock.com, which
extrapolates the US national debt in real time based on committed
government spending, the debt will be roughly $19.97 trillion when
President-elect Donald Trump takes office on Friday."
http://www.businessinsider.com/national-debt-deficit-added-under-president-barack-obama-2017-1
Your answer explaining why Obama is a guiltless innocent victim of
evil Republicans goes here ...
The increase in the national debt under President Obama was a
direct result of the 2008 economic collapse.
Thanks for not disappointing.
D***@teikyopost.edu
2018-03-12 19:34:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by D***@teikyopost.edu
Post by El Castor
Post by D***@teikyopost.edu
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by D***@teikyopost.edu
Post by me
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/student-activists-should-be-protesting-the-crushing-national-debt/article/2651089
Our "crushing national debt" is an enduring masterpiece of the
pseudo-conservative borrow-and-spend Republicans. George W Bush's
Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, shortly before he was fired,
confronted Dick Cheney about the administration's proposal to cut
taxes by another six hundred and seventy-four billion dollars over
ten years, pointing out that the country was "moving toward a
fiscal crisis."
Cheney stopped him and said: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter.
We won the midterms. This is our due."
If deficits don't matter, why is the "conservatives" now
starting to say that the Middle Class (but not the oligarchs
to whom they recently gave huge gifts) will have to pay to
support the underclass or we're headed for crippling
National Debt? This only came up after the gifts to the
oligarchs were in place, of course. Don't worry, the
benefits will all trickle down: we can believe them - again.
Trumpster may outdo the Reagan and W. Cabals.
But Obama does not figure into your picture? Right?
"Based on quarterly data released by the US Treasury, the debt at the
end of 2008 — just before Obama took office — stood at roughly
$10,699,805,000,000. As of the third quarter of 2016, the most recent
data available, the debt as Obama is set to leave office stood at
$19,573,445,000,000. Based on the website USdebtclock.com, which
extrapolates the US national debt in real time based on committed
government spending, the debt will be roughly $19.97 trillion when
President-elect Donald Trump takes office on Friday."
http://www.businessinsider.com/national-debt-deficit-added-under-president-barack-obama-2017-1
Your answer explaining why Obama is a guiltless innocent victim of
evil Republicans goes here ...
The increase in the national debt under President Obama was a
direct result of the 2008 economic collapse.
Thanks for not disappointing.
Does the name of the then Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson ring a bell?
When he met with Congressional leaders in September 2008, he told them
that, unless massive Federal bailouts were approved, it would be the
end of our financial system as we know it.
El Castor
2018-03-13 01:03:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by D***@teikyopost.edu
Post by El Castor
Post by D***@teikyopost.edu
Post by El Castor
Post by D***@teikyopost.edu
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by D***@teikyopost.edu
Post by me
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/student-activists-should-be-protesting-the-crushing-national-debt/article/2651089
Our "crushing national debt" is an enduring masterpiece of the
pseudo-conservative borrow-and-spend Republicans. George W Bush's
Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, shortly before he was fired,
confronted Dick Cheney about the administration's proposal to cut
taxes by another six hundred and seventy-four billion dollars over
ten years, pointing out that the country was "moving toward a
fiscal crisis."
Cheney stopped him and said: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter.
We won the midterms. This is our due."
If deficits don't matter, why is the "conservatives" now
starting to say that the Middle Class (but not the oligarchs
to whom they recently gave huge gifts) will have to pay to
support the underclass or we're headed for crippling
National Debt? This only came up after the gifts to the
oligarchs were in place, of course. Don't worry, the
benefits will all trickle down: we can believe them - again.
Trumpster may outdo the Reagan and W. Cabals.
But Obama does not figure into your picture? Right?
"Based on quarterly data released by the US Treasury, the debt at the
end of 2008 — just before Obama took office — stood at roughly
$10,699,805,000,000. As of the third quarter of 2016, the most recent
data available, the debt as Obama is set to leave office stood at
$19,573,445,000,000. Based on the website USdebtclock.com, which
extrapolates the US national debt in real time based on committed
government spending, the debt will be roughly $19.97 trillion when
President-elect Donald Trump takes office on Friday."
http://www.businessinsider.com/national-debt-deficit-added-under-president-barack-obama-2017-1
Your answer explaining why Obama is a guiltless innocent victim of
evil Republicans goes here ...
The increase in the national debt under President Obama was a
direct result of the 2008 economic collapse.
Thanks for not disappointing.
Does the name of the then Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson ring a bell?
When he met with Congressional leaders in September 2008, he told them
that, unless massive Federal bailouts were approved, it would be the
end of our financial system as we know it.
"Barack Obama says banks paid back all the federal bailout money"
"... due to interest, dividends and other revenue streams, the
government has received more money back ($266.7 billion, according to
the Treasury) than it handed out to banks under the bailout law
($245.2 billion). We rate this claim Mostly True."
http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2012/oct/25/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-banks-paid-back-all-federal-bail/

