Jump to content
Baseops Forums
Sign in to follow this  
HeloDude

Taxes, the Deficit/Debt, and the Fiscal Cliff

Recommended Posts

Guest one

I can't believe you're serious. What idiot actually thinks you can borrow without consequence? I assume you think it is not real money borrowed from real people who at some point will actually want their money back. The worse part of all this is the money will have to be paid back by people not old enough to vote right now and their children. Possibly more generations than that. The UK paid off the WWII loans made by the US in 2006. In the interim, we used that loan to influence their foreign policy, IIRC. Not a position you want to be in if it can be avoided.

I am having trouble understanding your logic. We can raise the debt ceiling to 100 trillion dollars and it doesn't mean we should raise our debt that high (I don't think this is a good idea but you get my point). It has very little to do with the consequences of our debt. The consequences will be worse if we do not raise the debt ceiling.

Are you suggesting that Republicans should not support raising the debt ceiling? Should we default on our debt?

ETA: I do not like the idea of the president being able to do this on his own but the republicans shouldn't be too aggressive using this as leverage for the sake of the economy.

Edited by one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe you're serious. What idiot actually thinks you can borrow without consequence? I assume you think it is not real money borrowed from real people who at some point will actually want their money back. The worse part of all this is the money will have to be paid back by people not old enough to vote right now and their children. Possibly more generations than that. The UK paid off the WWII loans made by the US in 2006. In the interim, we used that loan to influence their foreign policy, IIRC. Not a position you want to be in if it can be avoided.

There are consequences, but not what you make it out to be, exactly. When we as a nation borrow money, we're issuing highly in-demand bonds that people purchase because it's still a great investment. The part of the budget where we actually pay people back is called "interest on the debt", which you see creep higher and higher every year. Our ability to borrow depends on two things: 1) whether we're still the best investment around, and 2) our ability to pay back "interest on the debt".

For #1, it's mostly demand and competition with other nations around the world for the title of "most likely to be stable and solvent by the time my bond matures". People have decided it's the nation that pretty much runs the free world, economically, militarily, and diplomatically. For #2, the more risk is perceived (aka inability to service "interest on the debt"), the more demand suffers. The more demand suffers, the higher rates we have to offer. The higher rates we have to offer, the more risk is perceived. And so on.

So, to address your question, you can borrow more, and there are consequences, but the consequences exist on a sliding scale. Not raising the debt ceilings is purely politics, it's going to happen. The near-term "debt crisis" is almost all politics. The long term debt situation, however, is the real threat. It's the trend that needs to be fixed. Sequestration is a built-in punch to the gut, but even that might not be enough to get the GOP to sign off on a deal. The GOP is trying to paint the Democrats as not offering realistic solutions. The Democrats are painting the GOP as the whiny obstructionist minority party that would rather go over the fiscal cliff than accept defeat. Both parties are posturing to control the narrative once budget sequestration inevitably happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am serious. You know what else is serious? No one has yet offered a good reason why we should keep the debt ceiling around. No one has yet offered an alternate explanation of the appropriations process. Do you think there's a ice cube's chance in hell I'll change my mind or even be influenced by a different POV.....

And that's when I started thinking about my other favorite web site.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

There are consequences, but not what you make it out to be, exactly.

Nor is it what you make it out to be, exactly.

You are marginally correct about some of the things you said about the global sovereign debt market. But only marginally. And only some.

You are wrong enough about the majority to have a very wrong overall hypothesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nor is it what you make it out to be, exactly.

You are marginally correct about some of the things you said about the global sovereign debt market. But only marginally. And only some.

You are wrong enough about the majority to have a very wrong overall hypothesis.

Oh okay, well after such a well-worded reply,l I'll just have to take back everything I said, because Rainman said I was wrong, which is based on apparently nothing. If you're too lazy to even type out a decent rebuttal, why do you even bother posting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Oh okay, well after such a well-worded reply,l I'll just have to take back everything I said, because Rainman said I was wrong, which is based on apparently nothing.

Speaking of well worded replies...yikes.

So you withdraw what you said or were you just being sarcastic?

If you're too lazy to even type out a decent rebuttal, why do you even bother posting?

I have the same "why do you bother?" question about your inaccurate posts.

The difference is I don't think it is about you being too lazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the same "why do you bother?" question about your inaccurate posts.

The difference is I don't think it is about you being too lazy.

A post isn't inaccurate because you simply deem it so. You would think someone who knows sooo much about the topic at hand would have an easy time with a rebuttal instead of stalling and dodging, twice in a row this time. I understand if you're bluffing to hide ignorance about the subject. Are you really that insecure about what people on a message board think of you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Man we had fun making those. Why don't you post the real thing?

Bitch.

Because the Internet is hard for old people. Plus, I don't have everyone's permission so that would be rude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

A post isn't inaccurate because you simply deem it so.

I know that. Everyone knows that. Congrats, you got something right that everyone already knows.

