like_that;1843760 wrote:Yeah other countries are a cluster fuck too. I think our system is fine (except everyone should have term limits, including SCOTUS). The only issue is both parties just suck ass. They both seem to be out of touch with reality.

Yeah, and I tend to think most of the issues ultimately come back to "you get the representatives you deserve". People don't want to hear the truth and they vote for what they want rather than what is best....and politicians and the media follow suit.

But just look at healthcare - both parties have made HEALTHCARE a political football. Of course, Democrats will use their OWN fuck-up to try to blame the mess on Republicans so that Democrats might regain control in order to either do nothing, or fuck it up more.

Maybe in 10-15 years they'll get around to single payer, and then after realizing that's not a magic bullet, either, spend another 15-20 years trying to fix that mess.

Poor people are ALWAYS going to have inferior care to people who can afford supplemental care. That's never going to change, and because of that it's always going to be a political football.

SportsAndLady;1843762 wrote:I don't really GAF about other countries.

Oh, ok, I get it. You're one of the people who believes in the unicorn form of government.

gut;1843764 wrote:Oh, ok, I get it. You're one of the people who believes in the unicorn form of government.

Lol. Yeah. Totally.

How foolish of me to expect our congressmen to do their jobs.

Better off to let the ACA continue to rot than to put something shitty out there.

Hail Trump
The art of the no deal, lol what Presidential leadership

Azubuike24;1843769 wrote:Better off to let the ACA continue to rot than to put something shitty out there.

this. Once the pubs strip the mandates, it will fall apart at the federal level and no states outside of California and New york will try to spend money on keeping it going. At the state level, governors arent going to bankrupt their state.

SportsAndLady;1843765 wrote:Lol. Yeah. Totally.

How foolish of me to expect our congressmen to do their jobs.

Good legislation is very rarely NOT bipartisan. If there are no good ideas, then I prefer they do nothing.

There's petty political games going on, but what most people see as obstruction/lack of cooperation I see as healthy opposition to bad legislation. And that's the problem with career power brokers like Pelosi or McConnell that can (and do) basically destroy junior reps who want to do the right thing.

And, again, I'd suggest the current divide and partisanship is a reflection of the electorate.

gut;1843773 wrote:Good legislation is very rarely NOT bipartisan. If there are no good ideas, then I prefer they do nothing.

There's petty political games going on, but what most people see as obstruction/lack of cooperation I see as healthy opposition to bad legislation. And that's the problem with career power brokers like Pelosi or McConnell that can (and do) basically destroy junior reps who want to do the right thing.

And, again, I'd suggest the current divide and partisanship is a reflection of the electorate.

Another reason for term limits.

like_that;1843777 wrote:Another reason for term limits.

agreed .... NOW

like_that;1843777 wrote:Another reason for term limits.

Term limits will not eliminate career government power brokers. Power is fluid it does not dissipate. The career insiders given across the board term limits in government will be left to unelected bureaucrats, staffers, counselors , and lobbyists. No across the board solution is good because power moves. The corrupt will gravitate to it and suffocate the good. The solution is to divide it and pit it against itself as the founding architects of our government designed. The ability of the people to continue to elect a career power broker that represents them at some level of government is not necessarily a bad thing.

If we were to ever dip our toes into term limits for the legislative branch divide it and try the House first. See what it becomes let the Senate be a counter balance. Senators were once elected by the state legislatures who were elected by the people. The people cried about the power of their state legislatures and that it was not vested in them directly so we got that changed in the 17th amendment. What happened? Power moved from the state legislatures to Washington DC. No longer do the power brokers have to worry about lobbing many in Columbus and the several state capitals but two each in DC. Just consider what was a populist movement to empower the people and it did not quite pan out that way. The movement was so popular it produced an amendment to the Constitution. What looks good on the surface is not always good.

majorspark;1843856 wrote:Term limits will not eliminate career government power brokers. Power is fluid it does not dissipate. The career insiders given across the board term limits in government will be left to unelected bureaucrats, staffers, counselors , and lobbyists. No across the board solution is good because power moves. The corrupt will gravitate to it and suffocate the good. The solution is to divide it and pit it against itself as the founding architects of our government designed. The ability of the people to continue to elect a career power broker that represents them at some level of government is not necessarily a bad thing.

