One good reason to like Bernie Sanders is he’s America’s Alexis Tsipras so if Greece is your idea of how an economy should be run he’s your man.
[quote]I applaud the people of Greece for saying ‘no’ to more austerity for the poor, the children, the sick and the elderly. In a world of massive wealth and income inequality Europe must support Greece’s efforts to build an economy which creates more jobs and income, not more unemployment and suffering.[/quote]-- B.S. July 2015
[quote=“Winston Smith”]One good reason to like Bernie Sanders is he’s America’s Alexis Tsipras so if Greece is your idea of how an economy should be run he’s your man.
Another strawman. America has unlimited funds to pay for every social program you can think of. Just scrap the F35 and you are well on your way. Continue this trend by minding your own business in the middle east and boom, all bridges and roads are fixed, high speed rail built and education for everyone that qualifies. With enough left over to d=feed the poor.
Tax political donations by 50% and the Koch brothers alone could feed the world.
And how much is spent on the futile war on drugs?
I think we’ve just seen a sneak-preview of the Right PR Machine’s response to whoever the Democratic candidate turns out to be.
Greece thought it had unlimited funds to pay for every social program too.
I think we’ve just seen a sneak-preview of the Right PR Machine’s response to whoever the Democratic candidate turns out to be.[/quote]
The Left PR Machine’s standard counterargument that ‘Greece didn’t mismanage its economy; its only real problem was that it ran out of other people’s money’ should dispel all doubt as to who’s on the right track.
I think we’ve just seen a sneak-preview of the Right PR Machine’s response to whoever the Democratic candidate turns out to be.[/quote]
The Left PR Machine’s standard counterargument that ‘Greece didn’t mismanage its economy; its only real problem was that it ran out of other people’s money’ should dispel all doubt as to who’s on the right track.[/quote]
Wow you’ve made a humongous intuitive leap here. I’ve made no “argument” at all.
I promise you that if I were to make an argument about Greece, it would be a little more nuanced than that. But first a question: is Germany a libertarian, small-government utopia? Then what makes you pick out Greece as the proper analogy for Social Democrats in the U.S.? To the best of my recollection, it hasn’t been the Democrats who are primarily responsible for driving up U.S. debt, in any case.
I think we’ve just seen a sneak-preview of the Right PR Machine’s response to whoever the Democratic candidate turns out to be.[/quote]
The Left PR Machine’s standard counterargument that ‘Greece didn’t mismanage its economy; its only real problem was that it ran out of other people’s money’ should dispel all doubt as to who’s on the right track.[/quote]
I have no idea whether it’s a liberal or conservative, left or right idea but who are the people who don’t think Greece mismanaged it’s economy? Isn’t it obvious their problems are almost entirely self created? Greece likely leads the developed world in incredibly inefficient family businesses and tax avoidance. That alone would be enough to break the country, but add to that a government that is as inefficient and spendy as any other and you’ve got a recipe for disaster. They’ve defaulted 6 times in the modern era and I’m sure there are plenty more to come.
I don’t think it has to be a partisan debate about what happened to Greece, it’s more about economics. The government only has one income stream, taxes, and that comes from workers. Regardless of political leanings, if the people aren’t working up to their full potential the country will go bankrupt.
[quote=“Winston Smith”]Greece thought it had unlimited funds to pay for every social program too.
Wow! That’s a big number 
BTW, what is “unfunded liability”?
Investor’s World
financial-dictionary.thefreedict … +Liability
So any unsecured loan- say, a student loan, personal loan, business loan, or mortgage, where the value of the loan is more than the assets currently held. How many trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities must be out there? Don’t bankers lie awake at night having nightmares about this?
No, actually, they don’t, because they look at the borrower’s future ability to pay and charge them interest based on how big of a risk they think that is.
So, the current rate on Greek 10-year bonds is a very high 11.2%; compared to the US at OMG!.. 2.37%
Higher than Germany’s 0.8, France’s 1.08, Japan’s 0.48, Canada’s 1.57, or Sweden’s 0.82 but hardly Tony Soprano levels. Amazingly, the international money markets don’t seem to care about that 127 TRILLION DOLLARS!!! unfunded liability because they know that the US can handle its future obligations easily.
Unfunded liabilities is an often talked about point when people try to argue the US debt is unmanageable or certain programs like social security are unsustainable. It’s an argument that looks convincing at first glance, but when you dig a little deeper you realize that while technically true those liabilities exist and can be added up, in a practical sense it means very little. It really only amounts to a thought experiment that basically says, if we do nothing and everything is held constant, there will be a shortfall of X dollars or we only have X years until it fails. Obviously the flaw in this in a practical sense is that nothing stays constant. New money enters the system just as it’s leaving, and there are many ways to increase or decrease either of those variables over time.
Social security for example could be in a bit of trouble 20 or 30 years from now if the current course is maintained exactly as is. However it could also go on smoothly for centuries with a few minor tweaks here and there. So while it’s a good idea to discuss the potential issue that is unfunded liabilities, it certainly should not be used as a doomsday prediction for the demise of modern civilization.
We will muddle through…
BOOOO!!!
