US on track to borrow most money since 2008 financial crisis: report

LV426 said:
Since most government assistance is income-determinant, the higher the wage, the less in benefits that worker qualifies. So if a worker qualifies for less benefits because their wage is higher, that's less government spending.

Not hard to figure out.
Click to expand...

I see, so you raise the minimum wage up a couple of bucks and all the deadbeats on government assistance will run get a job?

ok cupcake, wow why didn't I think of that :rofl2:
 
Getin the ring said:
raising the minimum wage cuts government spending?
you understand that do you? :rofl2:
Click to expand...

The problem with people like you is that you're not intelligent people to begin with. So any conversation with you is immediately unbalanced because of the wide disparity between what you know and what the other person knows.

So inane concepts have to be explained to you because you are just not wise enough to discern it for yourself.

Or you're just pretending to be obtuse...which is what I think most of you are doing.
 
Getin the ring said:
I see, so you raise the minimum wage up a couple of bucks and all the deadbeats on government assistance will run get a job?
Click to expand...

Conservatives like this idiot don't read posts when you write them. They have orders to be deliberately obtuse and vague to try and derail a conversation they never intended to have in the first place.

As I said in the post you quoted, most government assistance programs are determined by your income. The more you make, the less in benefits you qualify. So if you make enough that you don't qualify for any benefits, then the government isn't spending anything to provide you with assistance.

It is that simple. Which makes your bewilderment that much more apparent as juvenile posturing.

All Conservatives do that.
 
LV426 said:
I understand pensions just fine.

What you don't understand is the pension liabilities you're screeching about.

You don't understand what those liabilities even are.

You don't understand the revenue baseline used to determine the liabilities.

You don't even understand how far out the liability goes.

All questions directed at you regarding these details come up empty. You won't say. Instead, you fall back on the same old Op-Eds that don't answer any of those questions either.

You say there's a "trillion dollar liability".

OK, so how much is that liability exactly?
What is the period of time you say this liability is over?
What is the revenue baseline you're using to conclude there's a liability?

Everything you say on this topic is designed to be vague and ambiguous, and then you bristle when asked to go into detail of the very argument you're making.

You should be able to say something like, over the next 50 years, there's a $1.5T liability that is based on a revenue baseline from 2016.

THAT is how you articulate what a pension liability is. That way, we can do a deep dive into your numbers to find out if there actually is a liability, or if you're overstating it because you're using a revenue baseline from the Great Bush Recession. The liaibility picture looks worse if you use revenue from 2009 or 2010 as your baseline, which is what most of your Op-Eds seem to be doing. So you can manufacture panic about an issue by using deliberately skewed and outdated info.

That's what you do every time you post one of those Op-Eds in lieu of actually doing the work yourself.

So not only are you a liar by omission, but you're incredibly fucking lazy.
Click to expand...

So reports from the state of California are now op-eds? So is it your position no one has officially studied unfunded pension liabilities?

And you think the various states don't take all factors into their analysis? Which is why you ask the same two questions over and over as if you've found some gotcha on their reports that they didn't think of
 
LV426 said:
I understand pensions just fine.

What you don't understand is the pension liabilities you're screeching about.

You don't understand what those liabilities even are.

You don't understand the revenue baseline used to determine the liabilities.

You don't even understand how far out the liability goes.

All questions directed at you regarding these details come up empty. You won't say. Instead, you fall back on the same old Op-Eds that don't answer any of those questions either.

You say there's a "trillion dollar liability".

OK, so how much is that liability exactly?
What is the period of time you say this liability is over?
What is the revenue baseline you're using to conclude there's a liability?

Everything you say on this topic is designed to be vague and ambiguous, and then you bristle when asked to go into detail of the very argument you're making.

You should be able to say something like, over the next 50 years, there's a $1.5T liability that is based on a revenue baseline from 2016.

THAT is how you articulate what a pension liability is. That way, we can do a deep dive into your numbers to find out if there actually is a liability, or if you're overstating it because you're using a revenue baseline from the Great Bush Recession. The liaibility picture looks worse if you use revenue from 2009 or 2010 as your baseline, which is what most of your Op-Eds seem to be doing. So you can manufacture panic about an issue by using deliberately skewed and outdated info.

That's what you do every time you post one of those Op-Eds in lieu of actually doing the work yourself.

So not only are you a liar by omission, but you're incredibly fucking lazy.
Click to expand...

Some more fun reading for you from earlier this week

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-pe...ates-is-the-size-of-japans-economy-1532972501
 
Jeez I wonder why the economy is doing so well and the trade deficit is going up so much? Certainly those two things have nothing at all to do with the exploding budget deficit.
 
If you think it's bad now just imagine how bad it's going to be once a recession hits. We've decide to reset the new baseline for borrowing during a boom at the debt we were generating during a year when revenue fell by like a trillion dollars. So imagine revenue following a trillion from this. That's the trap that Trump is setting us up for with his extreme irresponsibility.
 
cawacko said:
So reports from the state of California are now op-eds? So is it your position no one has officially studied unfunded pension liabilities?

And you think the various states don't take all factors into their analysis? Which is why you ask the same two questions over and over as if you've found some gotcha on their reports that they didn't think of
Click to expand...

Why does California's current taxes necessarily have to be high enough to pay for a future expense? How does that make sense? You worry about that future expense when it comes.
 
Jean-Jacques Dessalines said:
Why does California's current taxes necessarily have to be high enough to pay for a future expense? How does that make sense? You worry about that future expense when it comes.
Click to expand...