You would think someone who knows sooo much about the topic at hand would have an easy time with a rebuttal instead of stalling and dodging, twice in a row this time. I understand if you're bluffing to hide ignorance about the subject. Are you really that insecure about what people on a message board think of you?

Oh no, a taunt.

Look, you are as right as the guy at the air show who talks about flying based on seeing Top Gun and listening to his uncle who was a right seater on A-6s in Vietnam. He knows the Navy flies off carriers but he doesn't know how the pitot static system works.

Not completely wrong about everything but...ugh.

I am now the dumbass pilot manning the static display who, upon overhearing "that guy" make some stupid comment about the pitot tube being the gun, makes an over the shoulder correction and immediately regrets doing so.

Why?

Because now "that guy" wants me to open every panel and wants a guided cockpit tour while he gets his friend to take pictures of him in the seat while I stand on the ladder pointing out blank MFDs and the emergency jettison switch.

You feeling' me here, Scoobs?

So how about this, pretend I didn't say anything and I won't smugly point out your knowledge gaps and then just walk away...deal?

If you're really interested a good first step might be a little self study on the relationships between sovereign debt rates and sovereign credit default swaps. The Internet will happily provide you with the walls of text that you feel I am withholding from you.

Edited by Rainman A-10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the Internet is hard for old people. Plus, I don't have everyone's permission so that would be rude.

Agreed. I was only kidding anyway.

I still think TTT is arguably the funniest skits I have ever seen. Brilliant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how about this, pretend I didn't say anything and I won't smugly point out your knowledge gaps and then just walk away...deal?

If you're really interested a good first step might be a little self study on the relationships between sovereign debt rates and sovereign credit default swaps. The Internet will happily provide you with the walls of text that you feel I am withholding from you.

Wow, and still you don't get it. What I'm saying doesn't just cover this one glaring example, but encompasses almost every post you make, which is usually just a one or two line reply (such as quoting a post and simply saying "Wrong."), with no explanation whatsoever. But hey, I'll use your airshow example to prove my point. You rely heavily on a logical fallacy called "argument from authority", which means that what you say is right simply because you're an authority on it. Very similar to the halo effect in CRM. The problem is, this logic implies you are a legitimate authority on the subject. In your stupid airshow analogy, the pilot is clearly an expert because they have experience and qualification on that plane. What he says is also agreed upon by other experts, and is even published in manuals, tech orders, pubs, etc.

Now, I can understand that as a has-been fighter pilot, you enjoyed this advantage in your career since you could just talk down to "the SNAPs" without resistance, because you are simply just given deference due to being older and more experienced. And it makes sense that this attitude is ingrained as part of your personality and lends itself to other parts of life. The problem, however, is that you speak as though you've earned the authority to comment on certain things without having to explain yourself. It's beneath you to have to actually prove that you have any idea what you're talking about. I would say this is half arrogance and half laziness. I even openly challenged you to explain an assertion YOU made, and for a third time, you refused. You even went so far as to say "forget I said anything".

Someone smart on the subject would simply just take my post and destroy it, if it's so inaccurate and incorrect. It would be almost effortless because the counter-arguments would be so blatantly obvious to make, and it would be backed up by multiple other legitimate experts who agree. Instead, I get some retarded airshow analogy about how it's beneath you to actually have to back up what you say in any way, and that I should go scour the internet with self-study to prove your point for you. Sorry, that's not how a discussion works, you can't just say "hey you're wrong, go do more research". Hell, you haven't even pointed out which parts are right and which are wrong.

So, I see three logical, likely explanations: 1) you don't really know what you're talking about, but your arrogance won't let you stop bluffing and admit it, 2) you have somewhat of an idea of what you're talking about, but are insecure about it, and want to seem more important as an authority of the subject than you really are, and you're bluffing and won't admit it, and 3) you know what you're talking about, and you're a massive attention whore who needs to post on every thread about everything ever and talk down to others to reinforce your ego, but are so incredibly lazy that you can't be bothered to back up your points. In any case, the answer is simple: either back your words up, or get called out as a fake. Nobody gets a free pass, not even the almighty Rainman.

I think I've exhausted this thread derail long enough. If anyone wants to have a discussion about taxes, the deficit/debt, and the fiscal cliff, let's have at it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn, I'd rather be a "has been" vs a "never was" but I'm sure you feel good about yourself. Still doesn't explain how you think reckless spending with or without a debt ceiling is somehow a good idea. In the mean time, you should also concern yourself with articles such as this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2012/12/02/d0a0117a-3b1b-11e2-a263-f0ebffed2f15_story.html . Like the robber who goes after banks, Congress is going to go where the money is that generates the least amount of pain to them and their re-election efforts.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear lord baby Jesus in the manger. Joe, you have no idea, he is legit and as much as I don't think it matters in an open Internet forum, you have stepped in it. Some of us are friends on the outside of this forum and can legitimately vouch for the accuracy of our Air Force existence, you are well advised to back off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, and still you don't get it. What I'm saying doesn't just cover this one glaring example, but encompasses almost every post you make, which is usually just a one or two line reply (such as quoting a post and simply saying "Wrong."), with no explanation whatsoever. But hey, I'll use your airshow example to prove my point. You rely heavily on a logical fallacy called "argument from authority", which means that what you say is right simply because you're an authority on it. Very similar to the halo effect in CRM. The problem is, this logic implies you are a legitimate authority on the subject. In your stupid airshow analogy, the pilot is clearly an expert because they have experience and qualification on that plane. What he says is also agreed upon by other experts, and is even published in manuals, tech orders, pubs, etc.