Stop feeding the trolls. There are like 18 official nutters who think they should be the republican party nominee. That’s way more interesting than Greece, which uncle crunchy already started 3 threads for. Back to the Donald:
[quote]The New York billionaire, who was a genuine student-athlete in his youth, came away with a medical deferment in 1968 owing to bone spurs in both heels, according to his latest explanation. But in seeking to downplay that exemption as “minor” and “short-term,” Trump’s campaign raises more questions than it answers as to how he sidestepped military service during the war.
politico.com/story/2015/07/d … z3gPr40Uh6[/quote]
McCain is such a pussy for getting captured… he should have told the Viet Cong his heel had an ouchy.
My guess is the main reason the 2016 presidential campaign is composed entirely of nutters, political hacks and fringe candidates is because anyone with any sense is staring into the abyss right about now and shaking his or her head ‘no’. YMMV . . .
[quote]Professor Kotlikoff: The liabilities the government owes are mostly off the books. We have a true debt picture which is about $205 trillion. This is recording all the future obligations the government has, whether they are official obligations or not, such as paying for your social security benefits, mine, or your mother’s Medicare benefits, defense spending, etc. All of these things are really obligations that aren’t recorded on the books as debt, whereas paying off future principal and interest payments on Treasury bills and bonds are recorded. So, anyway, if you take the value of all of those commitments and subtract all the taxes coming to pay those commitments, the difference is what’s called the fiscal gap; and that fiscal gap in the U.S. is now $205 trillion. So, the true debt is $205 trillion; the official debt is only $17 trillion. So, most of the problems we’re facing, most of the debt we have, the vast majority of it is off the books and Congress has done bookkeeping to make sure the public doesn’t see it. So, when we have these big fights over the debt ceiling, it’s really laughable because at the same time we may not be expanding our official debt at a very rapid rate, we are expanding our unofficial debt or off-the-book debt, unrecorded debt, at a very high rate.
Jim Puplava: Professor, when the CBO publishes its projections they use something called the extended baseline forecast. They also have something called the alternative fiscal scenario, which is basically more realistic. This year they reported only the extended baseline forecast. Why did they do that?
Professor Kotlikoff: I don’t know. They claim it wasn’t for political reasons and I believe them. There are very good economists at the CBO. The director is a very good economist, but you have to wonder why is it that for the last 6 or 7 years they put out the extended baseline as well as the alternative fiscal scenario at the same time so everybody could see what they really project versus what really amounts to a lie about the fiscal future of the country.
I sent him [head of the CBO] an email and asked whether he was under some sort of political pressure to withhold this information and he said that was a big insult, and he was very upset with me for suggesting that. But then he said that the reason he hadn’t released it was because they didn’t think anyone was interested. I said, well obviously we’re interested—it’s the only thing worth looking at.[/quote] – Professor Laurence Kotlikoff
If anyone can explain away $205 trillion missing dollars while simultaneously blaming the Germans it’s Bernie “I’m not a socialist anymore” Sanders.
I’m just going to reply to every incoherent or nonsensical thing you say with
I’m just going to reply to every incoherent or nonsensical thing you say with
[/quote]
:roflmao: :discodance: :roflmao: :discodance: 
For your own good I’d suggest just ignoring me. When you’re reduced to nothing but ad hominems you’re unwittingly declaring intellectual bankruptcy.
That’s not an ad hominem. I said what you wrote is:
[quote=“Winston Smith”]My guess is the main reason the 2016 presidential campaign is composed entirely of nutters, political hacks and fringe candidates is because anyone with any sense is staring into the abyss right about now and shaking his or her head ‘no’. YMMV . . .
Professor Kotlikoff- himself a presidential candidate in 2012 who unsusccessfully sought the nominations of both Americans Elect and the Reform Party -is undoubtedly a very smart man who has come up with an idiosyncratic financial method called “generational accounting” which is essentially projecting demographic changes into the future without allowing for growth or changes in economic policy, and which has been fairly totally rejected by economists left and right. (This is not to say the same for politicians or business journal editorial pages). He’s also been predicting hyper-inflation “just around the corner” for a number of years now
[quote]
In a New York Times column, Boston University economist Larry Kotlikoff told readers why we should not use infinite horizon budget accounting. Kotlikoff showed how this accounting could be used to scare people to promote a political agenda, while providing no information whatsoever.
For example, after telling us how much money his 94-year-old mother is drawing from Social Security and a widow’s benefit from his father’s job he ominously reports:
“you’ll find that the program’s unfunded obligation is $24.9 trillion ‘through the infinite horizon’ (or a mere $10.6 trillion, as calculated through 2088). That’s nearly twice the $12.6 trillion in public debt held by the United States government.”
Are you scared? Hey $24.9 trillion a really big number. That’s more than even Bill Gates will see in his lifetime. Does it mean our kids will be living in poverty?
Not exactly. Kotlikoff could have pulled a number from the same table in the Social Security trustees report to tell readers that the unfunded liability is equal to 1.4 percent of future income. If we just restrict our focus to the 75-year planning horizon (sorry folks, we don’t get to make policy for people living 100 years from now), the shortfall is 1.0 percent of GDP.