You are definitely a millennial WM. "YOLO b*tches! Fvck planning for the future!"

We're already seeing the effects today. We pay higher taxes but instead of going to increased services it's going to pay pensions of ex-workers. So yes it's easy to say who cares on a message board but in the real world most people don't enjoy paying more then still having less cops and firefighters on the streets for instance
 
cawacko said:
So reports from the state of California are now op-eds? So is it your position no one has officially studied unfunded pension liabilities?
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that you don't seem to have a full understanding of this topic and you're relying on interpretations from others to carry your argument for you.

I've just asked some very basic questions to help understand what this liability is, since it appears to be a moving target in your arguments.
 
LV426 said:
What I'm saying is that you don't seem to have a full understanding of this topic and you're relying on interpretations from others to carry your argument for you.

I've just asked some very basic questions to help understand what this liability is, since it appears to be a moving target in your arguments.
Click to expand...

If you want to join a think tank and delve deep into the numbers you have my full support my man. But the two questions you are focused on don't change the bottom line of the pension issue. You're using them as a divergent tactic because as you've stated you don't think this problem exists, all evidence to the contrary.
 
cawacko said:
But the two questions you are focused on don't change the bottom line of the pension issue
Click to expand...

Sure they do; they change the magnitude and imminence of it. If you say there's a trillion dollar liability over the next 50 years, that's less scary than saying there's a trillion dollar liability over the next 5 years.

By framing the liability, or "issue", as an immediate problem by using baseline revenues from when the economy was slumping, you're creating an artificial environment of fear that is going to serve other nefarious goals.

Fact is, whether you think it was a good deal or not, the state is obligated to pay the benefits it agreed to. If there's a shortfall, the simple solution is to raise revenues in order to meet that. If the shortfall isn't for 10 years, then the immediate need becomes less immediate. if the shortfall is over 50 years, then the immediate need is not immediate at all, and you're using it to gin up panicky fear in order to extract cuts according to your ideologically narrow beliefs.

It's no different than passing tax cuts, then screaming your head off about the deficits your tax cuts caused.
 
LV426 said:
Sure they do; they change the magnitude and imminence of it. If you say there's a trillion dollar liability over the next 50 years, that's less scary than saying there's a trillion dollar liability over the next 5 years.

By framing the liability, or "issue", as an immediate problem by using baseline revenues from when the economy was slumping, you're creating an artificial environment of fear that is going to serve other nefarious goals.

Fact is, whether you think it was a good deal or not, the state is obligated to pay the benefits it agreed to. If there's a shortfall, the simple solution is to raise revenues in order to meet that. If the shortfall isn't for 10 years, then the immediate need becomes less immediate. if the shortfall is over 50 years, then the immediate need is not immediate at all, and you're using it to gin up panicky fear in order to extract cuts according to your ideologically narrow beliefs.

It's no different than passing tax cuts, then screaming your head off about the deficits your tax cuts caused.
Click to expand...

Do you understand pension liabilities are an ongoing thing? Do you understand we are dealing with shortfalls today? This isn't some academic exercise. I don't know what state you live in and how well funded your state's program is but in California today's shortfalls are very real. And you don't address the various articles posted on the topic because you would have to acknowledge the very real issue.
 
cawacko said:
Do you understand pension liabilities are an ongoing thing?
Click to expand...

Right, which is why this whole discussion is pointless. It's you trying to gin up fiscal fear so you can punitively attack state workers because of whatever shitty inherent biases you have as a human being.
 
cawacko said:
Do you understand we are dealing with shortfalls today
Click to expand...

You're not really dealing with it today.

From what I read in one of the many spam links you've posted, the state can continue to pay out full benefits until mid-2020's. So again, not an immediate thing. Secondly, the remedy is quite simple; raising revenues to cover shortfalls.
 
cawacko said:
This isn't some academic exercise
Click to expand...

And there's the singular problem with your argument; it's got no academic basis. Instead, it's ginning up unfounded fears in order to advance a narrow, ideological agenda that is informed by whatever garbage personal biases you have toward the state.

You are magnifying a problem in order to push through a narrow, ideological solution that is wholly punative against state workers, against whom you have an inherent bias.

The solution is simple; raise revenues. It's been done before.
 
cawacko said:
I don't know what state you live in and how well funded your state's program is but in California today's shortfalls are very real. And you don't address the various articles posted on the topic because you would have to acknowledge the very real issue.
Click to expand...

First of all, you can't even articulate what those shortfalls are. The reason is because you are not taking an academic approach to it; you're taking an emotional approach to it. And you're making it emotional because what is driving your intention is the emotion you feel at state workers enjoying generous benefits they negotiated and earned.

And I did address your Op-Eds. Numerous times. In fact, I addressed one of your Op-Eds in my last post, when one of the many you posted discussed how the state can continue to pay full benefits until the mid-2020's.

The problem is that you don't take an academic approach to this because your emotions are guiding you. Emotions of envy, jealousy, fear and insecurity. Those CA state workers earned their pensions. They negotiated for them and got what they wanted. Because the Conservative Fiscal Collapse caused the pension value to drop, your remedy is to punish the workers who earned and negotiated their benefits prior to Wall Street ripping everyone off.

So how about instead of demanding cuts to employee pensions because of the Financial Collapse, you demand the firms responsible for lying to pension funds and managers cover the shortfall?

Why is that not an option? Why must the deception of Wall Street result in punishing workers who had nothing to do with that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top