Now, about that nearly $9 trillion debt that the Obama administration
rang up?.
D***@teikyopost.edu
2018-03-13 01:40:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by D***@teikyopost.edu
Post by El Castor
Post by D***@teikyopost.edu
Post by El Castor
Post by D***@teikyopost.edu
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by D***@teikyopost.edu
Post by me
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/student-activists-should-be-protesting-the-crushing-national-debt/article/2651089
Our "crushing national debt" is an enduring masterpiece of the
pseudo-conservative borrow-and-spend Republicans. George W Bush's
Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, shortly before he was fired,
confronted Dick Cheney about the administration's proposal to cut
taxes by another six hundred and seventy-four billion dollars over
ten years, pointing out that the country was "moving toward a
fiscal crisis."
Cheney stopped him and said: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter.
We won the midterms. This is our due."
If deficits don't matter, why is the "conservatives" now
starting to say that the Middle Class (but not the oligarchs
to whom they recently gave huge gifts) will have to pay to
support the underclass or we're headed for crippling
National Debt? This only came up after the gifts to the
oligarchs were in place, of course. Don't worry, the
benefits will all trickle down: we can believe them - again.
Trumpster may outdo the Reagan and W. Cabals.
But Obama does not figure into your picture? Right?
"Based on quarterly data released by the US Treasury, the debt at the
end of 2008 — just before Obama took office — stood at roughly
$10,699,805,000,000. As of the third quarter of 2016, the most recent
data available, the debt as Obama is set to leave office stood at
$19,573,445,000,000. Based on the website USdebtclock.com, which
extrapolates the US national debt in real time based on committed
government spending, the debt will be roughly $19.97 trillion when
President-elect Donald Trump takes office on Friday."
http://www.businessinsider.com/national-debt-deficit-added-under-president-barack-obama-2017-1
Your answer explaining why Obama is a guiltless innocent victim of
evil Republicans goes here ...
The increase in the national debt under President Obama was a
direct result of the 2008 economic collapse.
Thanks for not disappointing.
Does the name of the then Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson ring a bell?
When he met with Congressional leaders in September 2008, he told them
that, unless massive Federal bailouts were approved, it would be the
end of our financial system as we know it.
"Barack Obama says banks paid back all the federal bailout money"
"... due to interest, dividends and other revenue streams, the
government has received more money back ($266.7 billion, according to
the Treasury) than it handed out to banks under the bailout law
($245.2 billion). We rate this claim Mostly True."
http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2012/oct/25/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-banks-paid-back-all-federal-bail/
Now, about that nearly $9 trillion debt that the Obama administration
rang up?.
The bailout involved much more than the Wall Street banksters. Also,
do you have the figures on government spending during the Obama years,
and the corresponding tax revenues?
El Castor
2018-03-13 08:15:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by D***@teikyopost.edu
Post by El Castor
Post by D***@teikyopost.edu
Post by El Castor
Post by D***@teikyopost.edu
Post by El Castor
Post by D***@teikyopost.edu
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by D***@teikyopost.edu
Post by me
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/student-activists-should-be-protesting-the-crushing-national-debt/article/2651089
Our "crushing national debt" is an enduring masterpiece of the
pseudo-conservative borrow-and-spend Republicans. George W Bush's
Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, shortly before he was fired,
confronted Dick Cheney about the administration's proposal to cut
taxes by another six hundred and seventy-four billion dollars over
ten years, pointing out that the country was "moving toward a
fiscal crisis."
Cheney stopped him and said: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter.
We won the midterms. This is our due."
If deficits don't matter, why is the "conservatives" now
starting to say that the Middle Class (but not the oligarchs
to whom they recently gave huge gifts) will have to pay to
support the underclass or we're headed for crippling
National Debt? This only came up after the gifts to the
oligarchs were in place, of course. Don't worry, the
benefits will all trickle down: we can believe them - again.
Trumpster may outdo the Reagan and W. Cabals.
But Obama does not figure into your picture? Right?
"Based on quarterly data released by the US Treasury, the debt at the
end of 2008 — just before Obama took office — stood at roughly
$10,699,805,000,000. As of the third quarter of 2016, the most recent
data available, the debt as Obama is set to leave office stood at
$19,573,445,000,000. Based on the website USdebtclock.com, which
extrapolates the US national debt in real time based on committed
government spending, the debt will be roughly $19.97 trillion when
President-elect Donald Trump takes office on Friday."
http://www.businessinsider.com/national-debt-deficit-added-under-president-barack-obama-2017-1
Your answer explaining why Obama is a guiltless innocent victim of
evil Republicans goes here ...
The increase in the national debt under President Obama was a
direct result of the 2008 economic collapse.
Thanks for not disappointing.
Does the name of the then Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson ring a bell?
When he met with Congressional leaders in September 2008, he told them
that, unless massive Federal bailouts were approved, it would be the
end of our financial system as we know it.
"Barack Obama says banks paid back all the federal bailout money"
"... due to interest, dividends and other revenue streams, the
government has received more money back ($266.7 billion, according to
the Treasury) than it handed out to banks under the bailout law
($245.2 billion). We rate this claim Mostly True."
http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2012/oct/25/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-banks-paid-back-all-federal-bail/
Now, about that nearly $9 trillion debt that the Obama administration
rang up?.
The bailout involved much more than the Wall Street banksters.
"As of January 2018, U.S. bailout funds had been fully recovered by
the government, when interest on loans is taken into consideration. A
total of $626B was invested, loaned, or granted due to various bailout
measures, while $390B had been returned to the Treasury. The Treasury
had earned another $323B in interest on bailout loans, resulting in an
$87B profit.[18]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis
Post by D***@teikyopost.edu
Also,
do you have the figures on government spending during the Obama years,
and the corresponding tax revenues?
All of those figures are available on the Internet, so feel free to
avail yourself, but once again -- what I previously posted.

