Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MacRumors, Feb 13, 2019.
Yes, that sounds about the right level of technology for this committee.
The (relatively modest) operational surpluses that the Social Security program had for a while had to be saved in some form. The amounts were far to great to be held as actual currency. So they had to be, e.g., loaned to banks or invested in equities or loaned to the Treasury. It happens that, from essentially the beginning of the program, to the extent there were surplus funds they were required by law to be put in instruments guaranteed by the federal government. That, effectively, meant they had to be loaned to the federal government.
In theory the law could have been different and they could have been, e.g., invested in equities. But that would have brought a whole other set of problems and would have been a riskier way of saving those funds. As it is, what savings the Social Security program has had have, over time, realized a decent - and safe - return.
The problem isn't that those funds haven't generated enough return or have been lost. The problem is that there were never going to be enough savings to secure benefits payments long into the future. That's just not how the program was set up to operate. It's always been a pay-as-we go program, where current workers pay taxes which are used to provide benefits to current retirees. Realizing the retirement of the baby boomer generation would cause major problems for the program, in the 80s we raised Social Security taxes enough to get a little ahead - to have surpluses for a while which would allow the program to build a small nest egg to cover the operational deficits which would soon follow. The issue isn't that that nest egg isn't there (e.g. because it was poorly invested), it's that it was never going to be enough without major changes being made to the program.
The fundamental problem for Social Security is that it is becoming top heavy. Originally, it saw a large number of workers paying taxes to support a relatively small number of retirees. Now the ratio is going in the wrong direction. We have too many retirees to pay for and too few workers to do it. People either have to work longer or we have to raise taxes on those still working or we have to cut benefits for those who are retired. Really we should do a combination of those things. (Preferably we'd find a way to unwind the program altogether, but the transition would be very difficult and it likely isn't politically feasible.)
At any rate, the problem with Social Security isn't the way its savings have been invested (i.e. in special issue Treasuries). It's that it's never really had a huge amount of savings (compared to the scale of the program) because it wasn't designed to, and that the worker / retiree balance is - as we've long known it would - getting out of whack.
Your knowledge of the factors that led to the 2008 economic collapse seems non-existent.
Your deficit figures are wrong, because you’ve attributed Obama’s last budget (FY17) to Trump. FY17 is 1 Oct 2016 through 30 Sep 2017. That was passed before Trump took office. That $670 billion deficit is Obama’s.
FY18, covering 1 Oct 2017 through 30 Sep 2018 was Trump’s first budget, and the deficit was $1.271 trillion (actual as of Oct 18, 2018; originally projected at 1.273 in Feb 2018).
From Trump’s own budget document:
(https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/ap_4_borrowing-fy2019.pdf —ref Table 4-6)
FY18— 1.273 projected (1.271 actual)
FY19— 1.225 Projected
FY20— 1.198 Projected
FY21— 1.119 Projected
The average is $1.203 trillion/yr, during what so far is—and which is projected in the budget to continue to be—a long-running economic expansion. (This is the point in the macroeconomic cycle that deficits should be at their lowest.)
Obama added $8.588 trillion in 8 years, averaging $1.074 trillion/yr, with nearly $2 trillion of that spent by the end of his first budget year fighting the Great Recession.
Obama’s last 3 budgets averaged $800 billion a year, which Trump promptly exploded to $1.2 trillion, not the least of which was due to giving un-needed and ineffectual tax cuts to the wealthiest taxpayers.
GDP growth about doubled and employment increased including in the left for dead manufacturing sector.
The short term deficits from tax cuts may indeed be swamped by increased tax revenues from increased employment and GDP. We will see in a couple years.
The Democrats are using RESIST to try as hard as they can to keep the next phase of growth oriented policies from being implemented. Obviously a good economy nobody can deny, would assist with a Presidential reelection.
The bump in GDP growth looks to be short-lived; from 2.2 to 4.2, then 3.4 in Q3, with last quarter expected to come in at 2.6. It's Keynesian stimulus 101. Increase disposable cash and people will spend (not save). Short spike in business investment then back to previous levels.
This stimulus would have been a lot more valuable in 2012/13 when unemployment was 7-8% and still a real concern but the Republicans would have none of that. In 2018 with a sizzling economy and 4% unemployment, it just causes inflation fears and Fed tightening, though the self-inflicted shutdown debacle seems to have convinced the Fed the economy is in no danger of overheating. Trade wars are foolish and tariffs mostly counterproductive. Global slowdown is good for no one.
Hey hey hey. You watch yourself. He has a bag full of those special “alternative” facts.
this board is about foreign workers, haha ... apple and stuff wants dreamers and other people to join workfoce!
A cogent analysis of macroeconomic factors and policy? Buddy you are in the wrong place!
--- Post Merged, Feb 13, 2019 ---
I’m going to skip the economic analysis, even though that’s in my wheelhouse, and go to your last paragraph. Your assumption (and it IS an assumption) about Democrats’ motivations is flat out untrue. Their policy positions pre-date DJT. Like em or hate em, it doesn’t matter—the notion that they exist to stunt the economy and therefore hurt Trump and therefore improve the Democrats’ odds in 2020? Nope. I know people love conspiracy theories, but this one has about as much reality as a Bigfoot sighting.
--- Post Merged, Feb 13, 2019 ---
I can look at my very diversified portfolio and see it stagnating, only going back up somewhat recently after the shutdown. I’m not far left. Not even close. Since you’re all about alternative facts, here is an actual fact for you: I’m a moderate who has voted for three republican presidents and one democrat president. But everything must be dramatized and made extreme because that better fits your narrative, right?