Now, I can understand that as a has-been fighter pilot, you enjoyed this advantage in your career since you could just talk down to "the SNAPs" without resistance, because you are simply just given deference due to being older and more experienced. And it makes sense that this attitude is ingrained as part of your personality and lends itself to other parts of life. The problem, however, is that you speak as though you've earned the authority to comment on certain things without having to explain yourself. It's beneath you to have to actually prove that you have any idea what you're talking about. I would say this is half arrogance and half laziness. I even openly challenged you to explain an assertion YOU made, and for a third time, you refused. You even went so far as to say "forget I said anything".

Someone smart on the subject would simply just take my post and destroy it, if it's so inaccurate and incorrect. It would be almost effortless because the counter-arguments would be so blatantly obvious to make, and it would be backed up by multiple other legitimate experts who agree. Instead, I get some retarded airshow analogy about how it's beneath you to actually have to back up what you say in any way, and that I should go scour the internet with self-study to prove your point for you. Sorry, that's not how a discussion works, you can't just say "hey you're wrong, go do more research". Hell, you haven't even pointed out which parts are right and which are wrong.

So, I see three logical, likely explanations: 1) you don't really know what you're talking about, but your arrogance won't let you stop bluffing and admit it, 2) you have somewhat of an idea of what you're talking about, but are insecure about it, and want to seem more important as an authority of the subject than you really are, and you're bluffing and won't admit it, and 3) you know what you're talking about, and you're a massive attention whore who needs to post on every thread about everything ever and talk down to others to reinforce your ego, but are so incredibly lazy that you can't be bothered to back up your points. In any case, the answer is simple: either back your words up, or get called out as a fake. Nobody gets a free pass, not even the almighty Rainman.

I think I've exhausted this thread derail long enough. If anyone wants to have a discussion about taxes, the deficit/debt, and the fiscal cliff, let's have at it again.

You're either a fucking nav or a boom. No way a dude with radiators (or one anchor, for the Navy types) posts shit like this.

And fuck you for making me defend Rainman.

Sorry, forgot to add with all due respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because now "that guy" wants me to open every panel and wants a guided cockpit tour while he gets his friend to take pictures of him in the seat while I stand on the ladder pointing out blank MFDs and the emergency jettison switch.

What about some pilot-style gouge that focuses on the important stuff, like what you can personally do about it? I e-mailed my congress critters and asked them to please get solvent ASAP and got a nice form e-mail response. That step out of the way, what are you and your 10-lb brain finance egghead comrades doing with your money in a financial landscape with a quadrillion bucks in derivatives outstanding, a government that can't balance its checkbook with a populace that doesn't care, and insane monetary interventions and liquidity injections mispricing everything under the sun? What is the smart course of action here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys that are all defending Rainman, I don't get it. I actually agree with his points, and I think Joe is an uber liberal. Problem is, I'm not smart enough in this subject matter to destroy his points other than to say things like, "That just doesn't make sense."

Why can't Rainman back it up? For goodness' sake, don't do it to prove Joe wrong, do it to educate those of us on your side of the argument. He does come off as a major prick more often than not, even if he is right. I agree with him more often than not, but that doesn't make him infallible. All of you defending him just because he is "legit" make no sense. He's a big boy, I'm sure he doesn't need the "bro" network to back him up. If he feels it necessary, he'll do it. For people like me, a 60 hour/week job, family, TDY's every two weeks, and other commitments, post up the reasons you're right.

Right or wrong, I come here for a lot of information on subjects like these. I take nothing at face value until I can see it backed up with logic and reason.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right or wrong, I come here for a lot of information on subjects like these. I take nothing at face value until I can see it backed up with logic and reason.

Really?

What's with some of the clowns on here demanding footnoted term papers out of other people for every answer? Get off your fucking high horse. If you want knowledge, seek it out yourself. Don't bitch that someone else--on an Internet forum for fucks same--didn't do the work for you. No one owes you anything.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

You guys that are all defending Rainman, I don't get it.

Especially since it is just feeding the troll.

I actually agree with his points, and I think Joe is an uber liberal.

Agree or not, my comments to him had nothing to do with his political position which, FWIW, I don't think is anything near uber liberal.

Troll would be more appropriate if you are really interested in giving him a label.

Why can't Rainman back it up? .

I was not trolling him nor was I looking to feed the troll once he responded. Trolls are happy when people keep talking about the stupid things they say. The best way to get rid of a troll is to completely remove his food source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



×
×
  • Create New...