"Based on quarterly data released by the US Treasury, the debt at the
end of 2008 — just before Obama took office — stood at roughly
$10,699,805,000,000. As of the third quarter of 2016, the most recent
data available, the debt as Obama is set to leave office stood at
$19,573,445,000,000."
http://www.businessinsider.com/national-debt-deficit-added-under-president-barack-obama-2017-1

BTW -- I see you are posting from a university. Are you a student or
an employee?
me
2018-03-13 16:42:17 UTC
Permalink
The point is incentives are corrupted. Bad decisions and action have no adverse consequences. Moral hazard abounds.

“But these days, trading isn't risky at all. In fact, it's safer than walking down the street.

Why?

Because the US government is lending money to the big banks at near-zero interest rates. And the banks are then turning around and lending that money back to the US government at 3%-4% interest rates, making 3%+ on the spread. What's more, the banks are leveraging this trade, borrowing at least $10 for every $1 of equity capital they have, to increase the size of their bets. Which means the banks can turn relatively small amounts of equity into huge profits--by borrowing from the taxpayer and then lending back to the taxpayer.”
https://www.zerohedge.com/article/no-big-banks-have-not-paid-back-government-bailouts-and-subsidies

You call it ‘paying back’. I call it a rent seeking fraud. Privatizing profits. Socializing losses.
http://www.endit.info/Costs.shtml
D***@teikyopost.edu
2018-03-14 06:28:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by me
Privatizing profits. Socializing losses.
This is called Lemon Socialism.
me
2018-03-14 15:15:15 UTC
Permalink
You can call it anything you want. I call it human nature.
D***@teikyopost.edu
2018-03-14 13:20:55 UTC
Permalink
“[...]Because the US government is lending money to the big banks
at near-zero interest rates. And the banks are then turning around
and lending that money back to the US government at 3%-4% interest
rates, making 3%+ on the spread. [...] Which means the banks can
turn relatively small amounts of equity into huge profits--by
borrowing from the taxpayer and then lending back to the taxpayer.”
https://www.zerohedge.com/article/no-big-banks-have-not-paid-back-government-bailouts-and-subsidies
This would be another example of the Free Plunder System.
me
2018-03-14 15:11:26 UTC
Permalink
Yes, indeed.

http://www.endit.info/Costs.shtml
El Castor
2018-03-15 00:15:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by D***@teikyopost.edu
“[...]Because the US government is lending money to the big banks
at near-zero interest rates. And the banks are then turning around
and lending that money back to the US government at 3%-4% interest
rates, making 3%+ on the spread. [...] Which means the banks can
turn relatively small amounts of equity into huge profits--by
borrowing from the taxpayer and then lending back to the taxpayer.”
https://www.zerohedge.com/article/no-big-banks-have-not-paid-back-government-bailouts-and-subsidies
This would be another example of the Free Plunder System.
Student or employee?
D***@teikyopost.edu
2018-03-15 01:13:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by D***@teikyopost.edu
“[...]Because the US government is lending money to the big banks
at near-zero interest rates. And the banks are then turning around
and lending that money back to the US government at 3%-4% interest
rates, making 3%+ on the spread. [...] Which means the banks can
turn relatively small amounts of equity into huge profits--by
borrowing from the taxpayer and then lending back to the taxpayer.”