If we were to ever dip our toes into term limits for the legislative branch divide it and try the House first. See what it becomes let the Senate be a counter balance. Senators were once elected by the state legislatures who were elected by the people. The people cried about the power of their state legislatures and that it was not vested in them directly so we got that changed in the 17th amendment. What happened? Power moved from the state legislatures to Washington DC. No longer do the power brokers have to worry about lobbing many in Columbus and the several state capitals but two each in DC. Just consider what was a populist movement to empower the people and it did not quite pan out that way. The movement was so popular it produced an amendment to the Constitution. What looks good on the surface is not always good.

I just know that term limits has not worked in the Ohio General Assembly.

gut;1842499 wrote:The problem is, as the global economy and automation leave more and more Americans behind, more and more people will vote for socialism. Right now, that is being financed by debt, but that really isn't sustainable.

Of course, as a % of GDP, France and the UK are right there with the US. Japan is about 50% higher - a number we'll probably surpass in less than 8 years. At current pace, our debt could become an economic nuclear bomb in two decades.

People have been saying this since World War II. What are they missing? It is just as true that sovereign debt is a financial asset for the private sector.

In essence, saying that a large supply of treasuries is going to be a nuke for the economy would be like saying large amounts of savings accounts at banks will nuke the economy - precisely the opposite.

Treasuries/"The National Debt" are just savings accounts at the Fed as opposed to savings accounts at private banks which in turn have checking accounts (reserve accounts) at the Fed.

BoatShoes;1843946 wrote: Treasuries/"The National Debt" are just savings accounts at the Fed as opposed to savings accounts at private banks which in turn have checking accounts (reserve accounts) at the Fed.

No. Just no. You could not be more wrong. The National Debt is NOT an asset, it is a liability. That idea is so bizarre and backasswards that I have no idea what you read that would lead you to such a conclusion.

Debt and government spending as a % of GDP have been validated again and again in research as drags on growth, employment and wages. And now we are at a point where, to keep the debt from nuking our economy, we have to artificially suppress rates....which creates its own set of negative externalities.

Too much debt, or debt overhang, is always and everywhere a bad thing. We see it, again and again, negatively impact individuals....corporations....and, yes, countries.

We've already seen an economy get nuked in Japan....and two and half decades later they're still dealing with the fallout.

LOL at national debt being an asset.

gut;1843977 wrote:No. Just no. You could not be more wrong. The National Debt is NOT an asset, it is a liability. That idea is so bizarre and backasswards that I have no idea what you read that would lead you to such a conclusion.

Debt and government spending as a % of GDP have been validated again and again in research as drags on growth, employment and wages. And now we are at a point where, to keep the debt from nuking our economy, we have to artificially suppress rates....which creates its own set of negative externalities.

Too much debt, or debt overhang, is always and everywhere a bad thing. We see it, again and again, negatively impact individuals....corporations....and, yes, countries.

We've already seen an economy get nuked in Japan....and two and half decades later they're still dealing with the fallout.

Gut. You are an intelligent person. U.S. Treasuries are liabilities for the government. It is equally true that U.S. treasuries are assets for the private sector actors that own them. This is basic double-entry accounting.

I think it makes more sense to think of Treasuries as assets for the private economy than as a debt burden on the federal government - just like people think it is a good thing of citizens have lots of money in savings accounts which equally means large liabilities for banks.

like_that;1843986 wrote:LOL at national debt being an asset.

Lol at you not understanding double-entry accounting. If you own a treasury it is a liability for the government and an asset for you. If you own a savings account that is a liability for the bank and an asset for you.