That’s not trivial, but it is considerably less than the combined cost of Iraq and Afghanistan wars at their peak. Furthermore, if we go out 40 years and assume that our children get their share of the economy’s growth (as opposed to a situation in which it all goes to Bill Gates’ kids), their before tax income will be more than 80 percent higher than it is today.
This means that even if they pay 2-3 percentage points more in Social Security taxes to cover the cost of their longer retirements (they will live longer than us), they will still have incomes that are more than 70 percent higher than we do today. Are you scared yet?[/quote]
cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-pres … accounting
Note that 60% of his unfunded obligation of Social Security comes in the period 2088 to infinity. Dean Baker also points that this 217 TRILLION DOLLARS!!! debt would disappear entirely if the US spent as much money on healthcare per person as Germany or Canada does.
I bet hrc is giddy with excitement and praying this lasts:
[quote]Businessman Donald Trump surged into the lead for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, with almost twice the support of his closest rival.
Trump 24, Bush 12, Walker 13, Huckabee 8, Rubio 7, Paul 6, Carson 6, Cruz 4, Christie 3, Perry 4, Santorum 1, Kasich 2, Jindal 2, Fiorina 0, Graham 0
[/quote]
but most sane people know it won’t last. I’m ready for the next “frontrunner.” Let’s pick a crazy for next in line. My money is on Cruz.
[quote=“Cooperations”]I bet hrc is giddy with excitement and praying this lasts:
[quote]Businessman Donald Trump surged into the lead for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, with almost twice the support of his closest rival.
Trump 24, Bush 12, Walker 13, Huckabee 8, Rubio 7, Paul 6, Carson 6, Cruz 4, Christie 3, Perry 4, Santorum 1, Kasich 2, Jindal 2, Fiorina 0, Graham 0
[/quote]
but most sane people know it won’t last. I’m ready for the next “frontrunner.” Let’s pick a crazy for next in line. My money is on Cruz.[/quote]
The Washington Post/ABC did a poll from Thursday through Sunday; the McCain story came out on Saturday. The Sunday results dropped to 13%; whether he makes a rebound or not we’'ll have to wait- but either way he’s still got enough to get into the Fox debate.
I wonder if the RNC’s statement that that kind of person has no place in the Republican Party was a hint to Fox to drop hm. If so they don’t know their buddies, no way is Fox going to drop a ratings boost like that- and the RNC knows it can’t force him out because of the backlash from the far right.
[quote=“MikeN”][quote=“Cooperations”]I bet hrc is giddy with excitement and praying this lasts:
[quote]Businessman Donald Trump surged into the lead for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, with almost twice the support of his closest rival.
Trump 24, Bush 12, Walker 13, Huckabee 8, Rubio 7, Paul 6, Carson 6, Cruz 4, Christie 3, Perry 4, Santorum 1, Kasich 2, Jindal 2, Fiorina 0, Graham 0
[/quote]
but most sane people know it won’t last. I’m ready for the next “frontrunner.” Let’s pick a crazy for next in line. My money is on Cruz.[/quote]
The Washington Post/ABC did a poll from Thursday through Sunday; the McCain story came out on Saturday. The Sunday results dropped to 13%; whether he makes a rebound or not we’'ll have to wait- but either way he’s still got enough to get into the Fox debate.
I wonder if the RNC’s statement that that kind of person has no place in the Republican Party was a hint to Fox to drop hm. If so they don’t know their buddies, no way is Fox going to drop a ratings boost like that- and the RNC knows it can’t force him out because of the backlash from the far right.[/quote]
My guess is that he will stay somewhere in the mid teens (minimum) until the debates, then he will fall. Nate Silver wrote a great article about him:
[quote]“A troll,” according to one definition, “is a person who sows discord … by starting arguments or upsetting people … with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”
The goal of the troll is to provoke a reaction by any means necessary. Trolls thrive in communities that are open and democratic (they wouldn’t be invited into a discussion otherwise) and which operate in presumed good faith (there need to be some standards of decorum to offend). Presidential nomination contests are highly susceptible to trolling, therefore. Access is fairly open: There’s no longer much of a filter between the campaigns, the media and the public. And it’s comically easy to provoke a reaction. How many times between now and next November will we hear that a candidate’s statement is “offensive,” whether or not it really is?
Trolls operate on the principle that negative attention is better than none. In fact, the troll may feed off the negative attention, claiming it makes him a victim and proves that everyone is out to get him.
Sound like any presidential candidates you know?[/quote]
fivethirtyeight.com/features/don … est-troll/
Later in the article he goes into the data of media attention vs demand, the role of social media, and even betfair. It’s an interesting take on what’s going on, as only Nate Silver can do. The guy is always right.
Well, I intend to listen to the people and vote for the candidate who offers to implement the greatest number of social benefits/programs especially if they are not affordable. I mean look how well that worked for Greece, and it is still getting loans. Seems to work well. Where’s the downside? Bernie Sanders it is! Don’t want none of those crazy Republican types demanding/calling for individual initiative and smaller government. That is JUST CRAZY TALK!