https://www.zerohedge.com/article/no-big-banks-have-not-paid-back-government-bailouts-and-subsidies
This would be another example of the Free Plunder System.
Student or employee?
Retired.
El Castor
2018-03-15 06:59:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by D***@teikyopost.edu
Post by El Castor
Post by D***@teikyopost.edu
“[...]Because the US government is lending money to the big banks
at near-zero interest rates. And the banks are then turning around
and lending that money back to the US government at 3%-4% interest
rates, making 3%+ on the spread. [...] Which means the banks can
turn relatively small amounts of equity into huge profits--by
borrowing from the taxpayer and then lending back to the taxpayer.”
https://www.zerohedge.com/article/no-big-banks-have-not-paid-back-government-bailouts-and-subsidies
This would be another example of the Free Plunder System.
Student or employee?
Retired.
Professor, or?

D***@teikyopost.edu
2018-03-14 06:25:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Also, do you have the figures on government spending during the
Obama years, and the corresponding tax revenues?
All of those figures are available on the Internet, so feel free to
avail yourself
The tax revenues took a dive following the economic collapse of 2008,
while expenditures increased in order to prevent a complete bust.
The tax revenues for Fiscal years 2008-2013 (in $trillions) were:
2.524, 2.10, 2.163, 2.303, 2.450, 2.775.

I also suspect that Obama's expenditures reflected the actual cost of
the neocon's wars--costs that had been hidden under Generalissimo W.
me
2018-03-13 01:14:41 UTC
Permalink
Nothing was ‘fixed’. Banks are an even bigger risk to the system. The end as we know it was simply delayed.
D***@teikyopost.edu
2018-03-13 01:42:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by me
Nothing was ‘fixed’. Banks are an even bigger risk to the system. The end as we know it was simply delayed.
Trumpster is setting the stage for an even bigger bailout.
me
2018-03-13 02:11:19 UTC
Permalink
Indeed.
me
2018-03-12 03:59:01 UTC
Permalink
Krugman says it constantly. He’s hardly a conservative. He’s a Nobel Laureate Keynesian.
b***@gmail.com
2018-03-12 05:59:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by D***@teikyopost.edu
Post by me
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/student-activists-should-be-protesting-the-crushing-national-debt/article/2651089
Our "crushing national debt" is an enduring masterpiece of the
pseudo-conservative borrow-and-spend Republicans. George W Bush's
Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, shortly before he was fired,
confronted Dick Cheney about the administration's proposal to cut
taxes by another six hundred and seventy-four billion dollars over
ten years, pointing out that the country was "moving toward a
fiscal crisis."
Cheney stopped him and said: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter.
We won the midterms. This is our due."
If deficits don't matter, why is the "conservatives" now
starting to say that the Middle Class (but not the oligarchs
to whom they recently gave huge gifts) will have to pay to
support the underclass or we're headed for crippling
National Debt? This only came up after the gifts to the
oligarchs were in place, of course. Don't worry, the
benefits will all trickle down: we can believe them - again.
You forget that the rich people pay most of the federal tax and the bottom 47% pay nothing. So, when it comes to tax breaks, the only people who can get a tax break are the upper 1% who pay everything. How much farther can you skew the scale?