BoatShoes;1844036 wrote:Lol at you not understanding double-entry accounting. If you own a treasury it is a liability for the government and an asset for you. If you own a savings account that is a liability for the bank and an asset for you.

That's kind of like asking your lady to lick half of my semi-shaved balls.

Again, the recurring theme is you know absolutely nothing about economics. For the love of Christ, you buy treasuries for your children. I don't want to call you an idiot, but you make it really hard not to.

gut;1844042 wrote:That's kind of like asking your lady to lick half of my semi-shaved balls.

Again, the recurring theme is you know absolutely nothing about economics. For the love of Christ, you buy treasuries for your children. I don't want to call you an idiot, but you make it really hard not to.

Lol. How one responds when it is revealed they missed a very basic point.

BoatShoes;1844054 wrote:Lol. How one responds when it is revealed they missed a very basic point.

Drunj....

But treasuries are no more an asset for the private economy than green paperbacks are. Just get off it. Treasuries are almost exclusively an institutional or sovereign holding. They are an asset in pretty much the same sense as cash is an asset. But people only hold cash because they have to, not because they want to. No one talks about "owning" cash.

What is your point of this, by the way? It has NOTHING to do with what is being said about the liability and economic risks of debt. This is horrible spin, again, either because you don't know better or just have no limits to your efforts to justify bigger govt and more spending.

BoatShoes;1844033 wrote:Gut. You are an intelligent person. U.S. Treasuries are liabilities for the government. It is equally true that U.S. treasuries are assets for the private sector actors that own them. This is basic double-entry accounting..

LMFAO, you REALLY need to find better reading material.

1) Stop talking about "double-entry" accounting, unless you want to announce to everyone that you're a total dumbass trying to look smart by throwing around technical jargon you read in a blog somewhere. I've worked in Finance & Accounting for 20 years, and NO ONE talks about "double-entry" accounting. That's a term I MIGHT have heard in Accounting 101. We talk about debits and credits, assets and liabilities.

2) The US selling a treasury to a private citizen is not basic double-entry accounting, it's not even accounting. The Treasury increases cash (asset), and also liabilities (long-term debt). For the individual, it's a credit to cash and a debit to non-current assets. THAT is the "basic" accounting.

Also, let me point out something very fundamental and important that is eluding you: in the correct accounting, assets for the individual are unchanged!


3), No, US treasuries and deposits at banks are not the same thing. From the bank perspective, it only becomes an unfunded liability when they loan your savings out. The bank DOES NOT have negative equity (or it would be insolvent), the US govt does...Assets = Liabilities + Equity

By your logic, it would be great for the govt to print 1000 trillion dollars and just hand it out. What could go wrong? It's an asset for the economy, a wonderful thing.

When lawyers dabble in economics and accounting, train wrecks occur..... similar to when they write legislation such as obamaKare.

QuakerOats;1844334 wrote:When lawyers dabble in economics and accounting, train wrecks occur..... similar to when they write legislation such as obamaKare.

You are not saying much as that applies to everything in life., Once lawyers get involved, a mess occurs.

ptown_trojans_1;1844343 wrote:You are not saying much as that applies to everything in life., Once lawyers get involved, a mess occurs.

It's OK, it was all just an elaborate setup to throw out a shitty conservative buzzword for no reason anyway

[QUOTE=gut;1844165)

By your logic, it would be great for the govt to print 1000 trillion dollars and just hand it out. What could go wrong? It's an asset for the economy, a wonderful thing.[/QUOTE]

No, just printing money without any concern for the markets' inflation expectations is not good. Again, you seem to focus too much on he supply of net private assets without taking into account the demand.

As I have always said - over and,over again here the financially sovereign federal government constrained by inflation. When the market expects the economy to fall short for 30 years, more net financial assets are desireable...preferably through pro-supply-side policies like payroll tax cuts.