So why are you avoiding my statistic about the 90 day late car loans? Record high by a million loans and a strong indicator of deeper problems with the economy under the surface. The economy was already headed up when Trump took office, or are you going to ignore that fact as well? And what little progress we may have seen in our portfolios has come at what cost? The dismantling of the EPA so my kids can no longer look forward to enjoying clean air and water? Pissing off all of our friends and allies and trading partners to make a few extra bucks? This will only hurt us long-term. We’re trading small short-term gains for long-term calamity and strife.
I just did my taxes this evening and the tax breaks did jack all for me as a middle class white guy with a wife and two kids. Same as last year nearly to the dollar. There are reports everywhere about this. It’s the same freaking amount, despite the child tax credit doubling, the standard deduction doubling, and that new 20% thing for my wife’s small business (daycare). And yet the rich are getting huge returns (I know because my wife’s aunt is a CIO and lives in that world). It’s all smoke in mirrors with your guy, the self-proclaimed greatest deal-maker of all time who couldn’t even repeal and replace Obamacare or build a wall even though he controlled all three branches of government. What a freaking genius, and now that the Democrats control the House he’s a lame duck just like that. All he can do is sign executive orders which the republicans rightly said was an abuse of power when Obama did it because it was wrong and now he has taken it to another level. Looking forward to 2020 when literally anytime else will be running the country. I hope that some day we can get a moderate in there because I see stuff like this green new deal and it’s laughable how poorly thought out it is. We need measured approaches from both sides and more working together.
Please don't embarrass yourself by trying to come up with smug comebacks; it rarely works.
It has long been known that over extension of subprime/ARM mortgages was the major factor of the 2008 financial crisis, through policies pushed by Congress in the 2000s. A two second Google search will give you these results, but I'll make it easy and give you a reputable link so you can read up on it:
Please don’t embarrass yourself by linking an article from a Hertage Foundation Thomas A. Roe IEPS partisan hack.
Sure government policy was a factor, and if you want to put the blame on a 2000s Congress, fine. But need I remind you we had a Republican House from 1995 through 2006, a Republican Senate from 1995 through 2006 (except for an 18 month period during Bush’s first term) and of course a Republican President 2000-2008. And you blame Democrats?
If you want to learn more about the many factors involved in the subprime mortgage, I’ll make it easy and give you a couple reputable links so you can read up on it:
Question from others in the board day 1: Tim Cook, where the heck is the Mac Pro, iPad Mini and when will the MacBook Pro have a decent dGPU?
Nah. I think I'll blame the one that's having a hissy fit over building a wall over an imaginary line on a giant rock floating through space, which in the long run won't accomplish anything anyway.
Minority parties, whether it's Dems or Reps, stop bills all the time in Congress. Democrats repeatedly blocked Republican attempts throughout the 00s to reign in the irresponsible lending practices that were going on at Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac. Conveniently or deliberately, the authors of the links you provided gloss over Mae & Mac's responsibility in the 2008 financial crisis.
Here is another link from Investopedia covering mortgage-backed-securities and Mae & Mac's roll in them:
Over 60% of the subprime mortgages that tanked the economy were encouraged and bought by these two GSEs. To make matters worse, the buying of these mortgage-back-securities, which Mae and Mac mostly engaged in, were then sold as financial derivatives to Wall Street.
Influence also matters. Who was most directly responsible for Mae & Mac's practices, particularly in the 90s and 00s? Why, non other than Democrat Barney Frank. Heck, he even had an affair with a high ranking employee at Freddie Mac. No conflict of interest there, I'm sure.
Just so you’re aware I wasn’t disregarding your auto loan fact. I actually forgot you mentioned it. Very interesting. There is no doubt another bubble is coming. I think the biggest reason why it’s coming because people are getting themselves in in mounds of debt. Cars are outrageously priced these days and wages have not kept up with inflation. I’m glad to see you’re a moderate. I too am a moderate.
I’m very interested what’s going on with your taxes something doesn’t sound right. Was I disappointed in my refund this year? Yes. But when I looked at my overall tax bill I was ok. especially since I was getting more in my pay check.
By the way I don’t think trump is a great president and I’m fully aware the market was going up and would have continued to whoever was in office. The problem with Congress both left and right is when they have control they actually vote how they “really want” to but once they no longer have control then it’s just party politics.
Our political system is broken. We have far left and far right speaking for Americans when I think the majority of Americans are moderate left and right.
I wondered how long it would take you to pin this on Frank lol.
Sure, minority parties can block things. And if they want, majority parties can force bills down their throat by tacking them on to must-pass legislation. You’re well aware of that, but you disingenuously ignore it in an attempt to spin this to only blame the Dems.
To be clear—Republicans could have passed legislation to rein in Freddie/Fannie anytime they wanted. But you and I know they have little interest in regulating Wall Street, including investment bankers and hedge fund billionaires. Subprime mortgages per se aren’t what tanked the economy, it was the subprime mortgage backed securities. Barney Frank didn’t create collateralized debt obligations or credit default swaps. There’s plenty of blame to go around, and Republicans are complicit. Own it.
"The board, co-chaired by U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross and Daughter and Sexual Object of Lust to the President, Ivanka Trump"
There, I fixed it for accuracy.
I always suspected it was because Cook came out of the closet. Apple is still making money hand over fist, yet the slightest fart over at Cupertino causes some to make irrational statements. Apple made a lot of mistakes between the time Cook took over semi-formally for Jobs and his coming out. You never saw those types of comments referencing Apple's non-existent poor performance then.