"The top 1% of Americans, who have an average income of more than $2.1 million, pay 43.6% of all the federal individual income tax in the U.S.; the top 0.1% — just 115,000 households, whose average income is more than $9.4 million — pay more than 20% of it."
rumpelstiltskin
2018-03-12 07:34:37 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by rumpelstiltskin
If deficits don't matter, why is the "conservatives" now
starting to say that the Middle Class (but not the oligarchs
to whom they recently gave huge gifts) will have to pay to
support the underclass or we're headed for crippling
National Debt? This only came up after the gifts to the
oligarchs were in place, of course. Don't worry, the
benefits will all trickle down: we can believe them - again.
You forget that the rich people pay most of the federal tax and the bottom 47% pay nothing. So, when it comes to tax breaks, the only people who can get a tax break are the upper 1% who pay everything. How much farther can you skew the scale?
"The top 1% of Americans, who have an average income of more than $2.1 million, pay 43.6% of all the federal individual income tax in the U.S.; the top 0.1% — just 115,000 households, whose average income is more than $9.4 million — pay more than 20% of it."
I don't have an income of $2.1 million, but it seems I pay a
lot of tax. 43.6% of the taxes is a far cry from 43.6% of the
income of the rich, so they're still making out (literally!) like
bandits. I think we can tax them some more so that we can
have free higher education, and get rid of a plague that didn't
exist when I was going to college, of kids by necessity running
up debts that will take them decades to pay off, all the while
depressing their effective income while they're trying to get
ahead after college and perhaps hoping to have kids.

In answer to a possible question: no, I have no sympathy
at all for the rich. They got rich off other people's labour,
so they should expect to pay back some of the money,
more than they're paying right now, for the sake of the
welfare of people other than themselves. If they don't
expect it, we pee-ons should force it on them, IMO. If they
want to run off to a tax haven, let 'em, but don't let 'em
take further advantage of the USA from overseas. We'll
be better off with them gone.
islander
2018-03-12 13:32:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by D***@teikyopost.edu
Post by me
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/student-activists-should-be-protesting-the-crushing-national-debt/article/2651089
Our "crushing national debt" is an enduring masterpiece of the
pseudo-conservative borrow-and-spend Republicans. George W Bush's
Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, shortly before he was fired,
confronted Dick Cheney about the administration's proposal to cut
taxes by another six hundred and seventy-four billion dollars over
ten years, pointing out that the country was "moving toward a
fiscal crisis."
Cheney stopped him and said: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter.
We won the midterms. This is our due."
If deficits don't matter, why is the "conservatives" now
starting to say that the Middle Class (but not the oligarchs
to whom they recently gave huge gifts) will have to pay to
support the underclass or we're headed for crippling
National Debt? This only came up after the gifts to the
oligarchs were in place, of course. Don't worry, the
benefits will all trickle down: we can believe them - again.
You forget that the rich people pay most of the federal tax and the bottom 47% pay nothing. So, when it comes to tax breaks, the only people who can get a tax break are the upper 1% who pay everything. How much farther can you skew the scale?
"The top 1% of Americans, who have an average income of more than $2.1 million, pay 43.6% of all the federal individual income tax in the U.S.; the top 0.1% — just 115,000 households, whose average income is more than $9.4 million — pay more than 20% of it."
Don't tell me that you have fallen for this bit of intentional
deception! Your figures are for federal income tax and only tell part
of the story:

■ The richest one percent of Americans have 21.6 percent of total income
and pay 23.6 percent of total taxes.

■ The poorest one-fifth of Americans have 3.3 percent of total income
and pay 2.1 percent of total taxes.

■ Each income group’s share of taxes is quite similar to each group’s
share of total income.

■ Contrary to popular belief, when all taxes are considered, the rich do
not pay a dispropor­tionately high share of taxes. Although each income
quintile pays combined federal, state and local taxes that are roughly
equivalent to their share of the nation’s income, this by no means
indicates our tax system is fine as is. In a truly progressive tax
system, millionaires and billionaires wouldn’t be paying roughly the
same tax rates as working families earning $100,000 per year.

https://www.ctj.org/who-pays-taxes-in-america-in-2016/
islander
2018-03-12 13:47:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by D***@teikyopost.edu
Post by me
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/student-activists-should-be-protesting-the-crushing-national-debt/article/2651089
Our "crushing national debt" is an enduring masterpiece of the
pseudo-conservative borrow-and-spend Republicans. George W Bush's
Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, shortly before he was fired,
confronted  Dick Cheney about the administration's proposal to cut
taxes by another six hundred and seventy-four billion dollars over
ten years, pointing out that the country was "moving toward a
fiscal crisis."
Cheney stopped him and said: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter.
We won the midterms. This is our due."
    If deficits don't matter, why is the "conservatives" now
starting to say that the Middle Class (but not the oligarchs
to whom they recently gave huge gifts) will have to pay to
support the underclass or we're headed for crippling
National Debt?  This only came up after the gifts to the
oligarchs were in place, of course.  Don't worry, the
benefits will all trickle down: we can believe them - again.
You forget that the rich people pay most of the federal tax and the
bottom 47% pay nothing. So, when it comes to tax breaks, the only
people who can get a tax break are the upper 1% who pay everything.
How much farther can you skew the scale?
"The top 1% of Americans, who have an average income of more than $2.1
million, pay 43.6% of all the federal individual income tax in the
U.S.; the top 0.1% — just 115,000 households, whose average income is
more than $9.4 million — pay more than 20% of it."
Don't tell me that you have fallen for this bit of intentional
deception!  Your figures are for federal income tax and only tell part
■ The richest one percent of Americans have 21.6 percent of total income
and pay 23.6 percent of total taxes.
■ The poorest one-fifth of Americans have 3.3 percent of total income
and pay 2.1 percent of total taxes.
■ Each income group’s share of taxes is quite similar to each group’s
share of total income.
■ Contrary to popular belief, when all taxes are considered, the rich do
not pay a dispropor­tionately high share of taxes. Although each income
quintile pays combined federal, state and local taxes that are roughly
equivalent to their share of the nation’s income, this by no means
indicates our tax system is fine as is.  In a truly progressive tax
system, millionaires and billionaires wouldn’t be paying roughly the
same tax rates as working families earning $100,000 per year.
https://www.ctj.org/who-pays-taxes-in-america-in-2016/
Here is a better citation for the above:
https://itep.org/wp-content/uploads/taxday2017.pdf
b***@gmail.com
2018-03-12 16:17:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
You forget that the rich people pay most of the federal tax and the
bottom 47% pay nothing. So, when it comes to tax breaks, the only
people who can get a tax break are the upper 1% who pay everything.
How much farther can you skew the scale?
"The top 1% of Americans, who have an average income of more than $2.1
million, pay 43.6% of all the federal individual income tax in the
U.S.; the top 0.1% — just 115,000 households, whose average income is
more than $9.4 million — pay more than 20% of it."
Don't tell me that you have fallen for this bit of intentional
deception!  Your figures are for federal income tax and only tell part
■ The richest one percent of Americans have 21.6 percent of total income
and pay 23.6 percent of total taxes.
■ The poorest one-fifth of Americans have 3.3 percent of total income
and pay 2.1 percent of total taxes.
■ Each income group’s share of taxes is quite similar to each group’s
share of total income.
■ Contrary to popular belief, when all taxes are considered, the rich do
not pay a dispropor­tionately high share of taxes. Although each income
quintile pays combined federal, state and local taxes that are roughly
equivalent to their share of the nation’s income, this by no means
indicates our tax system is fine as is.  In a truly progressive tax
system, millionaires and billionaires wouldn’t be paying roughly the
same tax rates as working families earning $100,000 per year.
https://www.ctj.org/who-pays-taxes-in-america-in-2016/
https://itep.org/wp-content/uploads/taxday2017.pdf
Yes, but you can't consider payroll taxes since it's the best investment around. For an average income of $816 over 35 years the tax is 0.075% or $734 a year. Compounded over 35 years at 6% is about 100K yet the social security payment will be $734 a month which is about twice the amount the investment would pay if you just saved your money and made 4%. You would have to be some sort of fool not to participate in the SS system and gladly pay the tax.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-03-12 18:44:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
You forget that the rich people pay most of the federal tax and the
bottom 47% pay nothing. So, when it comes to tax breaks, the only
people who can get a tax break are the upper 1% who pay everything.
How much farther can you skew the scale?
"The top 1% of Americans, who have an average income of more than $2.1
million, pay 43.6% of all the federal individual income tax in the
U.S.; the top 0.1% — just 115,000 households, whose average income is
more than $9.4 million — pay more than 20% of it."
Don't tell me that you have fallen for this bit of intentional
deception!  Your figures are for federal income tax and only tell part
? The richest one percent of Americans have 21.6 percent of total income
and pay 23.6 percent of total taxes.
? The poorest one-fifth of Americans have 3.3 percent of total income
and pay 2.1 percent of total taxes.
? Each income group’s share of taxes is quite similar to each group’s
share of total income.
? Contrary to popular belief, when all taxes are considered, the rich do
not pay a dispropor­tionately high share of taxes. Although each income
quintile pays combined federal, state and local taxes that are roughly
equivalent to their share of the nation’s income, this by no means
indicates our tax system is fine as is.  In a truly progressive tax
system, millionaires and billionaires wouldn’t be paying roughly the
same tax rates as working families earning $100,000 per year.
https://www.ctj.org/who-pays-taxes-in-america-in-2016/
https://itep.org/wp-content/uploads/taxday2017.pdf
Yes, but you can't consider payroll taxes since it's the best investment around. For an average income of $816 over 35 years the tax is 0.075% or $734 a year. Compounded over 35 years at 6% is about 100K yet the social security payment will be $734 a month which is about twice the amount the investment would pay if you just saved your money and made 4%. You would have to be some sort of fool not to participate in the SS system and gladly pay the tax.
But check around your house to make sure there aren't
any orange-haired creatures hiding behind the doors or
under the furniture, waiting for an opportunity.
me
2018-03-13 01:08:31 UTC
Permalink
The federal employees didn’t want it if I recall correctly. And see
http://www.endit.info/SocialSecurity.shtml
islander
2018-03-14 14:27:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by me
The federal employees didn’t want it if I recall correctly. And see
http://www.endit.info/SocialSecurity.shtml
Federal employees have a separate system soas to avoid any possibility
of conflict of interest.
me
2018-03-12 14:14:51 UTC
Permalink
You don’t want to forget;
https://taxfoundation.org/60-percent-households-now-receive-more-transfer-income-they-pay-taxes/
mg
2018-03-11 19:30:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by me
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/student-activists-should-be-protesting-the-crushing-national-debt/article/2651089
The huge national debt was created as a result of the Republican
"starve the beast" strategy and it was created on purpose in order to
prevent the creation of any new Democratic social programs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

Now days, however, it seems that the Democrats have also hopped on
board that Reagan choo choo, trickle-down train:

---------------

"Krugman argues to ignore deficit, borrow & invest

By teacherken, 2016/08/08 · 04:54

Krugman starts his column in today’s New York Times, titled Time to
Borrow, by assuming that Clinton will be elected (citing the 83%
probability of that in the paper’s model, and urges her as a matter of
national policy and priority to make major public investment.

He then addresses a core issue on this:

How should we pay for this investment? We shouldn’t — not now, or any
time soon. Right now there is an overwhelming case for more government
borrowing.

He cites pressing needs, such the decrepit condition of Washington
DC’s Metro rail system . . ."
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/8/8/1557914/-Krugman-argues-to-ignore-deficit-borrow-invest




------------------------------
For me, comedy is a day-to-day
report on the human condition.
It's what's happening right now.
I get maybe 20 minutes of my act
straight from the newspaper.
-- Elayne Boosler
Loading...